Youtube comments of Glamdolly (@glamdolly30).
-
3600
-
By 2011, this poor man's life had totally spiralled out of control, thanks to the trauma of his encounter with serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. He clearly needed help with his mental health that was not forthcoming. I believe there are signs of his mental fragility on the stand.
A homeless drug addict, in 2012 Tracy Edwards was sentenced to 18 months in jail for his part in the death of another homeless man, who fell from a bridge and died.
His current whereabouts in 2022 are unknown. He remains a hero, as the survivor who ultimately stopped Dahmer's killing spree. Make no mistake, many men are only alive today, thanks to the quick-thinking and courage of Tracy Edwards.
NB It's been posted in response to my post, that Edwards was indicted by grand jury for a sexual assault against a 14 year old girl. If that's true, my sympathy for him is GONE.
Thanks too for pointing out my drag/drug typo, now corrected!
2400
-
1000
-
976
-
784
-
569
-
548
-
505
-
490
-
360
-
326
-
317
-
305
-
274
-
Madeline had just turned 13 years old. She had recently started her period, and in sync, her body was developing. She was a vulnerable minor, going through puberty!
This unique, transitional time between childhood and adulthood, is when more privacy is craved by girls and boys, and that should not only be respected by the adults around them, but encouraged.
Seeking privacy is normal and healthy behaviour by growing teens, and part of their natural, developing independence.
But we know poor Madeline wasn't allowed to have privacy in that house. Her feelings and needs counted for nothing, they were always a low priority, and came far below her mother's paedophile's boyfriend's demands.
With her mother Jennifer's full approval, paedophile predator Stephan Sterns was locking her daughter into a bedroom with him every night, to rape, sexually abuse and photograph her whenever he liked. I suspect we may learn he was selling those pornographic photographs online, to other paedophiles.
It's sinister and very telling that both Sterns and Jennifer give the same story, and tell detectives Madeline was clingy, insecure, and hated to be alone. Stern's mention of 'snuggling' with her, is vomit-inducing. A grown man with a greying beard, who never held down a job and collects 'Star Wars' and other childish memorabilia, sitting there in a backwards-facing baseball cap like a school boy. And he's explaining why he felt it was appropriate to share a bed with his girlfriend's daughter, from the age of six to 13.
Little wonder poor Madeline hated Sterns, the man her mother moved into her home without consulting her. A jobless bum who contributed nothing to their lives, or the smooth running of that home. Madeline never reported his serious sexual assaults on her to anyone, unfortunately. It could have saved her life. That she didn't confide in anyone, only confirms how low her self-esteem was, after years of horrible abuse. She must have had no hope at all that anyone would believe her, care, or stop the abuse.
She once told a counsellor she was glad Sterns was moving out (to move back in with his long-suffering parents - though Jen soon moved him back in, because she clearly thinks any man, however pathetic, is better than no man). Madeline said she hated sharing a home with the slovenly Sterns, who was a drain on the family resources and 'ate all their food'.
His parents have since revealed he frequently stole cash and jewellery from them, including his late grandfather's Rolex watch. It was of great sentimental value to Sterns' mother. When she confronted him, he denied all knowledge of it. But she and his father Chris believe he sold it. They recently told an interviewer their son is a compulsive liar, as well as a thief, who would gas-light them when denying his many thefts. What a pitiful man-baby. Why the hell did Jennifer Soto want such a man in her life? Bad enough he was a loser, but he was in reality, far worse - a paedophile who no doubt targeted her to access her child.
Jennifer's police interview paints a picture of a failed and sexless partnership. She and Sterns sound like ships in the night, who share her address but spend little time together. And when she got home from work, tired, she would send her 37-year-old boyfriend upstairs to share not only a bedroom with her soon to be 13-year-old daughter, but a bed. She had to know what was going on in that bed. I believe she made a sexual sacrifice of poor Maddie, in order to keep Sterns. She obviously didn't want to have sex with him herself, so Madeline was enlisted as a sexual surrogate.
We'll probably never know why Sterns murdered Madeline that night, as her mother slept soundly, nearby in the house. Perhaps he feared she was pregnant. Maybe he was concerned she might report his rapes. Was he angry she'd recently shown romantic interest in a boy at her school? Or it could be as simple and callous as Madeline's physical development no longer pleasing his paedophile tastes.
Whatever twisted reason he had for strangling her to death and stealing her entire, promising life from her, Stephan Sterns will be removed from society. But many people who could have protected her from him, did not, and failed her terribly. Chief among them is Madeline's mother Jennifer. She didn't just just fail her daughter - she betrayed her, and actively enabled both her chronic sexual abuse and her murder. Like Sterns, she deserves to die in prison.
240
-
239
-
228
-
203
-
200
-
197
-
197
-
It wasn't her own van she drove away with her victim's dismembered thigh and buttock on the back seat. She'd borrowed it from a friend, then used it in the crime. Not only did she use kitchen knives to decapitate Shad and dismember his corpse - she took the knives from his MOM'S kitchen block!
The photos of those bloody, flesh-encrusted knives after they'd been used to cut a head off, a foot off, legs off, cut an arm at the elbow etc, were horrific. The bread knife had no serrated edge left whatsoever - she'd ground it down hacking through human bone! This grisly work took literally hours.
To do that to her friend since childhood - and at his mom's home too, murdering her precious son, carving him up and leaving behind his head in a bucket for her to discover, piled barbarity on barbarity. Taylor Schabusiness' insanity claim is as fake as her made-up name. She's 100% sane, 100% sadistic and 100% EVIL. Jury got it right.
The verdict today finally wiped the smirk off her hideous face. No cushy psychiatric hospital for Taylor - she's going to die in a maximum security prison where she belongs, just like her idol Jeffrey Dahmer.
190
-
190
-
157
-
144
-
143
-
139
-
137
-
135
-
133
-
132
-
Great video DVS! The Australia video apologising for sneaking their dogs into the country by private plane without declaring them is interesting, and reveals a lot about both Amber Heard and Johnny Depp and their relationship - which at this point was very close to breaking point (he ended the marriage 2 weeks later).
Johnny Depp had to be in Australia to make his 5th and likely his final 'Pirates' movie, since Amber Heard's false abuse allegations subsequently destroyed the relationship between Depp and Disney.
So his reasons for being in Australia were important, business ones - he was the star of a major movie being filmed there. Amber merely flew out later to join him, as his wife. She had mentioned to both Johnny and their PA, her intention to smuggle the two tiny teacup Yorkshire Terriers with her into the country, without doing it legally.
Both Johnny and the PA advised her against, knowing it meant breaking Australia's strict laws - and the risk of public censure/negative publicity for such high profile people as her and Depp. But she went ahead and did it anyway.
Her actions in deliberately breaking Australian law showed disrespect not only for the country but also for the dogs, which Australia could have legally euthanised as a direct result of her actions. But in the context of the Depps' marriage, her decision to break the law is very telling. She told the jury she was scared of her husband - but would she really have shown contempt for his wishes and brought the dogs into Australia, if she was some terrified domestic abuse victim? Hardly!
It showed a staggering disregard for Depp's status and image. One could interpret her actions as an active, conscious attempt to sabotage him. He had made it clear to her he didn't want her to bring the dogs into Australia without proper paperwork - but she went ahead and did it anyway.
Johnny Depp was always by far the bigger star out of the two of them. She knew that - Hell, it's almost certainly the reason she married him, against a history of lesbian, same sex relationships. There are many examples of her hostile treatment of Depp that indicate she resented his greater fame and talent. There are also grounds to believe she was so envious, she wanted to BE Johnny Depp - even during the recent libel trial, she turned up to court wearing strikingly similar outfits to his! This trolling or 'mirroring' was noticed by many serious media commentators.
We often see this weird, envious dynamic in relationships between narcissistic abusers like Amber Heard and their chosen victim/partner, who is typically an Empath ie the opposite of a Narcissist. The abuser latches onto the Empath victim like a parasite, and enjoys all the social advantages of their close association with a more well-adjusted, generous, warm-hearted and popular person. The Narcissist is incapable of loving anyone (other than themselves), so they choose an Empath partner who absolutely DOES love, deeply and genuinely - and is socially successful and widely loved in return because of it. We saw this in all the people, friends, family and employees of 30 years, who came to court and spoke movingly of Johnny's kindness and generosity to them. All but Amber's sister stayed away from the court, and instead gave evidence by Zoom.
The special qualities the victim possesses that first attracted the abuser to them, are the same qualities they envy and resent. In the early, 'love bombing' stage of the relationship, the abuser praises and compliments the victim to win their love and loyalty. But once they have the victim hooked, the 'de-valuing' stage starts, and insults fly in which the abuser tries to destroy the victim's self-esteem. One example of the many insults Heard threw at Depp were that he was an "Old, fat, washed-up actor". At the time he was arguably the world's biggest movie star commanding up to $20 million a movie. She was a supporting actor not a headlining one, and best known for no other role than her romantic relationship with megastar Johnny Depp.
Another time on hearing that global couture house Dior were interested in hiring Depp, Heard responded "Why Dior want to do business with you? They are about class and style and you do not have style". Obvious jealousy!
Depp's reactions to Heard's multiple abuses was to be overly passive. He even supported her when the shit hit the fan over her smuggling the dogs, by making that ill-advised, parody apology video with her - which only made the insult to the country worse. That video was made 2 weeks before Depp finally called time on the 15 month marriage and told her he was ending it. It's powerful proof of how overly tolerant of her abuse he was - even when he'd had a bellyful of her verbal and physical assaults, he was so supportive of his wife he made a video backing her up ovr her abuse of Australian laws!
This strongly supports his own evidence that he was a victim of childhood abuse by his domineering and violent mother Betty-Sue. His response as a child when she geared up for a fight was to flee - and he did the same as a middle aged adult when Amber Heard flew into an abusive rage. I truly believe Heard was capable of killing him when he told her he wanted out of the marriage. In my view he's only alive today because he flew many miles away to Europe for a music tour, immediately after delivering the news. Narcissistic abusers as extreme as her often escalate their violence to murder, when the victim rejects them. We see this frequently in domestic homicide - the victim's decision to end the relationship, triggers their murder. Narcissistic abusers won't accept rejection, and won't allow the victim to leave the relationship alive - and be happy without them.
In Depp's absence, Heard could no longer physically assault him. So she did the next best thing to take her power back and hurt him - she launched divorce proceedings, and a restraining order, then got her staff to tip off the media when she went to the court with a fake bruise painted on her face (a bruise which would have faded had Depp inflicted it, since she hadn't seen him in 10 days). It was the publicity stunt that launched Heard's vendetta to ruin his image and career. And as Depp himself said, from that first big lie came all the other, escalating lies painting him as a wife beater and even a rapist.
We could very easily have been watching a murder trial, at which Amber Heard would have told exactly the same lies about Johnny Depp's supposed domestic and sexual violence to claim she killed him in self defence. Thank God he got out alive - and didn't make the mistake of getting her pregnant, so he was tied to her forever through a child. It seems likely Elon Musk is the idiot who donated sperm for her surrogate baby (perhaps her passive punching bag sister Whitney was the surrogate in question - she seems to do Amber's bidding, including her recent perjury).
132
-
130
-
First episode was so well explained. What a tragic morality tale - four lives ended, and many more ruined - for what? A year of spending, and the rest of the cash left to rot underground.
Those poor security guards, my heart breaks for what they suffered. It must have been horrendous for their loved-ones to live with.
I doubt the Polands ever intended for them to live - their faces were uncovered throughout the heist, they knew the two guards could identify them. Michael Poland was a psychopath, the fact he carried a garrote showed chilling premeditation. I think he had killed before, and enjoyed the power trip. His younger brother Patrick should never have gone along with him.
A shame Michael was executed first - he deserved to see his brother killed first, then await his turn. He never owned what he had done, or showed any remorse. I will say, this horrific crime deserved no mercy, but at least Patrick had sufficient humanity to finally tell the truth to police, and express regret as he was executed.
These reconstructions are superbly well done. Amazing that two security guards could be abducted in broad daylight on a busy road, in front of umpteen motorists, and not one of them thought to call the police! I wonder if that could happen today, now everyone carries a cellphone?
130
-
129
-
Jackie's exact words, as she refused to change out of the pink Chanel suit saturated with her 46-year-old husband's blood and brain tissue, were "Let THEM see what THEY have done".
The First Lady knew damn fine the President wasn't assassinated by a crazy lone Commie called Oswald, who got incredibly lucky! As If.
Jackie was a highly intelligent and educated woman, who knew her husband was murdered in a professional hit, sanctioned at the very highest level of the establishment, and carried out by multiple professional marksmen, using the best, most powerful firearms. Jack didn't stand a chance - and his wife was hugely lucky to have survived.
Jackie spent the rest of her life surviving, and protecting the two children she bore JFK. That this video doesn't even acknowledge the notorious conspiracy, but presents JFK's assassination as though it were the work of a lone crazy, is utterly laughable!
128
-
Captain Arthur Rostron was a hero for putting himself, his ship 'Carpathia', and his entire crew at the disposal of the stricken 'Titanic' that night.
Imagine the condemnation he'd have got, if they too had come to grief on the same treacherous North Atlantic icebergs as 'Titanic', and gone down with many more lives lost. But if the worst had happened, he would still have been a hero, and it would still have been the right decision.
Because that's precisely what made him a hero - he did not know the ultimate outcome for himself, his ship 'Carpathia', and his crew of men. Yet he and his team took the risk regardless, and went to 'Titanic's aid without a backward glance.
As the saying goes: 'No Guts - No Glory!' A fantastic documentary, which brought the historic events of that night - chilling in every sense - dramatically to life. Bravo, a great job by Mike Brady.
127
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
124
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
2:15 Charlie Adelson looked anything but 'comfortable' - he looks what he is, a dead man walking! Whatever he paid his lawyers, he deserves a full refund for the lousy opening statement they gave for him today. His blackmail/extortion alibi is utterly laughable, no jury on Earth would buy it!
Many people have waited a long time to see justice for Dan Markel. And justice means the Adelson family being prosecuted for his murder - they are all equally culpable with Charlie, for masterminding the murder plot.
Is Charlie really gonna take the rap for his ghastly sister Wendi and mother Donna, go to jail for life and never rat them out?
How fabulous it was to see Dan's ex wife Wendi take the stand today, suddenly looking very nervous - a far cry from her previous cocky performances, lying under oath! $hit got real for Wendy today, and handcuffs are coming ever closer. It's about time -she should have gone to prison a very long time ago, ditto her mother Donna, the matriarch and mother-in-law from hell, at the centre of this twisted web.
Dan did not have to die over a child custody fight. Kids are kids for such a short time, and they need both their parents. Wendi could have been a grown up and handled the custody issues civilly, without involving her family. What the Adelsons did to Dan's children when they decided to play God and murder their loving father, was unforgivable.
118
-
114
-
@pleasedroses3811 Personally I would have done what every other holidaymaker with small children does on beach holidays - taken them with me to the tapas bar, bistro, wherever, and let them doze on my lap or in their buggy, while the adults ate.
Portugal and the Continent/Med generally is a family-friendly culture - that's generally why Brits like the McCanns take their children there!
The culture 100% expects people to bring their children with them to restaurants. The atmosphere is relaxed and informal, and the climate is mild. Who cares if 2 and 4 year olds are sleeping on mummy and daddy's laps, each one wrapped up cosy in a blanket?
Bringing them along to the bistro would surely be most parents' choice, because most choose to do things together as a family on vacation. Leaving your infants 'home alone', ie putting them to bed without adult supervision in the holiday apartments is unthinkable for most. The McCanns even left a door unlocked at the apartment when they left their three kids there - an abductor could just walk in off the street!
I would not leave my little dog alone in a holiday apartment - she'd be scared on her own, in a strange place, and I'm damn sure a child would!
Yet for some reason, the couple were apparently not concerned about that, and didn't recognise any risk. Why did they assume Portugal was any safer than the UK, or anywhere else? There are predators and paedophiles everywhere you go, unfortunately. And they are opportunists.
If for some reason the adults wanted one night child-free on holiday, maybe to stay out late at a bar or casino, they would do the only responsible thing and share the childminding between them if there was more than one set of parents (not the sporadic way the 'Tapas 7' did, but by staying with the kids in one apartment and supervising them), or by hiring a babysitter.
But I wouldn't even risk that - on holiday you don't know the babysitter from Adam and cannot be 100% sure your kids are safe with them - even if they were to choke on something.
To leave infants alone and unsupervised in a holiday apartment is at best cruel - what if they wake up alone and scared after a nightmare - as Madeleine told mum Kate she had done the night before she vanished? I will never understand how the McCanns abandoned Madeleine and her siblings again the following, fateful night, ,knowing M had been upset at finding herself alone. Why didn't they just take the three kids out to the tapas bar with them?
They could take them back to the vacation apartment with them as a family and put them to bed by 10 - 11pm. There's no need to let them out of your supervision for even a second!
But then Kate and Gerry McCann seemed to find caring for their children a bit of a bore. I was shocked to learn every day of that holiday they put all three into the holiday resort's 'Kids Club' - basically handing them over to child minders, while they went off and did adult things with their adult friends, like tennis lessons.
When I was a little kid my parents wanted to spend time with me and my brother on holiday! They took us to English seaside resorts (money was tight), and we'd have lovely family days out at the beach. Mum would pack a picnic and my brother and I would make sandcastles, swim and play around on our dinghy. My parents would sunbathe, relax, read, and watch us playing.
Someone should have told Kate and Gerry that's the whole point of having children - you enjoy spending time with them!
My mum and dad would no more have thought to go to a tapas bar/bistro without us at night (or hand us over to babysitters during the day), than they'd have booked the holiday for themselves and left us at home! They loved being our parents and seeing the world through our eyes, God bless them. They were wonderful.
I think it's pretty bizarre to have children, then go on holiday with them and a group of seven other adult friends - and choose the company of those adults over your own kids!
No one forced the McCanns to have a family. If they prized freedom so much, why did they go through all the effort and expense of IVF? You can't have everything in this life, if you choose children, inevitably you must give up some other option. That's how it goes - but most people think parenthood is worth the sacrifices.
I don't believe the couple played any active role in Madeleine's disappearance - and I wouldn't wish their tragedy on anyone. But I do think they were grossly negligent over their three children's safety. And Madeleine - and her family - paid the ultimate price.
113
-
112
-
107
-
104
-
Vinnie missed the most important question of all, which is not why two young people wanted to raise 6 kids, 4 of whom were not their own - there was an obvious financial motive for them to do that. Neither Trezell nor Jaqueline worked - they used adoption as a cash cow to provide a nice home, vehicle and lifestyle for themselves.
The big question is why these two murdered babies were ever given to the Wests in the first place, when they already had four kids to raise, and we now know they were abusive enough to murder them!
The relevant child protection authorities and policies need to be forensically scrutinised in this case, and serious questions must be answered! Because while the Wests allegedly murdered two baby boys and will be made answerable for that at their imminent murder trials, other, faceless individuals gave those dangerous individuals sole charge of the boys and the power to hurt and kill them. Lessons must be learned from this disaster, to stop it happening to any other child!
If rumours are correct, this trial will require a strong stomach. Police have garnered witness testimony from the remaining four children in the Wests' care that is said to be utterly sickening. I have read that the Wests enlisted the other children to join in with the physical and emotional abuse of the babies. Hard to believe such horrors can be sadistically inflicted on innocent children, but it seems that's what happened in this case.
Whatever was going on with the biological family, it cannot have been anything like as bad as the home where they ended up. Should Cincere and Classic ever have been removed from their biological family? That's another question that must be examined closely.
104
-
99
-
89
-
86
-
Teresa was an amazing woman in so many ways, a well respected and liked doctor, a loving mother and much loved daughter, sister and friend. Attractive, charming, funny, witty and warm. An Alpha female, for sure. What on EARTH did she see in that loser she married???
Too many amazing women like Teresa settle for inadequate males. They may not murder you, but they will sure as hell disrespect you and rob you of your happiness. Ladies - please realise your worth and know that you deserve only the very best in a partner - nothing less is good enough. A great man, a loving and loyal man, kind and comfortable in his own skin, a man who listens to you, confident and generous enough to love, honour and respect you, every day of your lives together.
And if such a man fails to materialise, then take courage and walk alone until the day you find him. To be single and searching is so much better than the dark certainty of settling for a mediocre life with Mr Wrong.
Mark Sievers will be easily forgotten, like the insignificant dust he will become after his lethal injection. Teresa's beautiful memory will live forever in the hearts and minds of all who loved her. Half of her life was stolen from her by a psychopath who pretended to love her. It's too late for Teresa, she won't get to learn from her mistake - but you can. Let beautiful Teresa be a lesson to you never to settle for second best, in life's most important choice of all - a life partner.
85
-
85
-
The senior person on the team - in this case, the Captain Marc Dubois - is ALWAYS ultimately responsible!
Marc Dubois failed in a Captain's most critical role, to provide leadership in a crisis. Had he stepped up immediately and decisively when he found his co-pilots taking the plane to disaster, 226 lives might have been saved.
Married 58-year-old Dubois was tired, having been partying all weekend in Rio De Janeiro with his mistress, an air hostess and budding opera singer. Ominously, he was heard to say: "One hour's sleep is not enough'. The cockpit flight recorder revealed he was distracted during pre-flight checks, reading a magazine and listening to opera. All indications are he didn't bring his A-game, or much focus, to managing that fateful flight. This was likely due in part to sleep deprivation, but he may have been mentally consumed with a new love affair (his mistress was also killed on the flight).
Captain Dubois made a surprising choice, in putting the least experienced of his two co-pilots in charge - 32 year old Pierre Bonin - while he headed off for a sleep break. Dubois knew a significant electrical storm was coming, arguably he should have remained on the flight deck until they were safely through it, or left his more experienced co-pilot David Robert, 37, at the controls. Robert had 6,500 flying hours, against Bonin's modest 2,900.
That mistake was bad, but Dubois' failings when he was called back minutes later to find the cockpit in total chaos, would seal the fate of everyone on board. As the Captain, Dubois should have taken charge of the crisis the moment he returned to the flight deck. There was no time to lose!
That meant kicking the most junior pilot Bonin, out of his seat immediately, and taking the controls from him. That move alone would likely have saved the day, as it would have removed Bonin's unseen, white-knuckle, death-grip as he pulled back on the side-stick, a major factor in the crash.
Sitting in Bonin's seat, it would not have taken Captain Dubois long to work out what went so badly wrong, and correct it. But by the time Bonin surrendered control to Robert, and his major role in the disaster was exposed, the plane was just one minute from impact and unrecoverable.
Equally catastrophic, was communication between the three pilots. On answering their emergency call to come back, the Captain did not identify the cause of the plane's extreme stall from Bonin and Robert. He could only hope to do that by direct, calm and effective interaction with his two co-pilots. After all, they were present throughout the plane's sudden, mysterious journey from calm to crisis - and their actions had almost certainly caused it!
But the cockpit voice recorder revealed that no such conversation between the Captain and co-pilots had taken place. At no point did Captain Dubois ask Bonin and Robert to explain the sequence of events to him, and their own, most recent actions, in the mere 9 minutes since he'd exited the flight deck.
Here's the transcript from the dramatic moment the Captain returns and is reunited with his two co-pilots on the flight deck, all Hell let loose as the plane drops towards the Atlantic at a dizzying rate of 10,000 feet per minute:
Capt Dubois: "What the Hell are you doing!"
Bonin: "We've lost control of the plane!"
Robert: "We've totally lost control of the plane! We don't understand at all... We've tried everything!"
These ridiculously passive, negative and unhelpful statements by the two pilots are apparently accepted at face value by Captain Dubois, when he should have challenged them and done some probing. He needed to get the men out of panic mode, which is negative, and get them explaining logically and calmly how they arrived at this point - positive action. Logic dictates it was far more likely to be the fault of the human beings operating the plane, than the plane itself, which they are stupidly blaming! As the subsequent inquiry conformed, the plane remained 100% flyable throughout.
The best leaders are problem solvers, focused, calm and methodical in a crisis, prioritising solutions over recriminations.
If Dubois had only stayed cool, asked the right questions, listened to the answers and used his many years of experience, this could have ended differently. But under that level of pressure, against the clock, his best chance of turning it around was to simply get in the driving seat and take the controls - exactly as a Captain should!
Instead Dubois' backside remained passively in the jump seat throughout the unfolding tragedy. It's interesting that Pierre Bonin was at the controls for most of the terrifying descent, with David Robert taking over from him just one minute from impact at 2.14am. I have to wonder about the dynamics at play between these three men's personalities.
The senior one who should have been in charge, Captain Dubois, was effectively absent throughout (even after he returned to the cockpit and was physically present), and the most inexperienced and junior pilot was literally in the driving seat until one minute before oblivion! How did that happen?
'Mentour Pilot's brilliant videos frequently focus on the role personalities play, in air disasters like this one. I ask myself why the youngest and most inexperienced pilot did not relinquish the controls, even as the situation escalated. Nor did his superiors assert themselves with him and demand he surrender to their authority. Was Pierre Bonin a confident, perhaps even dominant personality, the kind even senior staff struggled to confront or say "No" to?
The difference between a safe, uneventful flight and an air disaster, can literally come down to the random flip of a coin, the timing of a pilot's rest period, or even his choice of deputy during an electrical storm. Terrifying!
85
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
This child killer is going down for a long time, hopefully indefinitely. Her conduct in court, smirking, chewing candy and passing notes to her lawyers, shows exactly how hard-faced and self absorbed she is. Not a single tear for her deceased baby son so far, not even when photos of his broken body were shown - recovered from the dumpster she threw him in.
Imagine being a defenceless baby, at the mercy of that drugged-up, angry, violent monster? I want to know why, if she lost custody of him to her grandmother, she was still raising him, and still had full access to abuse and murder him?
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
71
-
Charles didn't 'ruin' Diana's life, he was the making of her! Marrying into the royal family and becoming a Princess and future Queen gave her every glittering prize she hoped it would. Why do you think she remained a virgin and set her cap (and big blue eyes) at the Prince of Wales?
Diana went into that arranged marriage with her eyes wide open, hungry for all the privileges, wealth and global fame it would win her. The marriage failed, as many arranged marriages do, because she and Charles were incompatible. So what? Divorces happen.
Diana wasn't heartbroken over Charles as she cynically pretended to be, to win public sympathy - as her umpteen, extra marital affairs prove (many of them, shamefully, with other women's husbands!)
Diana came out of her divorce with two fine sons, a Princess title, top VIP status, a Kensington Palace home, £17 million in the bank and a team of paid servants at her beck and call for life. What a glittering, spoiled existence she threw away that fateful night, because she forgot about her dependent children and failed to wear her seat belt! No one was responsible for Diana's death at 36, but Diana.
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
In 2023, rape in marriage is thankfully recognised as such, and considered a form of domestic violence. Spousal rape was outlawed in 1992, three years after this documentary aired.
Think about that - and how scarily recent it was, that men could rape/sexually assault the woman legally married to them without fear of prosecution. Utterly chilling! In effect it meant when you said your wedding vows, you were literally giving your body to your husband to sexually exploit however he wished. Marriage was therefore a form of sexual slavery until just 34 years ago.
Things have improved for women and girls in the last 34 years. But male violence, in all its different contexts, remains a real and ever present danger for females in every part of the world. The law is always playing catch-up, and miles behind public opinion. That's never more true than in legislation that seeks to protect the female 51% of the population!
I wonder what the true statistics are today regarding marital rape, compared with the days of this 1989 documentary when it was not yet a criminal offence? It would be fascinating to know what studies have been done recently on the subject.
There have inevitably been prosecutions as a result of the 1992 law. But if the true domestic violence statistics emerged, we'd find many husbands are still getting away with raping their wives/partners, estranged wives/partners to this day. A woman is at highest risk of serious violence from an abusive partner after she leaves him, or expresses a wish to. Women must be given greater support to help them (and their children), escape these dangerous men.
THANK YOU for sharing!
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
Tom Cruise showed spontaneous good manners - at that moment he saw the Duchess not primarily as a royal, but as a woman in a long dress and heels, about to negotiate stairs. He did what came naturally to any gentleman, and offered her his hand. If it had been in any way inappropriate or disrespectful, her husband Prince William would have reacted. He was clearly cool with it!
In response Catherine also showed good manners, and accepted the offered hand. To have refused it and rejected Tom Cruise's help may have embarrassed or offended him - and as anyone who really understands etiquette knows, the essence of good manners is to behave in a way that makes other people feel good!
That is the primary reason manners and etiquette exist - it's not about using the right cutlery or knowing how to correctly address a titled person! It's about choosing the conduct that makes your companion(s) feel most comfortable. That's why good manners in EVERY social situation be it casual or formal, with strangers or close family, are so important. Good manners smooth the wheels of human interaction, they are kind, and they are what marks humans apart from other animals!
Let's face it, the Duchess held Tom Cruise's hand for 2 seconds tops, it was a fleeting moment. But because the two people involved are global megastars and the world's media were watching, it will be the front page photo on every newspaper tomorrow, and a famous image forevermore! To quote Shakespeare, another British icon, it was 'Much Ado About Nothing'!
58
-
56
-
55
-
Law enforcement above all should know that domestic violence victims protect their abuser! Those cops should never have taken Gabby Petito's self blame and denials of her boyfriend's abuse at face value. She was bound to react like that - it was textbook and totally predictable, and only confirmed her status as a vulnerable victim in need of their support.
Yet the two bodycam perspectives reveal without question, those cops identified Gabby as the perpetrator and her abuser as the victim. They never once confronted or questioned Brian about the two independent witness reports of him assaulting her on the roadside. Detective work doesn't get worse or more incompetent than that! The police have no excuse for their victim-blaming and their duping by a soon-to-be killer. They did not meet this couple cold, they stopped the vehicle due to not one but two members of the public calling 911 on him. They knew Brian Laundrie was the villain here!
Why were cops so easily taken in by the abuser's nice guy act, and so quick to accept Gabby's low estimation of herself? She was not the aggressor. She'd been worn down and gaslit, by an arch manipulator playing controlling mind-games in that confined van. Brian even admitted locking her out of the vehicle - it was clearly his sadistic punishment to deprive her of their only source of safety and shelter, when she said or did something that displeased him. That's outrageous! Yet police never picked up on the significance of it.
Brian had no right to assume control of the keys and lock her out, it was her frigging van - though we note he was careful never to admit that to police! His defensive statements and body language showed he knew full well he was the guilty party and the abuser. He checked his words constantly to disguise his guilt. He said things like "I pushed her away... I know I shouldn't push her but..." and "I shut her out of the van so she'd cool down", he's presenting himself as a decent, reasonable man, dealing with an unhinged, volatile woman. It's the abuser's usual 'black is white' inversion of reality, accusing Gabby of nasty conduct and character flaws that are actually his! A classic abuser, he's incredibly sly and manipulative - and cops fell for it hook, line and sinker!
Gabby was extremely distressed, Brian was not, another red flag for HIS abuse. Yet cops obsessively focused on scratches on his face - the typical marks sustained by abusive males, as the woman tries to defend herself - and interpreted them as a strike against her. Men who just murdered their partner typically have those same facial scratches, they are a red flag to the man's violence, not the woman's! Brian's facial marks were a chilling portent of his horrific murder to come.
Accurately identifying red flags for male abuse is very basic stuff, and it's astonishing these officers were so shockingly ignorant of them. Worse, the second bodycam showed cops 'debriefing' together after Gabby and Brian's departure, and the lead cop concluded he could have arrested Gabby (WTF?!) but decided not to because they were so clearly a young couple in love. If that chump gets to keep his job after this total disaster, he must be sent on a full domestic abuse course to correct his shocking ignorance. He and his colleagues missed a golden opportunity to arrest a cowardly abuser, and give him a clear message his mistreatment of Gabby would not be tolerated. Instead they fell over themselves to be nice to him, repeatedly telling him "You're not in any trouble", when he damn well should have been after not one but two witness reports of him assaulting a woman!
Women are overwhelmingly the main victims of domestic abuse, and domestic homicide victims are almost exclusively female. Therefore police should have known it was Gabby, not Brian, who was at risk of serious harm, and who deserved to be prioritised and supported by them. Two weeks after their brush with the law, Gabby lay dead, a homicide victim, and Brian was on the run from justice. How much worse could these bozos in uniform have called this? Gabby and all women, deserve better from law enforcement professionals!
55
-
55
-
55
-
Spot on, that is the $64,000 dollar question! Police pulled the van over because an independent witness had called in the licence plate on 911, and reported seeing Brian 'slapping and hitting' Gabby on the street. That's a credible and very serious allegation of a recently committed violent crime against a female.
Yet the officer who stopped them never once confronted Brian over it! Instead he fell over himself to tell him "You are not in any trouble". Why the hell wasn't he in any trouble - he's a suspected woman beater! He then compunded his error by sending the distressed Gabby off alone to spend the night locked in her van, a lone and vulnerable female, and in contrast took the perpetrator Brian to a hotel for a night spent in comfort. No wonder the creep was smiling, he sure fooled those dumb cops with his 'wouldn't hurt a fly', 'my girlfriend is crazy' act.
Police actions only further isolated Gabby and empowered Brian, and helped secure her reunion with him the following day, totally on his terms. He killed her less than two weeks later.
The bodycam shows shocking failings by police that day. The officer who dealt with Gabby and her soon to be killer, has a serious case to answer for incompetance. He certainly needs a crash course in domestic abuse and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as he wouldn't recognise either if they bit him on the ass.
55
-
55
-
0:02 I was at the National Television Awards at the Royal Albert Hall that chilly Tuesday night, 27th October 1998, and clearly recall Jill Dando's arrival. All eyes were on her, she looked a million dollars in that glamorous, head-turning red dress.
She was with her fiance-to-be Alan Farthing (they announced their engagement on January 31st 1999). She truly glowed, it was clear she was in a wonderful place in her life, happy and successful, both professionally and personally.
Jill later presented one of the awards at the huge industry bash hosted by Sir Trevor McDonald. Sitting in the audience I remarked to my friend how spookily similar to Princess Diana she looked. Diana had died the previous year, aged 36. We would never have believed Jill Dando would be killed in an even more violent and horrific way 6 months later, aged 37. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
'It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive', as the saying goes. There's no doubt Jill Dando was travelling hopefully, and the happiest she'd ever been when her life was cruelly stolen from her. Among her hopes for the future were a happy marriage, and children. She gave every indication she'd be a wonderful mother.
Her own beloved mum Jean died at 57, after battling leukaemia. Jill was just 24. when she lost her. Mother and daughter both suffered serious health issues in their lives. How her mum must have fretted over the 3-year-old Jill, just a tot when she had life-saving surgery for a hole in her heart and a blocked pulmonary artery. She sailed through the major ops, and was set to enjoy a normal life-span.
I guess there's some mercy that her mum never knew of her murder - Jill's poor dad Jack had to suffer that tragedy to the end of his days. Coping with her mother's devastating cancer diagnosis and death, must have been horrendous blows for Jill. She was buried beside her mum in Weston-Super-Mare, and sadly her dad Jack subsequently joined them in 2009.
It's devastating to think of the kids she'd have raised with so much love. Children who because of this act of evil, were never born. Which reminds me of another famous quote:
'For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these:
'It might have been'.
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
I wouldn't leave small children alone like that, just in case they had a nightmare - never mind anything worse!
You don't abandon your dependant kids as an inconvenience, because you want to go have dinner with your adult friends. How Kate and Gerry could head out to the tapas bar again and enjoy themselves, knowing Madeleine had told them she woke up alone and afraid in that strange holiday apartment the night before, I will never know. She was just a baby, about to turn 4 years old in 9 days time. Have they no conscience? It makes my blood run cold to think of a child frightened and alone, crying for mummy - but mummy doesn't come, because she isn't there. Dreadful!
I don't understand why they put the children to bed at all. It makes no sense, when you consider they were in relaxed, family-friendly Portugal. In that warm climate and culture it's normal to see small children out late in restaurants/pavement bistros with their parents, snoozing in their buggies or on the adults' laps, as they share an informal meal. In the care of their parents, children are safe - sleeping all alone and unsupervised in holiday accommodation, they are not!
The vacation diaries Kate and Gerry completed for police, going up to the night Madeleine vanished, were very revealing. They spent surprisingly little time with their kids on that holiday. Every morning was the same, without fail they put them into the resort's 'Kids' Club', basically handing them over to babysitters to entertain them. They then went off and played tennis, met up with their adult friends, went to the beach together, and did various 'coupley' activities.
Kate and Gerry behaved more like a young, childless couple than a one with a young family! How strange they went through the stress and expense of IVF treatment to conceive those babies, then didn't want to spend time with them. Didn't they fancy taking their three little ones to the beach, making sandcastles, eating ice creams, hiring pedalos etc? All the typical things you share with your kids as a family, to make precious memories? Tragically, those would be the couple's last, precious hours with their daughter Madeleine - and the resort staff who ran the 'Kids Club' spent more time with her.
There's no question the McCanns had an arrogant, 'nothing bad will happen to us' view of the world. Their cavalier attitude left all three of their children vulnerable - and Madeleine paid the ultimate price.
53
-
What a beautifully produced and profoundly moving piece of television. Atsumi Yoshikubo made a positive difference in her short time on this planet, and is remembered with love. That is the best epitaph any of us can hope for.
Like many gifted people, Atsumi was sensitive, and had her vulnerable spots. The truth of her issues with work colleagues may never be known. Whatever they were, it seems she took them to heart and they added to her emotional burden.
No doubt people saw an attractive, highly intelligent and successful doctor, and assumed all was well with her. Admitting you are not OK (and asking for help), can be very hard for someone who by conventional human judgement, 'has it all'. If only more people had empathy and kindness, and trod softly with others - for we never know what pain another person is going through in private.
To quote the famous poem, this poor woman was: 'not waving but drowning'.
Her family, naturally, struggle to believe she chose to make her final exit. She was behaving normally to the end, even buying items to take home to Japan. It's perfectly possible she went to Canada deeply conflicted, and in two minds about suicide. The act of ending one's life is frequently, ultimately an impulsive one - even if it were preceded by many years of consideration and soul-searching.
The closing imagery of Atsumi's immortal spirit dancing with the aurora borealis (or Northern Lights), was perfect. Fly free sweet soul, at peace forevermore, in another time and place.
53
-
I like this interviewers, he gets it - doesn't try to make it all about himself but pays due respect. And my God, Joan Rivers deserved respect, what a legend, what a talent, what a star! She wiped the floor with those puffed up, conceited no-talent fools like Jay Leno. He won't be remembered ten years from now (does anyone really recall anything he ever achieved now???) But Joan Rivers was a superstar, who deserves her place high in the comedy hall of fame among the best of the best. She wore her stardom lightly, she was humble and self deprecating throughout her life, as TRUE stars are. An incredible human being, a one-off and much missed - we shall not see her like again.
53
-
52
-
Two older gay gentlemen (living together in a nice apartment in West London but no longer in an intimate relationship), were companions/flatmates, in the habit of holidaying in Columbia.
That's where they met and befriended 34 year old Yostin Mosquera, a Columbian national, who would subsequently murder and dismember them both in their Shepherd's Bush home.
This was the second time the killer had flown to the UK to stay with them at their invitation - his first visit, in Autumn of 2023, was uneventful. Very sad that the old boys trusted him enough to invite him back, and share their apartment with him. Be very, very careful who you let into your home - behind four walls and a locked door you are very vulnerable if they turn on you.
I would guess the killer saw a nice bachelor pad and lifestyle for himself in London, if he stole it from his hosts. Police have said the victims have very few relatives, so the killer likely thought they would not be missed, and he could simply steal their flat and bank accounts to use as his own.
Who knows, Mosquera may have got away with it if he hadn't made the incredibly stupid mistake of dumping the bodies on Clifton Suspension Bridge, of all places. As a non-Brit, he was clearly clueless the famous bridge is a notorious suicide hot-spot monitored 24-7 by CCTV, and patrolling security staff, and also has high fencing to prevent jumpers.
He could not have chosen a worse, more conspicuous place to dump his two, dismembered victims if he'd driven them to Buckingham Palace! Google is your friend - thank God he didn't do his research. A highly dangerous man is now behind bars where he belongs. As Mosquera is 34, you have to wonder what other horrific acts of violence he has got away with in his home country during his lifetime. I sincerely hope if/when he is convicted of these vile murders he is deported back whence he came. The British taxpayer should not be footing the bill for his bed and board during a life sentence for two murders.
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
Agreed - and if Supt Doug Carter had only shared the video of the killer with the public from day one as he should have done, there was a far bigger chance of someone putting two and two together, recognising what he was wearing, knowing his work schedule that day/the fact he had a day off, etc etc, and calling police with his name.
The TV interviewer should have asked Carter why he only released a single still image from the video, and sat on the video for two whole years! 14-year-old Libby bravely recorded her soon-to-be killer's video and audio, it was a gift to police. But they stupidly failed to use it for a 24 months. By the time they showed it, memories had faded and the trail was going cold. I think Carter knows full well that was a huge mistake - that's why in this latest interview he plays down the importance of the video. Libby was a better detective than he was, God bless her.
Doug Carter has mishandled this double child murder all the way to cold case status. He needs to step aside while more experienced homicide detectives take over. Sadly I think the killer of Abby and Libby will only be caught when he kills again. And he will - this was a sexually driven murder, and sex offenders are the worst for repeat crimes.
He must have laughed all over his face watching Supt Carter's feeble TV interview. He barely answered a single question and made it only too clear police are no nearer to catching him than they were on day one. Two little girls need justice, and ALL women and girls are at risk while that man remains at large. This crime needs to be a high priority - if I were the victims' loved ones, after five years I'd be asking some very serious questions, and demanding serious action!
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
@RickGrimes007 How many times does an asshole like Brian have to verbally & physically beat up a victim, before you recognise he didn't 'snap'. "I snapped" is the age-old excuse of cold-blooded, premeditated killers since time began!
Gabby's murder was clearly an escalation in a long pattern of violence for 'slapping and hitting her' on the street just 2 weeks before her death, shows what a dangerous relationship it had become for her.
Abusers typically isolate their victim, so she's at their mercy and vulnerable, without a support network of friends and family to help her. This seems to have happened to Gabby - 2 years previously she left her own family and travelled miles away to live with Brian at his parents' house. That set up gave him power and compromised hers.
There are always red flags in an abuser's behaviour, before they do their worst and kill. That's why it's crucial women set boundaries in a new relationship, about the way they expect to be treated, ie well, not abusively. When their partner tramples over their boundaries and disrespects them with abuse, it's a major red flag to end the relationship. Because as this case shows, abuse only ever escalates over time, and in some cases can get so bad that the abuser murders the victim. #JusticeForGabby
46
-
46
-
@NavajoSunBeauty That's exactly why the children's deaths at their evil father's hands were prolonged, filled with terror and totally horrific. Whether the axe attacks by Josh Powell killed them or not is pretty irrelevant in context - the point is they suffered terribly in their last moments alive, thanks to their sadistic, sub-human father.
Josh Powell knew police were closing in on him for murdering the children's mother Susan, and he was not going to go to prison for the next 50 years. Nor was he going to let his hated in-laws, the children's loving grandparents, continue to enjoy custody of them and raise them with the stability and love they so desperately needed. So he selfishly took them with him - and did it in the cruellest possible way.
This was a failure by the system, specifically the family courts, to protect two defenceless children from a father who not only had a long history of domestic abuse, he was prime suspect in their mother's murder!
Josh Powell should not have been given any access, or allowed within 100 miles of those little boys. I am so sick of hearing about 'fathers' rights'. What about childrens' rights to be safe, not abused, terrorised and finally killed by their parent? The law was so busy respecting Josh Powell's supposed 'rights' as a father - to access children he didn't give a damn about - it forgot about the children's rights not to be put in danger. Lessons should be learned from this outrage, but I doubt they will be.
46
-
45
-
@LeniG-123 I don't blame Diana for wanting to marry Charles as a young woman - despite her expensive private education she left school without a single qualification and no career ambitions beyond marriage and children.
The Spencer family were closely entwined with the royal family for generations (the Queen attended Diana's parents' wedding - at 18, her mother Frances was the youngest woman to marry at Westminster Abbey). And the Queen was her younger brother Charles' godmother. So Diana was top aristocracy, and understood the system and the way the royal family worked inside out. It simply isn't true that she was out of her depth in the world of palaces and pomp - she had grown up with it (she became 'Lady' in 1975 aged 14, on the death of her grandfather).
My objection is the way Diana re-wrote history years later to cast herself as victim and her husband as villain, with the Andrew Morton book and the BBC 'Panorama' interview. She slyly colluded with both of those hatchet jobs on the royals behind the scenes, both of which embarrassed her children terribly. Diana's arranged marriage failed, as do most arranged marriages. She was not heartbroken about it - if she were pining for Charles', she could not have enjoyed all those extra marital affairs - many with other women's husbands!
Diana was narcissistic and breathtakingly vindictive, setting herself up as 'the wronged wife' and waging a determined media war on Charles. And for what? Marrying into the royal family was the making of Diana! If she hadn't married the heir to the throne and become a global celebrity (which she absolutely loved), she'd have been just another aristocrat's daughter married/divorced from a banker, living in the stockbroker belt.
She came out of the marriage with two fine sons (one of whom William would be King), top VIP status and millions in the bank. Thanks to her failed marriage, Diana was set for a very nice life indeed as a spoiled Princess and mother of the King. But with her typical self-centred recklessness she threw away the gifts her marriage had given her by keeping bad company (the shady Al Fayeds who provided a drunk driver), and by failing to think of her children and fasten her seat belt. Crash investigators were agreed - if Diana had only remembered she was mother to dependent children and worn her seat belt, she'd have walked away from the crash with a broken arm and bruising.
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
What a lovely, caring young woman Alex is. If more young people were like her, the world's future would be in safe hands! That little mouse is precious! Look at her perfect little face, she's beautiful. It hurts my heart how people demonise and persecute these sweet creatures. Glue traps are utterly barbaric and should be banned, as are old fashioned mouse traps,
Ironically, the advert that preceded this particularvideo was for an horrific modern mouse trap the size of a refuse bin, that tempts the mouse up a gangplank, then tricks it into falling into the bin. The advert had it set up in a barn, where it claimed it caught 15 mice, one after the other. I fear the owner doesn't release these live mice but does something unspeakable to them - I found the advert very disturbing.
But sweet Greta's story, and her loving Mom who so cleverly found her baby a human Mom to adopt and care for her before she died, touched my heart. Animals love their babies too, the mother-baby bond is not exclusively human! And baby mice have exactly the same basic needs our babies do, for warmth, milk, a safe, darkened bed to sleep in, and LOVE.
Bravo Alex for nurturing little Greta as her poor Mom wanted to do, but tragically could not. You did her Mom proud! XXX
42
-
42
-
I think many people were shocked when the McCanns' diary for the Portugal vacation was revealed (which they had to provide for police). They seemed to spend very little time with their three children on that holiday.
Every morning without fail, they put them into the resort's 'Kids Club' - basically handing them over to babysitters, while they went off and played tennis, had drinks, and did various 'coupley' activities with the other adults. They behaved like a childless couple on holiday, not the family/ parents of infants they really were.
It's almost as though Kate and Gerry regard their three children as an inconvenience! As you say, after all the effort and expense of going through IVF to conceive them, it is baffling. But leaving any infant alone in a holiday apartment beggars belief. This was Portugal - it's child-friendly and relaxed. They were sitting out having tapas in a warm climate, why on earth didn't they have their small children with them, sleeping in buggies or on their laps?
It's especially chilling to me that Kate McCann said the day she vanished, Madeleine told her she had woken up frightened the night before, when she found herself alone in the apartment, and cried for her mummy. Yet that didn't concern Kate or Gerry, or prompt them to change their selfish behaviour. They did exactly the same thing the very next night - with tragic consequences for Madeleine. That poor, precious little soul was horribly let down by the people who brought her into this world. I pray she didn't suffer.
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
@Hudson1910 It's more about having the time to do it, than the strength. It's incredible to think she spent literally hours cutting him up like a Thanksgiving turkey, and doing unspeakable things with and to his headless corpse, in his mother's house, with his mother's knives! The sheer NERVE of her!
Though she is actually very strong. Did you see the February 14th court video of her, suddenly launching herself at her unsuspecting lawyer, with no provocation whatsoever? It took three burly security guards to get her under control - and she was cuffed and barefoot at the time!
I couldn't believe she wasn't cuffed throughout her murder trial, after pulling that little stunt. Her new attorney's a very brave man! I was also shocked to see security guards standing close to her, with their gun belts within her reach. That maniac would LOVE to shoot-up the court room, given a chance - and now she's been convicted of first degree murder and will die in prison, she's got absolutely nothing to lose.
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
The killer's brother Mitchell may not know it, but he's providing powerful clues about the early origins of the crime in his testimony about their parents. Dad Bart was a workaholic accountant, and a fairly absent parent when they were growing up. Mom Krista was the opposite, a stay at home housewife who was ever-present and over protective. She was so heavily invested in her sons' lives, her close involvement with them continued even beyond their childhoods.
To sum up, the boys lacked a close male role model in their formative years, and were mostly raised by their smothering mother. Not ideal for their development, particularly when they matured into men. Criminologists have long identified absent fathers, as a major factor in males growing up to become criminals.
More than once Mitchell mentions his mother's clingyness with him. When asked if she would normally have called to tell him she and his dad were heading to their cabin, he said yes, she would use 'any excuse' to reach out to him. When he was diagnosed with diabetes she was massively worried, and he later learned she sobbed on the phone about it to her best friend. If she was this over protective with her eldest child, we can only imagine what she was like with her youngest, Chandler!
Is it coincidence that soon after his older brother's genuine health scare, Chandler invented one of his own with a fictitious fall down the stairs and dramatic use of a neck brace? The purpose of this hoax was primarily to get him off the hook for the prestigious new job he'd lied about starting soon in Florida (claiming he couldn't fly on doctors orders, etc). But I suspect there was also a big element of sibling rivalry, and craving the motherly concern he resented seeing Mitchell get after his diabetes diagnosis. Family dynamics and dysfunction are complicated. I suspect Chandler felt strong, conflicting 'love-hate' emotions towards both parents.
No doubt Krista loved having Chandler still living at home aged 23, cooking him meals and generally spoiling him. However his dad was not so strongly emotionally invested in him, and nor was he such a pushover. It was Bart who expected Chandler to pay rent, and repeatedly challenged him over his job and why he had no money. And it was his dad who actively investigated his claims of attending college, and uncovered the massive lies that would trigger the murders.
I'm no psychologist, but there are plenty of red flags here. We saw similar family dysfunction in the Grant Amato and Joel Guy Junior murders. They too were men who never held down a job, were financially supported by parents into their twenties, and killed them when they threatened to remove that support. It's worth noting that both Amato and Guy also had over indulgent mothers like Krista Halderson (Joel Guy's mom Lisa worked solely to pay all his bills - rent, utilities, gas, food and spending money, and had done to the age of 28 when he murdered her and his father). Like this murder, those men killed both their parents when their fathers challenged their dependant lifestyles, and announced plans to make them stand on their own feet for the first time in their lives. In every case the belated decision to take away financial support that should have ended years earlier, cost them their lives.
There's a saying that's very fitting here: 'No good deed goes unpunished'. Beware of how much you're giving someone, and how much bad behaviour you're willing to tolerate from them in return. Yes, that includes parents and their children! Some people are givers, others are takers. And while the takers will continue to take from the givers, over and over again, they won't feel grateful, appreciative, or lucky to be the recipient of such generosity. Worse, the longer it goes on the more negative these people will feel about their benefactor. It's a strange phenomenon I know, but the more you give some people, the more entitled they become and the more they resent and even secretly hate you for it.
Bart and Krista aren't to blame for raising a murderer, the reasons for Chandler's extreme sociopathy are more complex than that. But their parenting has to have played a crucial part in his warped development. In recent years it's increasingly being recognised killers aren't necessarily the product of a broken, abusive or neglectful home, but can be produced by the opposite - parents who over indulge them and fail to set clear boundaries and expectations for good behaviour. Those over indulgent parents can unwittingly raise dangerous, narcissistic men so crazily entitled, they even feel entitled to kill in their own self interest.
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
How insulting to Prince Harry that some are suggesting Meghan married him for his money! He's a good looking, intelligent, funny, tall, charismatic, sexy guy (and a couple of years younger than Meghan too - bonus!) Lots of women would find him attractive,if he was a penniless nobody! The Meghan haters are throwing some crazy accusations at her. If she was an unemployed out of work actress who had never been on TV they would be calling her a gold digger. She happens to be a successful, well paid actress who has starred in a top TV drama for many years and is worth an estimated £5 million - and they're still calling her a gold digger! She can't win and she shouldn't try because jealous haters will always hate good looking, happy, successful people - it reminds them that they are not! Congrats to the happy couple, they are obviously deeply in love - you cannot fake that - and a wonderful married life is in store!
31
-
Diana committed adultery with umpteen men (many of them married), before Charles turned to his old love Camilla. Diana was bored to tears of her husband, as she made abundantly clear on their joint public appearances from the late 'eighties. She was not in love with him, he bored her to tears and frankly she couldn't care less who or what he did in the Gloucestershire, Highgrove home, while she was partying in London with all her secret lovers!
Diana was no innocent 'victim' - Get your facts straight! Marriage to Prince Charles got her all the glittering prizes she wanted from it - immense wealth, global fame, top VIP status, and adulation. But she was such an idiot, she kept bad company and made bad choices that resulted in her death in a dumb accident at 36, just a year after her divorce.
Diana was not a victim until she made herself one by putting her safety in the hands of the shady Al Fayed family, and failed to wear her seat belt. Case Closed.
31
-
30
-
Oh that sweet face! She is just adorable! I wrote her a fan letter when I was ten, and she sent me such a lovely letter and signed photo back. It came on headed notepaper with her home address printed on it, I've never forgotten it - 'Honeypot Cottage, Wraysbury'.
Beryl was a great cat lover and had many in various states of friendliness and feral at Honeypot Cottage, which stood on the River Thames and had round rooms she said were hard to wallpaper!
Her autobiography 'So Much Love' is a great read, I highly recommend it. Out of print but available second hand for pennies on Amazon. Beryl never married, which surprised and impressed me. all evidence suggests she liked men very much, but she wanted to keep her independence. A lady ahead of her times!
Thanks for this upload - gorgeous memories of a dear, amazing and hugely talented lady, and a British legend, Beryl Reid is much missed.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
Utter nonsense, Charles and Diana were not compatible, and their arranged marriage would have failed regardless of Camilla or any of Diana's umpteen extra marital affairs (many of them with married men she had seduced).
Diana had the morals of an alley cat, yet crucified Charles and Camilla for their genuine relationship which ended in marriage. It's highly doubtful Diana would have achieved a happy marriage, had she lived. She was far too needy, narcissistic and self-involved to be a good wife to anyone!
She got herself killed because she was stupidly flattered by the attentions of the oily, deeply untrustworthy Al Fayeds and let them handle her security (they provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver), and because she failed to give her two children a thought and fasten her seat belt. Guess she was having too much fun running around Paris with that coke-addicted playboy Dodi, to remember she was a mother of dependant children!
Thank God William and Harry at least had one responsible parent to rely on. Their father stepped up, and picked up the pieces for them, when their feckless mother got herself killed in a totally needless accident. Predictably Diana never gave him any credit, but Charles was a great father. And he more than proved himself on her death.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
Great analysis. Haven't we all known a Nurse Ratched? There are male and female versions to be found, usually in some position of power, in every family and every workplace. Nurse Ratched is one of the most terrifying villains of fiction, because such monsters exist in every real, everyday situation and environment.
You'll encounter a Nurse Ratchet in pretty much every human group dynamic. Their manipulative conduct means they will always fool some of the people, some of the time, so they sail through life achieving the prize they set out to - status and power over other human beings.
In Nazi Germany, 'Nurse Ratcheds' thrived running concentration camps where they could fully indulge their cruellest impulses against other humans. In a more civilised society, they will find themselves a niche that allows them to control others. They hide their ruthless, self-serving impulses behind a pleasant, even friendly exterior, armed with a stated respect for 'fairness' or 'the rules', they slyly play people off against each other, and are masters of the 'divide and rule' model to retain their privileged position in the group. They are the embodiment of the phrase 'The banality of evil'.
In 2022 the term 'narcissistic abuse' is thrown around so often, it's almost become meaningless. Nurse Ratchet was an early and now iconic example of such an abuser. Her narcissism and ego are off the scale, but cleverly masquerade as professionalism, even-handedness, and even benevolent concern for the well being of others.
But of course such abusers have only one priority - themselves. And serving their own desires requires them to seek power and control over others - in their most intimate relationships with partners and family members, and on a professional setting with work colleagues both superiors and subjugates.
'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest' is a profound movie that should be shown to teenage kids at every school, as a textbook example of the destructive power of narcissistic abuse. Oh, and there's no question how Randle McMurphy's final, barbaric lobotomy happened - it was Nurse Ratched's doing, no question!
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
My God! That scumbag murdered Laura because she ended their relationship - as she was perfectly entitled to! Abusers like him often escalate their abuse to murder when the victim pulls the plug on them. In finishing with the abuser they take away his power, which enrages him and he takes it back in the cruellest possible way. Abusers' inflated egos won't accept rejection, or let the victim be happy with someone else, it's the oldest motive in the book for inadequate men to kill women.
Laura was just 17, so young, with her whole life ahead. What did she know of the world and monsters like him who pose as human beings, but will literally destroy a woman who defies them? He laid a guilt trip on her for finishing with him - why else would she have stayed on the phone for 4 hours, with a guy she didn't want to be with?
She made the mistake of agreeing to meet him one last time to say goodbye. Getting into his car was her fatal miscalculation. The sly coward drove her to an unfamiliar area , isolated and killed her, miles from any hope of rescue. Poor girl must have been so frightened when he launched his fatal attack. He then buried her lifeless body - after taking her rings from her dead hands as trophies. Sick creep was proud of what he'd done, and gloated over it for the next 30 years! This wasn't manslaughter, it was murder, no question. Killing someone in a jealous rage because they prefer someone else, is no 'crime of passion' and certainly no excuse!
The killer enjoyed three decades he should have spent locked in a jail cell, in which he had the freedom to live his life. He launched a career, dated women, get married, no doubt have kids too. All the milestones he had stolen from Laura and her loved ones. And every minute of every day, he knew where her body lay rotting, all alone in the dirt. Yet he never had an atom of conscience to let her poor parents know the truth about what had happened, and give her a proper burial. He was never going to take his consequences like a man.
It beggars believe police never considered him a suspect. He should have been the prime suspect from day one, for two reasons - he was her boyfriend, and she'd ended the relationship the night before her murder! It didn't take a psychic to tell them he was the killer. How sickening that when at last he was caught, he wasn't jailed for the rest of his worthless life. Two years, for taking Laura's entire life from her, and her from her loved ones? That's not justice, it's a sick joke.
26
-
Jay's Sunday uploads in particular, are becoming quite a tradition in our household - LOVE 'em! A glass of wine, a roast dinner cooking in the oven, and Jay transforming his Winter wonderland cabin. The perfect mellow Sunday afternoon entertainment. BLISS!
Keep up the hard work Jay - what you're achieving there, mostly solo, is nothing short of heroic! You (and your lucky guests), will soon be reaping the rewards of this fabulous, cosy extension to your vacation home. And so many viewers, including ourselves in England, UK, are thoroughly enjoying the ride!
Here's to more fantastic YouTube content, as your building work continues to take shape. Oh, and we love watching you cook your dinners too! XXX
26
-
You're right, there's no comparison - Diana was an unhinged, scheming, vain, vacuous, vomiting clothes horse, obsessed with her own image and with shagging other women's husbands.
Camilla is a warm hearted, loyal, down to earth, self-deprecating, funny, feminine and lovely woman, whose stepsons William and Harry adore her. No wonder she has made Charles happy - she's a wonderful wife. Diana could not have been a good wife to any man, she was far too self-centred, narcissistic and downright vindictive.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Camilla was mistress to one, unhappily married man, who went on to marry her and live happily together. Diana was mistress to many married men, none of whom became a lasting relationship or meant more to her than casual sex.
Diana was a home wrecker and a hypocrite. How she had the utter nerve to point the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she was shagging umpteen men while still married (many of them other women's husbands) God only knows! The woman was unhinged - when married Oliver Hoare dumped her, she stalked him, making over 300 silent phone calls to his home at all times of the day and night.
Worse - when Hoare came clean to his wife about the affair, and they joined forces to report Diana to the police, she got a visit at Kensington Palace from two plain clothes detectives. They told her the calls had been traced to her home phone, and to several local payphones, and warned her off bothering the Hoares again. Backed into a corner, Diana insisted she was innocent and shamefully blamed her innocent son William for making the calls 'as a prank'.
Police knew William was away boarding at Eton and couldn't possibly have made the calls. But it showed what kind of dreadful woman - and mother - she was, that she would try to blame her own bad behaviour on her own child!
25
-
25
-
Police have no more idea about the killer's identity today, 5 years later, than they did on day one. The reason Supt Doug Carter and his team held onto so much information, is their massive inexperience in handling a crime as big as this one. It is now crystal clear Indiana police were, and remain, way out of their depth with this double child homicide. They have mishandled it all the way to cold case status, and should be replaced forthwith as the investigating team.
14 year old Libby German bravely provided law enforcement with the best evidence they could possibly have been given - video and audio of the killer. They should have shared the full video with the public immediately, not just one single, still image from it! As a national newspaper journalist who has covered many murders over 20 years, I believe the amount of information withheld from the public in this double child murder is unprecedented. The only explanation I can find is the investigating team's inexperience , naivety and over-cautiousness.
Why did police withhold Libby's video of the man who killed her and her friend Abby Williams for two whole years? There's absolutely no good reason for it! Had they shared that video with the public right after the murders, there was the best possible chance someone would have recognised him, known his movements that day (and other clues like what he was wearing), and identified him to police. After two years, memories fade and the power of that video was seriously diminished.
That was one of many strategic errors by police, which include the confusion caused by the second, contrasting artists' impression of the killer (and the younger age estimate), and the disastrous police media briefing of 2019. Make no mistake, the Delphi child murders are now a cold case, despite police denials.
Five years on, the time is long overdue to replace Supt Carter and his team with more experienced and adept, specialist homicide detectives. I couldn't care less if that hurts Doug Carter's inflated ego. He is clearly not up to the job. Abby and Libby, and ALL women and girls who remain at risk while this killer is at large, deserve nothing less! #JusticeForLibbyAndAbby
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Damn, Troy Driver was caught torturing animals aged 14 - something was/went very wrong with him from childhood, but his Mom took no steps to confront or address it - she did the opposite, she stuck her head in the sand and enabled his evil deviancy by denying the truth, and treating him like the 'great kid' she lied to everyone he was.
She continued to lie for, cover for and enable him all his life. And as a direct result of such lousy parenting, that twisted, entitled Mommy's boy wound up murdering a beautiful 18 year old on the cusp of womanhood, with her whole life ahead of her. A young woman who was raised right, by loving parents, would always some day be targeted by poorly raised, dangerously immoral and arrogant, sexual deviant Troy Driver. The abduction and murder of Naomi Irion was ALL about sex - the fact Driver was so desperate to deny that, only confirms it.
The received wisdom used to be that violent criminals became that way thanks to suffering cruel, abusive parents in their early, formative years. But in recent years it's recognised that the opposite frequently applies - killers became twisted and sadistic monsters thanks to indulgent parenting, never being told 'No', learning empathy and respect for others, or having clear, consistent boundaries laid down and enforced for good behaviour. The result is spoiled children used to getting their own way, with no respect for the rights of others - and they become the same kind of adults.
Driver's girlfriend Zulema had a lucky escape - she could easily have been murdered by him, ditto her children who she unwittingly exposed to great danger when she let him into their lives. It's deeply unfortunate her kids had Driver as a childhood influence for any time at all.
I hope Zulema honours Naomi every day by living her best life, being kind whenever she has the opportunity, and doing good deeds until the day she dies. She will get to live her natural lifespan - Naomi's life, with all its beautiful possibilities, was brutally stolen from her.
As for Troy Driver's parents, whose belligerence and defiance with police provided a clue to how he turned out so arrogant and egotistical - May God forgive them for unleashing that monstrous son on the world. Cos I'm sure they don't deserve any human forgiveness here on Earth!
Thank you for such a comprehensive and sensitively produced deep dive, on this distressing case. The police indifference to Naomi's family's first calls for help are an utter scandal. The first officer's stubborn refusal to launch a missing person case, even when confronted with the CCTV proof of her kidnap, delayed Naomi's investigation by over two days. He needs to lose his job!
Sending love and positive energy to Naomi's family, beautiful people who raised a beautiful daughter they will forever be so very proud of.
25
-
24
-
@ljb8157 Gabby's van was pulled over by police not on any 'gut feeling' as you put it, but because a member of the public just called the licence plate in on 911 after witnessing Brian 'slapping and hitting' Gabby on the street. Therefore police had an independant witness report of the vehicle's male occupant having just committed the serious offence of domestic violence.
Yet at no point do the officers confront Brian over that credible and very serious allegation! Nor do they treat Gabby as a vulnerable victim in need of support, in either their verbal interactions with her or the actions they ultimately took. They treated her as perpetrator and him as victim, sending her off to drive her van alone (despite her clear distress and her stating she wasn't confident about driving it), to spend the night locked in it overnight as a lone female, while smug Brian got a cosy night in a hotel room. No wonder he looked so smug! Cops only succeeded in further isolating Gabby and making her more vulnerable to Brian's abusive control. Her murder by him less than 2 weeks later shows exactly how disastrously they called it!
Police should be trained to recognise the typical behaviours of domestic abuser and victim - Brian and Gabby's verbal and body language that day were actually textbook! Her obvious emotional distress and Brian's total indifference to it, tell the story only too clearly. But watching the bodycam, you get no sense that Brian is suspected of any crime against her - quite the opposite in fact, the cop falls over himself to tell him: "You're not in any trouble".
Why wasn't he in any trouble? A total stranger just called cops on him to say he'd been seen beating a female in public! Wouldn't you expect to be on the receiving end of some robust questioning, if you were the focus of a serious independent witness accusation like that?
Unbelievably, that officer accepted Gabby's self-blame and Brian's cool, 'I'm a great guy with a crazy girlfriend' schtick at face value. Law enforcement must use that damning bodycam footage as a future training tool for police, to show them how NOT to deal with a probable domestic abuse situation.
Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly male on female, and its murder victims are almost exclusively female. Of the two of them it was Gabby, not Brian, who was at potential risk of serious harm. The police have no excuses here - the crime statistics on domestic abuse are only too clear cut and unambiguous. They failed Gabby that day, and potentially missed a golden opportunity to save her life.
24
-
Most serial killers are created by their mothers??? What about their fathers, are they blameless? Huge numbers of serial killers had violent FATHERS or absent fathers and a series of violent, abusive father figures. Male abusers are usually the product of abusive males, not females! It's ridiculous misogyny to blame women for the men who murder women. This programme fails to mention that Daniel was most badly neglected by his biological FATHER, who no longer lived with him or gave him much time and attention. Instead, his father buys him an expensive computer that just allows him to view violent material that fuels his murder fantasies against his mother! There were plenty of clues this kid needed psychiatric help - defecating in his room was a HUGE clue, that is a classic sign of a disturbed child. This was the point at which his mother should have alerted his father that he needed psychiatric help. But she was in denial about her son's deteriorating mental health, and covered it up. Jackie clearly loved her son very much, but by protecting him from a mental health investigation, she unwittingly left herself vulnerable. His father should have played a more active role in parenting his disturbed child. Daniel will only be 30 if he is released on finishing his 16 year sentence - and he may even be freed sooner. I believe he will always be a danger to the public and specifically, to women. God forbid he is released from prison, given a new identity and dates women. Life should mean life in cases where males murder females and children, such men cannot be rehabilitated.
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
08:30 The photo of those sweet children hugging each other as their killer, evil Uncle Alex looks on smirking, really chills the blood. Hours later he murdered that lovely girl Tylee, who was more of a Mommy to her brother JJ than his own disgusting Ma Lori ever was.
It breaks my heart that little JJ must have missed Tylee very much, immediately. I bet he kept asking Lori where his sister was, his endless questions about Tylee likely drove her crazy. Plus the fact she was suddenly having to be a mother to him without Tylee around to help take care of him for her, as she always did.
Oh I bet Lori couldn't wait to summon her brother Alex aka 'The Family Hitman' back to her home late at night, to repeat his recent, obscene violence, against that defenceless little boy. She's no mother, never was!
Photos of the children tell the story - they are always hugging, they were each other's closest support. And when Tylee was so cruelly stolen from JJ and this world, it was only a matter of weeks before he too was destroyed by the evil lurking within his own family. Killed by the people who should have loved, cherished and protected them both. Sickening.
As Lori Vallow smiled in a flower garland, and her new husband Chad fooled around on a banjo at their beach wedding, her children's murdered bodies lay decomposing in squalid 'graves' on his land. May justice for all those scumbags' victims be swift and merciless!
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
It's disappointing that COURT TV never starts their reports with a few words of explanation about the context of the crime and the accused's alibi. In 2018 Ronnie O' Neal murdered his girlfriend and their 9 year old daughter and attempted to murder their 8 year old son (now aged 11), then set fire to the family home to destroy evidence.
O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend murdered the children, and he only killed her impulsively, out of self defence and rage that she had killed his kids. That's the oldest lie in the domestic abuser's handbook. Unluckily for him, one of the children survived to tell the true story!
The prosecution say the crime was premeditated first degree murder, and attempted murder, the worst level of homicide for which they are seeking the death penalty. That chump is literally fighting for his life.
He killed his 9 year old daughter with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck. He repeatedly stabbed his son in the stomach. He then attempted to shoot his girlfriend dead as she fled to a neighbour's home to get help. The gun jammed, so O' Neal beat her to death on the neighbour's front doorstep with the weapon, a long barrelled rifle. The beating was so brutal the gun broke into several pieces, which were recovered from the crime scene.
When emergency service arrived, the little boy staggered out of the burning house and collapsed. He was rushed to hospital by ambulance, and told medical crew en route that his father had killed his mother and sister and had stabbed him. His knife wounds were so severe, his intestines were hanging out.
A firefighter gave evidence and said he recovered the little girl's dead body from the burning house, where the floor was slippery with her blood. He carried her outside and laid her on the front lawn, and said her face was totally unrecognisable. He had hugged a male colleague, and wept.
I've heard that when O'Neal cross examined his son, the little boy told him: "You stabbed me in the stomach". I would have liked to have seen that. The child has been adopted by one of the detectives who investigated the murders. It's the first time he's lived in a family free of his father's abuse. O' Neal is trying to use this to his advantage, claiming the detective is coaching his son to frame him for the murders!
This scumbag had a documented history of domestic abuse, with many calls made to police by his girlfriend. He had recently fathered a baby with another woman. He is headed to death row. He's so clearly mentally unstable, as evidenced by the aggressive way he yelled his opening speech at the jury, I'm amazed the judge allowed him to represent himself. He doesn't appear to be restrained at all. I hope the judge doesn't regret her decision when he's declared guilty - I think his reaction could be explosive! I suggest all armed officers in the court keep a close eye on their weapon.
Making his son interact with the man who murdered his mother and sister and nearly killed him, is a travesty of justice. Who knows how badly that trauma could affect him? The law should be amended to protect child victims of serious crimes from this happening again. I' Neil's defense layer could and should have asked whatever questions he wanted asked - he should not have been allowed to address the child directly, even over Zoom.
23
-
23
-
@claudeyaz Yes, I tend to agree Grant has to be a psychopath and sadly his family failed to set down and maintain boundaries with him. That made him a dangerous psychopath. You are right, not all psychopaths become killers - some are successful captains of industry and the like. I believe the current theory is psychopaths are created by a combination of nature and nurture. The brains of psychopaths have been studied and they were found to be different. They have weaker neurological pathways to the areas controlling emotions like love, guilt, empathy etc. If a psychopath has a good, loving childhood with clear boundaries and good values, they can turn out decent members of society who do no harm. But a psychopathic brain, coupled with a poor childhood - ie one featuring abuse or, as in the case of Grant Amato, indulgence, can produce a dangerous individual.
The Amato family is a very interesting example for psychiatric study. I hope experts will make use of Grant while he spends the rest of his life in prison, and study his brain and learn more about his upbringing. By all accounts the father Chad was a strict disciplinarian, which suggests Grant was given boundaries. Why did he grow up to feel entitled to steal his father's $200k retirement fund, and then entitled to kill his family when they set down rules about continuing to live in their house?
As his surviving brother told him when he visited him in the police interrogation - they could have had him jailed for what he did. And now it's clear they made a big mistake in not doing so.
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
I'm amazed Louis Theroux is so in tune with his testicles, when he's so out of tune with his armpits. I've worked 'up close and personal' with Louis, and can testify he has the WORST, most eye-wateringly bad B.O. (that's body odour, for anyone not familiar with the term), of anyone I've ever worked with or even encountered on public transport, celebrity or non celebrity. Yes, that bad!
Louis Theroux's B.O. is of the most extreme type, the type that hits you full in the face like a powerful boxer's fist, as soon as they walk into the room you're in. It's so extreme, that everyone in close proximity with him wonders how he can possibly be unaware of it! There was inevitably lots of office debate on the subject.
Cancer is a totally random, terrible and often tragic accident of fate. B.O. is not. Louis has always had full control over his own personal hygiene, as do we all. So why didn't he take control of it? It's a very anti-social affliction. In his case, as I can vouch, it is extreme. I would wager as a cosseted celebrity, he's never been confronted by anyone over this issue.
I've worked with other, similarly B.O. afflicted celebs, among them ARMANDO IANNUCCI (Scottish satirist who stinks like a polecat), and SANJEEV BHASKAR (ditto - I once witnessed Amanda Holden deep in conversation with Sanjeev backstage at the London Palladium before a big TV awards show, smiling and nodding at his quips while presumably holding her breath, as did we all - he REEKED).
How do these men function in polite society, and not just function but THRIVE in the competitive field of television/media??? I have to say, I seriously doubt women would fare as well. Would the considerably smaller pool of famous female actors/comedians/entertainers have achieved their fame and fortune with similar pungent B.O.? I very much doubt it.
I've met Sanjeev's wife Meera Syal - no such personal hygiene problems with her (how on earth did she conceive a child with stinky Sanjeev? The mind boggles).
Before any dimwit tries to label me a racist for this post, I couldn't care less about anyone's ethnicity, place of birth, culture or geographical origins. I think personal hygiene is a matter of self respect, and respect for other people. We all know when we need a wash, we all know when we smell. And if we do not take action beyond that point, then we know we are offending other people's noses and yes, their quality of life. And that level of disrespect for others shows crazy arrogance!
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
I'm not psychic, but I see a lot of scary, bigger psychopaths in Chandler's future - and he's the scrawny, 'pretty-boy' type they go for. Biggest irony of this case is Chandler murdered the two people in the world who cared most for him, and would have been there for him in his darkest hour.
Who does he have to turn to for any kind of support now? His brother? I don't think so! He literally blew the family apart, Mitchell owes him nothing and deserves to get on with his life and forget the loser who murdered his loving Mom and Dad.
Ironically he will have a cash windfall of over $1 million to help him do that, as sole beneficiary of his parents' estate and life insurance, and I'm glad he does. I'm sure he'd much rather have his parents back, but they would be glad to know he has their money to rebuild his life with his fiance, and maybe some children who sadly will never get to meet their Grandma and Grandpa.
I doubt any of Chandler's relatives kept him on their Christmas card list. And who would want to be friends with him? A few creepy pen-friends maybe, big deal. Chandler would have been better off with the death penalty. I wish him a long and healthy life in his locked cage, thinking every day of the Mom and Dad who loved him as no one else ever will, and the brother he was so jealous of, who got to inherit all the family money. Chandler is the biggest loser of all time!
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
I worked in television for 20 years, an arena that attracts more than its fair share of narcissists, egomaniacs and sociopaths! The toxic bullying in that cockpit broke my heart, and was sadly familiar to me in my former work in television.
So often the last people who should be given power over others, are the very people who get it. And of course they pursued that power in order to abuse it, and those unfortunate enough to find themselves answerable to them and their vile, sadistic conduct.
My heart breaks for the first officer, whose last hours alive were gleefully made miserable by that monstrous Captain. No doubt he had a long history of workplace bullying. In his sixties, I believe his fragile ego was threatened by a younger man, so he enjoyed the chance to humiliate him to elevate his own status (in his mind, though in no one else's). It's no better than schoolyard bullying and it's totally unacceptable.
If only he had been reported before for such conduct, his career as a pilot could have ended - and all those people he killed with his vile conduct might still be alive.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
The Adelson's thought they were so special, and so much better than everyone else, they could literally kill a family member who became problematic to them, and they would get away with it. To believe you're so superior that even the law doesn't apply to you, is some rare level of narcissism and entitlement!
I sense Donna the family matriarch is the all-powerful spider at the centre of the family web. She was able to persuade her son Charlie, who enjoyed a great life as a wealthy dentist in the family firm, to arrange a murder that would get him locked up in prison for the rest of his days. That's some strong, and strongly dysfunctional, motherly influence!
Donna is estranged from her eldest son Rob Adelson, because she wouldn't respect his right as an adult to choose his own wife. Again that reflects a crazily controlling woman. The behaviour of her husband Harvey as she was arrested at the airport, indignant with police, tenderly holding her face and kissing her, then carefully removing her jewellery for safekeeping, again confirms her high status in that family. I believe Donna is a big league narcissistic abuser, who married a weak enabler in Harvey.
Harvey gave Donna the high status marriage and family life she demanded. I don't believe he has ever said no to her - even when, together with their son, she plotted the murder of a family member. The state has named Harvey Adelson as a conspirator in Dan's murder, he may be next to face a jury trial. To quote Donna's email to her daughter, Dan hasn't beaten the Adelson family yet - but he's sure getting there!
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@LourdesGzz Why do you deduce Chandler is a psychopath as opposed to a sociopath? In fact there are signs he is a sociopath, rather than a psychopath. Because he showed nervousness around the police, and would no doubt have failed a lie detector had one been performed. That nervousness points to a sociopath.
Psychopaths don't feel fear, so frequently pass polygraph tests when they are lying their heads off! Their brains are physically different to non psychopaths, and this is clearly visible on brain scans. The electrical impulses to the frontal portions of the brain controlling emotions like love, empathy and fear are weak in psychopaths.
So psychopaths are born, it's estimated around one in 10 people is somewhere on the psychopath spectrum. However not all will be dangerous or cruel. A psychopath who has a great childhood, with loving parents who set down boundaries and expectations of good behaviour and values, can become a loving and productive citizen.
Sociopaths are a more complex category, and frequently go hand-in-hand with personality disorders like Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This sounds more like Chandler to me. At 23 he had never had any kind of job. Why not? Most teens get a Saturday job flipping burgers or pumping gas, just for beer money. Seems Chandler thought such menial work was beneath him. His choices indicate huge narcissism and entitlement, culminating in him feeling entitled to kill his parents when they presented a threat to his easy life.
19
-
19
-
@Lynne011000 50% of marriages fail. And this was an arranged marriage, so the odds against it working were even higher.
Charles did not make Diana happy and vice versa - thank God they lived in an age where they could divorce, and weren't forced to stay together for appearance's sake! Don't you think that would be much worse?
Diana was a young woman when they divorced. She had wealth, VIP status and every chance to meet a man who did suit her and be happy. So why was she so bitter and twisted against the father of her children, hell bent on crucifying him in the press and hurting her own sons as a result?
She was unhinged, manipulative and as vindictive as hell. I don't care about Charles one way or the other, but he was no womaniser, and I believe went into the marriage to Diana in good faith, hoping for the best. I do not believe he saw Camilla romantically until the marriage had broken down. And let's not forget, Diana was never pining over him - the many affairs she had with unsuitable and married men proved that!
Most women come out of divorce really suffering, emotionally, financially and in practical terms. Diana did not! But she exploited the split for her own image, declaring war on her husband and presenting herself as a victim in classic narcissist style. Diana was never a victim, until she picked terrible company in the Al Fayeds, and failed to fasten her seat belt. Then she made herself one!
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
There really isn't much worse you can do to a person than lock them up - except lock them up with no hope of release, ever. That is Lucy Letby's bleak future, aged just 33 (and she already spent the last 3 years in prison).
Letby had a charmed life, and was the envy of many, before she decided to play God with other people's babies. She was young and healthy, with a well paid, high status professional job she loved, a good salary, a nice house she'd just bought, her own car and a great lifestyle.
She had proud parents who doted on their only child so much, they announced her milestones in the local paper (graduating, turning 21 etc). She still went on holiday with them to Devon every year. Apart from a married, 17-years-older doctor she was infatuated with, there's no evidence the oddly immature Letby had ever had a boyfriend.
When the hospital realised she was likely the cause of the rocketing infant mortality rate, and shifted her sideways to a clerical job, Letby had the cheek to make an official complaint. She arrived at the hearing with her parents - a 26-year-old woman, sitting there like a child while her father read out her grievance letter, and angrily threatened to report the consultants who'd dared suspect his daughter, to the General Medical Council. Unfortunately for Lucy, her protective parents couldn't save her from the consequences of her killing spree.
Letby had a wide circle of friends and enjoyed a great social life, with regular nights out and holidays abroad. Many of those friends still refuse to believe she's guilty - but the truth will dawn on them, along with the guilty verdict.
Letby was so popular, many of her pals had made her Godmother to their children - children she's no longer allowed to have any contact with by law, due to her vile crimes. That role is effectively gone, along with every other pleasure and privilege she once took for granted.
Imagine knowing you will never again leave the UK - that every dream you had to one day get on a plane or boat and see America/Egypt/Venice/Paris wherever, experience glamping, a cruise or see the Northern lights, can now never be.
Imagine knowing you'll never visit your family or friends' homes again. That you'll only ever see your relatives or pals if they come to visit you, inside cold prison walls, among impersonal prison staff and the cold protocols of maximum security that you and your fellow prisoners must forever be guarded by.
You'll never again go for dinner at a restaurant, have a drink at a pub, meet friends/neighbours for coffee or barbecues, go Christmas shopping/see the Christmas lights, own a pet, drive a car, attend a wedding, all the million and one small pleasures of a life of freedom, all gone, forevermore.
In her own, handwritten notes, Letby once expressed the fear she would never marry or have a family of her own - a self-fulfilling prophesy she guaranteed for herself, by destroying other people's families. There will be no engagement for Lucy, no hen night, no wedding dress shopping, no walking up the aisle on her proud father's arm, no honeymoon - and of course, no pregnancies or motherhood. All future milestone she and her parents had hoped for, are dead in the water.
Lucy Letby's parents had her late in life. They're getting on and won't be around forever. They'll be her lifeline now, as her loyal friends fall away, one by one, and her years in custody stack up. Will anyone but her mum and dad ever visit her in jail? Her poor parents - two more lives she's ruined. They moved to Manchester to attend every day of her murder trial, in solidarity. No doubt they will now move again, to be close to her prison.
And that's their family life, until they die. Prison phone calls, and visits. A whole life tariff for them too. No wonder they refuse to believe she committed these horrific crimes. Even the delusion of a terrible miscarriage of justice, is better than the truth - their only child, their much-loved, pretty blonde daughter, is a serial killer of babies, and will die in prison - probably long after them. The longed-for child they thought was such a blessing, turned out to be a curse.
Imagine being in Lucy Letby's shoes right now. How far away and glamorous her life of just a few years ago must seem to her, now she's got nothing to look forward to but that pokey little room with its grim metal bed. The highlight of her day could be a visit to a tiny 'library', or the equivalent of a musty charity shop, to buy other people's cast-off clothes - when she has nowhere to wear them, except inside those four walls.
And let's not forget why Letby is in that prison, with a rare, whole life tariff. She may look - and indeed be - a meek, timid little middle-class blonde. But she's also a ruthless, sadistic serial killer of fragile newborn and premature babies. There's a target on her back. Most of her fellow prisoners, who didn't enjoy her many life advantages, would just love to make a name for themselves by doing her serious physical harm. She won't be popular for many reasons - not least that she's a narcissist, who no doubt believes she shouldn't be there and is way better than all the other women. Her arrogance won't serve her well.
Lucy Letby is a cowardly baby killer, locked up with some very violent, hard-faced females. When solitary confinement is your best option, the future is as grim as it gets.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@traceyjoy7554 That's a laugh anyway, CW didn't provide shit - he didn't own any property when he got together with Shanann, SHE did. It was thanks to her not him, that they were able to buy that big, brand new house that impressed his mistress so much. And Shanann had to work a hard sales job while raising two pre-school kids, because her husband's salary alone would not keep them.
How ironic that Shanann picked up a dorky, fat mechanic, married him, helped him lose weight, gave him a glamorous new lifestyle as husband & father to two cute little girls, a big house and a wardrobe of designer labels - and then she put him on social media and unwittingly made the loser look eligible to Nichole Kessenger! When he stalked Shanann on Facebook & persuaded her to date him, Chris Watts was just a fat mechanic living in his parents' basement. I doubt NK would have looked twice at him then! How tragic that Shanann did, she was always way to good for him.
19
-
It couldn't get any harder - 4 years on, and police haven't even found a person of interest, much less arrested anyone! Sadly Libby's video footage of the killer hasn't helped cops identify him, they are as clueless in 2021 as they were at the start.
18 months ago, lead cop Supt Doug Carter said police were "one piece away" from solving it, yet there's been no break since. He's the idiot who played mind games with the murderer at a press conference, saying he was probably in the same room, "You want to know what we know, and some day you will", etc etc.
Libby was a fantastic, courageous little girl, whose detective work on the case puts the Keystone Cops to shame. Thanks to their incompetence (putting out two, wildly different pictures of the suspect, among other mistakes), the case has gone cold and a dangerous child killer is still loose. Tragically, the Delphi murderer will only be caught when he kills again.
19
-
@qvaken8142 YES, THIS! It makes me sick & livid that the "she was a terrible wife" crap is stated as fact. WAKE UP, HE was the crazy mamipulative 1, she was a sweet & faithful wife, 4ever praisig him publicly 4 the little favrs he did her & HIS kids, as if he was really special - WTF he was a DAD, that's what dads are at every day, it is the usual way if they are warm & luv their family! She gushed like that & praised him because she was well aware he expected - heck, he demamded it! "My hubby cut the grass 2day" with a pic as evidece - WUP DE DUP - Give the guy a medal!
Chris Watts still lies shamelessly, that he is this great, passive guy, a perfect hubby & dad, & that he did the 3 murders impulsively because his wife's threat 2 take his kids - the kids he murdered BTW!
Its all bullshit - the 3 murders were calmly premeditated & executed, as was the dump site he selected as we see with the kids dispsal he had 2 have recce'ed the site ahead 2 be clear the deceased girls wd fit thru the VERY small hatches. The gullible believe his 'Mr Passive' act - all his adult life he wears a fake mask. That mask came away with the murders & revealed his true ugly character, yet the gullible still accept the mask at face value! Crazy.
19
-
18
-
18
-
What did George expect? Not only was he a global superstar having sex with strangers in public places, he had never come out as gay, but was firmly hiding in the closet throughout those high-risk gay encounters.
He was bound to be found out sooner or later, and when he was, it was bound to be a huge media story, due to the fact he'd been living a lie all his life, pretending to be straight! As the saying goes 'It's not the crime that gets you - it's the cover-up'.
Sadly George was not much of a gay advocate - as his friend Elton John, among others, have pointed out. Why on earth didn't he come out as gay of his own accord? He could have been such a great role model for gay people. It's not like it was the 1960s when homosexuality was illegal, and stars like Rock Hudson and Liberace had to hide their true selves or literally have their life and career ended. George Michael had no excuse for staying silent, and actively posing as a straight man, 'lusting' after supermodels in his music videos, and conducting fake, unconsummated affairs with women in his real life, while hiding his intimate relationships with men. Why?
He was hugely talented, with a fiercely loyal fan-base. He could have weathered the storm if he'd come out - indeed, he would undoubtedly have won himself more fans for his bravery. Instead he stayed silent, and the inevitable happened, the opportunity to come out was forever lost, because his public 'cruising' allowed the media to out him.
The real reason he's so angry with journalists, is that they outed him as gay - but obviously it was only a matter of time, because he was not being discreet about his sexuality (far from it), and bizarrely, he had not come out himself.
In truth he's holding a lot of anger against himself here, because it must have been very clear to him how badly he'd mishandled the whole thing for years. This interview is full of fake posturing and disingenuous claims of 'homophobia'. Utter garbage - if George Michael was caught 'dogging' with women on Hampstead Heath, it would be a huge media story. Any celebrity having sex in public, whatever their sexuality, would attract publicity!
But George added massive fuel to the fire, by pretending to be straight for his entire career, before his arrest in a gents toilet. The public did not know he was gay - and that obviously made it a far bigger story. Hypocrisy and being caught in lies, is meat and drink to the news media, and in that regard George Michael was undoubtedly guilty as charged!
One of the primary functions of a free press in a democracy, is to expose hypocrisy among the powerful. They fulfilled this very important brief with aplomb, with George Michael. There are many innocent victims of gutter journalism, but George Michael is not one of them. Frankly he got everything he deserved.
18
-
18
-
18
-
Narcissistic abusers are very smart. Amber Heard set her sights on Depp as a trophy partner who could further her acting career. He was the perfect victim for her - a mega rich and powerful movie star, who as a survivor of childhood abuse, was a major Empath. That meant when he encountered abusive, domineering women like his mother, he responded the same way he always had - with passive, non-resistance. Amber Heard will have tested his boundaries early on and discovered to her delight, he would be very easy to dominate and manipulate.
When they met Heard was in a relationship with a woman (she's a lesbian who was never into him). The relationship was marred by Heard's domestic abuse, and probably nearing its end (she spent a night in police cells for one physical assault on that woman in an airport). Depp was 14 years into his marriage to Vanessa Paradis.
Heard 'love bombed' Depp in the early stages, as narcissistic abusers do. She flattered him, slept with him and told him she loved him early on, and basically swept him off his feet. This is how they gain control over their intended victim. And once they've hooked the victim with all this good stuff and got them committed, the mask falls off and they begin the 'de-valuing stage', telling the victim they're nothing special, not good enough for them, insulting them, gas-lighting them, and in worst cases like this one, physically attacking them too.
By that time the victim is so in love with the abuser they blame themselves for the mistreatment and anger they're on the receiving end of. They are brainwashed into believing it's their fault, and they must do better to re-gain the loving, attentive partner the abuser once was. But that loving, attentive partner never existed - it was only ever an act. The abuser is the real person, and the sooner the victim realises that terrible truth and gets out, the safer they will be.
I hope Johnny Depp commits to long term psychotherapy, to address the demons that allowed him to tolerate Amber Heard's serious abuse for so long. We learned through the court case, he had allowed her sister and many of her friends to abuse his kind nature too, moving them rent-free into neighbouring penthouse apartments (that alone showed he was no abuser as Heard claimed, as abusers isolate victims from their friends & support networks, they don't invite them to live next door!)
Depp is said to have many hangers-on he thinks are friends, who he's given cash, homes and cars to, believing every hard luck story brought to him. He's naively trusted untrustworthy people to have free access to his homes. These people are parasites who have literally stolen from him - cash, jewellery, even his clothes. A few years ago this same legal team who represented him against Heard helped his sue a business manager who siphoned millions of dollars from him, without his knowledge.
It's said many of Depp's supposed friends deliberately keep him drunk and drugged to facilitate their thefts from him. Abusers come in many guises, not only partners - now he's kicked the toxic ex-wife to the kerb with this court case, I hope he'll take a long hard look at the other people in his life who benefit from his patronage, and clear out the rest of the trash.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
Yes, it's especially sad he didn't listen to his older sister Christi Dembrowski, who he's always been close to and who works for him, he generally respects her judgement. She was very worried about his relationship with Amber Heard - she could see she was mentally unstable and abusive. When he told Christi they were getting married she asked him not to rush into it. But sadly he allowed himself to be rushed by Heard - and no wonder she rushed him, she didn't want to leave time for a pre-nup!
And in the absence of a pre-nup, Heard was confident she could blackmail Depp into a massive divorce settlement when they (inevitably) split, by falsely alleging he beat her up. He walked right into that trap. Her divorce lawyers' early letters to him are blatant blackmail demands, basically saying "give our client multiple millions of dollars, plus three penthouse apartments and the top-of-the-range Range Rover she drives, and she won't go to the media with outrageous negative stories about you". And she pretends she's not a gold digger - she's the worst kind of gold digger!
Depp was stupid to get entangled with such a woman, but people who understand the cycle of narcissistic abuse recognise this doomed relationship was a textbook example. As a survivor of childhood narcissistic abuse by his mother, Depp was the perfect victim for another female narcissistic abuser to target him as an adult. Amber Heard was that narcissistic abuser. When they met, he was in a failing, 14 year marriage to Vanessa Paradis. They would almost certainly have split soon, regardless of Heard. The point is, he was ripe to fall in love with another women.
Heard was in a relationship with a woman (surprise surprise - she's a lesbian, which should have been another red flag for Johnny), and that same-sex relationship was also in trouble. Heard's violent domestic abuse was a serious issue (as we heard in court, it once landed her in police cells for a night, when she had one of her rages and hit her girlfriend in an airport). Heard saw that global superstar Depp could further her acting ambitions, and set about seducing him with flattery, sex and all the good stuff that happens when narcissistic abusers 'love bomb' their victim in the first stages of the relationship. That's how they ensnare the victim, and get power over them.
Once they've hooked the victim, their mask comes off and the abuse begins. And by that time, the victim is in love with their abuser and blames themselves for upsetting them - aided by their gas-lighting and brain washing of course. They feel if only they could keep the abuser happy, they'd go back to being the wonderful partner they were at the start of the relationship, during the 'love bombing' phase. But of course that wonderful partner never existed. The real person is the abuser, and always will be.
As a kid he would rub his mom's feet when she came home tired and bad-tempered from working as a waitress, and in the same way he'd try to placate Amber and calm her rages with love. But it never works - these abusers are a bottomless pit, and nothing the victim says or does for them is ever enough to win their love or approval.
I'm just glad Johnny Depp escaped that toxic relationship with his life, and I believe the only reason he did is he flew to Europe right after telling her the marriage was over. If he'd stayed anywhere near her after rejecting her, I'm of the view she may have literally killed him. Narcissistic abusers as extreme as her won't accept rejection. When the victim rejects them by telling them they no longer want to be with them, their violence can escalate to murder. With Johnny out of the country, an enraged Amber Heard could not physically attack him. So instead she launched divorce proceedings and took out a restraining order to support false claims he beat her up. That was how she took her power back, and was the start of her cruel vendetta against him for daring to end their marriage.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@janaviisharma3045 Who's ranting? I'm just sharing some facts about Diana, who deluded fans like you present as an angel. She was far from that - she was a vain, vacuous, supremely manipulative and self-serving covert narcissist. And she was a hypocrite, sleeping around with many men (some of them married), while crucifying Camilla for doing something she couldn't - loving Charles. Camilla wasn't perfect, who is? But she certainly wasn't the villain Diana made out.
Diana didn't want Charles, she made that perfectly clear on their joint public appearances from the late '80s when she made her boredom with him obvious. She just didn't want him to be happy with anyone else. Then she declared war on him in the press, determined to paint herself as some sort of victim, in classic narcissist style. What a joke! Diana was no victim, she lived a life of unimaginable privilege thanks to the royal family. What did she have to be so bitter and twisted about?
The former Lady Diana Spencer came from blue blooded aristocracy, with links to the royal family going back generations (the Queen attended her parents' wedding, and was Godmother to her younger brother Charles). She went into the marriage with her eyes wide open, and firmly fixed on the privilege, prestige and superstar status it would bring her. And she got all of that, in abundance - she was very spoiled. The marriage failed - as arranged marriages frequently do. So what? Divorce is not a tragedy, as she pretended! She got two wonderful children out of it, plus a Kensington Palace home, senior royal VIP status as Princess of Wales, £17 million in the bank and a team of servants for life. Charles was very generous to her.
Most women face real hardships on their divorce. Diana did not, she was set up for life, and had no reason for her self pity! It's only ironic she threw away the wonderful gifts her royal marriage gave her, when she chose to sleep with coke-addicted playboy Dodi of the shady Al Fayed family, and failed to wear her seat belt, as every parent of dependent children should. Diana's premature death at 36 is a cautionary tale - if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
If you want to continue to buy into Diana's self-created myth and believe in fairies and unicorns, that's up to you. I know better and am compelled to share the facts here, whether you like them or not!
17
-
17
-
Wendi's wide-eyed innocent act on the witness stand has grown old - she's as guilty as sin. Yes, her ex husband, the father of her children, would be alive today if she wanted him that way. She 100% knew about the murder plot, and she fully endorsed it. Had she at any time told her family: "No, not this way - I can't have my kids grow up fatherless", it would not have progressed to completion.
The case against Wendi is primarily circumstantial, because as the only daughter and family princess, her mother and brother protected her, and kept her at arm's length from the grubby, murder for hire arrangements. But I believe it is a powerful circumstantial case that, with a well-prepared prosecution team, could convince a jury of Wendi's guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. And let's face it, they will have to bring their A-game to nail Wendi, because not only is she an attorney, she will hire the best defence team her murdered husband's money can buy!
I'm intrigued that cracks are appearing in the relationship between Wendi and her family, since brother Charlie's murder conviction and life sentence, and mom Donna's arrest and prosecution. Are her brother and mother enraged that she's keeping her distance from them in her own self-interest, while they take the fall for the murder they arranged for her benefit? Is it now possible they could decide to take her down with them?
Interesting too that prosecutors are meeting with an old girlfriend of Wendi's (I guess we can safely assume they are no longer pals!) This confirms that even as they prepare for Donna Adelson's imminent murder trial, prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to secure daughter Wendi's scalp too. And what of family patriarch Harvey Adelson, like Wendi named by the state as a murder conspirator? Could he too face a jury trial? This show is going to run and run!
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I was fascinated by his family, they were so very ordinary and respectable - there are millions of hard working, loving parents like them who want the best for their kids. How did their eldest child turn out to be so dysfunctional?
Garcia's behaviour was disturbing from his very first job, and got him fired from both that and his second medical position. As the lady doctor recalled - he was a bad guy, and a bad employee. I was shocked at the report of his inappropriate, disrespectful behaviour toward a dead body. And this is a man who aspires to work with the public as a doctor, a position of trust around vulnerable patients. He was clearly totally unsuited to the career he chose!
Did his parents fail to teach him about respect for other people, and boundaries for acceptable behaviour? Was he ever told 'No' in his formative years, and put in his place if he overstepped the mark with other people? This is generally how we are successfully socialised, and develop into decent human beings who live good lives.
No mention of any girlfriends - Garcia was an oddball and I would love some clues on how he turned out that way. The 'prank' with the dead body, and his inappropriate conduct around work colleagues makes me suspect some kind of autism. That however does not explain his subsequent killings - obviously most autistic people are not murderers.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
3:06 The first images we've ever seen of Richard Allen pursuing Abby on the bridge. Chilling. Let the dumb conspiracy theorists finally shut up - he did it! Within days of the crime, Allen admitted he was there on the bridge, on the right date and time, and he even admitted he was wearing the exact same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'.
When he was finally caught years later (thanks to a sub-standard police investigation), he confessed to murdering Abby and Libby. He wasn't tortured, threatened or coerced in any way. He CONFESSED. He IS Bridge Guy. How much more evidence of his obvious guilt do some people want???
Richard Allen is a highly dangerous sex killer, and no child - or woman - would be safe, were he ever to be released. The police ineptitude in holding back so much information from the public who could have identified him - including this video - only fulled the irresponsible conspiracy theorists, and muddied the waters. Thankfully the guilty man was eventually caught and jailed, despite the incompetence of Supt Doug Carter and co.
Let Abby and Libby's loved ones get on with their lives, holding them safe in their hearts, knowing their precious girls' murderer can never harm another child.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Agreed, very smart deduction. The only thing we can be sure of, is that Chris Watts has not yet told the whole truth about that night, and he never will. But unfortunately I believe we'll hear more of his murder stories before he dies.
All three versions he has told to date have been self serving in various respects. I will never believe he did not kill all three victims inside the house behind 4 walls, like almost every other cowardly family annihilator. The driveway video shows him taking three dead, not live victims to his truck IMO.
Shanann's father Frank was right in his courtroom victim impact statement when he told Watts: "I watched you carry them out like trash". At no point did CW or his team contradict a word of the prosecution's assertion he killed them all inside the family home.
There is no logical reason for CW to delay the children's murders as he claims. Indeed there's much more reason to believe he killed Bella and Cece first, before Shanann got home. He couldn't stand 'Those girls', as he kept calling them in horrible, distancing language. I think he was excited about his long-held 'D-Day' coming round and probably wanted to 'start the ball rolling', suffocating them on their mattresses soon after putting them to bed.
It would explain why Shanann said he sounded 'annoyed' when she told him of her very inconvenient, 3 hour flight delay - it was too late for him to postpone the mission and do it when he had more time, because he'd already killed the children.
And why did he tell his mistress in that late night, 111 minute call, that he'd washed his little girls' sheets, and that they "Stank"? It's suspicious he was laundering their bedclothes before Shanann came home. Did Bella, who'd suffered a violent struggle, and didn't wear nappies, defecate as she died?
16
-
Smoking guns implicating Merritt are clear in the days before the murder. Computer activity 2 days before, showing that 'someone' repeatedly logged onto Joseph McStay's business account and wrote two large cheques to Charles Merritt that were printed and then deleted.
The cellphone and computer evidence on the actual day of the murders SCREAM that he did it. Joseph McStay calls his bank, then logs quickly onto his business accounts, does not see the cheque that he knows was just cashed (because Merritt had deleted it), so calls the bank again to query it...
Cellphone records then pick up the story - Joseph McStay's repeated calls to Merritt, one after the other. These were not friendly social calls! The Merritt's frenzy of calls to his wife afterwards - he's desperate to talk to her, he's freaking out because McStay is onto him and his theft! McStay and Merritt's final phone conversation happens at 5.48pm, after which Merritt's phone goes off the grid - ie he switches it off - until 9.32pm when he switches it back on to call his wife. No prizes for guessing what Merritt was doing between 5.48pm and 9.32pm - making a home visit to his business partner Joseph McStay that was anything but friendly.
After that phone call to his wife, Merritt's phone is switched off again until 7.30am the next morning.
It's clear the family all lay dead in their home by 7.56pm - because at this time their killer Merritt signed into Joseph McStay's home computer and wrote himself another cheque for $4,000 dollars.
On Friday 5th Feb, the day after the murders, 4 more cheques are created, printed and deleted, none from the McStay's home computer, and all are backdated to Feb 4th 2010, the last day the McStay's were alive. One cheque to Merritt for £2,350 is deposited. Merritt's cellphone is switched off from 3.54pm to 9.17pm.
This kind of evidence can be every bit as powerful as Dna - the guy as as guilty as sin and he deserves the death penalty. I personally hope he lives a long and miserable life behind bars, fearing death every single day. To bludgeon 4 family members to death in front of each other, two of them children - with money as the motive - is as evil as sociopaths get.
16
-
16
-
Fantastic podcast Dr Phil! Your rare eloquence and the ease with which you engage with your audience to explain these concepts is utterly fascinating. I feel I am getting a top drawer university course on Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the world's top psychologist. These videos are pure gold - thank you!
And what valuable work you are doing, spreading the word about these dangerous individuals. Knowledge is power, and the more people can know about their M.O., the better their chance of recognising and surviving them.
In my experience the most dangerous category of narcissist by far is the Covert narc. Because they can be scarily skilled at hiding their toxic, ruthlessly self-serving narcissism behind a veneer of gentle, even vulnerable charm. Family annihilator Chris Watts springs to mind. A compulsive liar from childhood, over the years he learned to hide his ruthlessly self-serving nature behind the mask of a gentle, passive family man. He even had his wife of seven years fooled - Shanann didn't realise he was dangerous until he was strangling her to death. Friends who found out Watts had murdered his pregnant wife and two little girls were in total disbelief. One summed up their reactions, uttering the phrase: "He wouldn't hurt a fly!"
A few Covert narcs have got my guard down over the years, and hurt me badly. The Malignant narcs are vicious, but they're so overt you can spot them a mile away and take evasive action!
16
-
16
-
Same motive it always is with abusive excuses for men like him - power. He couldn't take the fact his wife didn't want to be with him anymore - she finished their relationship, as she was fully entitled to do. But he wouldn't take no for an answer, and kept harassing her. He also did that weasel thing of playing the victim and manipulating their kids to take his side against her.
She had to take out a restraining order through the courts, to stop him stalking her, and make him see she didn't want him in her life. She had a new partner too - it was 100% clear she meant it! But the creep was so possessive he wouldn't respect her right to reject him. He set about brainwashing their children to feel sorry for him, and got them to help him to kidnap her from her bed in the middle of the night. The poor woman must have been absolutely terrified!
He made the kids accessories to his vile crime - if he'd killed her, as he came very close to doing, more than once, they'd have been accessories to their Mom's murder. After what he put them all through, imagine how messed up those children are going to be about intimate relationships, when they're adults?
16
-
16
-
Yes, Ronnie O' Neal is a complete psychopath - he's also a narcissist at the extreme end of the scale, and they are very skilled at seducing women and persuading them they are everything she's looking for in a man, to get their claws in and gain control of her.
It's called the early 'love bombing' phase of what will inevitably become an abusive relationship - and possibly, as in this case, a domestic murder. The 'love bombing' consists of telling the woman "I love you" first and frequently, and pushing for a commitment very early on. This pressure to secure the woman's exclusivity is often accompanied by traditional 'romantic' gestures like flowers and gifts. Sadly, even smart, highly eligible women are often taken in by this kind of attentive, enthusiastic behaviour, are flattered by it and comply with the abusive man's wishes to tie them down in some way - little knowing what the future has in store.
The 'love bombing' phase will last for as long as it takes for him to hook the woman into some sort of commitment to him - eg living together, having his baby, getting engaged or married to him.
Once the narcissist has the woman under his command, the control and abuse begins, and she starts to see a totally different man emerge! I'm convinced greater education in schools about respectful, adult relationships, and teaching kids to recognise 'The Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse' and its red flags, would play a small but significant part in reducing future incidents of domestic violence.
Knowledge is power - give women the tools to recognise when a man is not good for her, and the support to escape him with her children, if needs be. In the UK there are far too few domestic violence shelters for women and children, and now that so many have surrendered to toxic trans activism and allowed male bodied 'trans women' shelter, safe, man-free refuges for women and kids are becoming even more scarce.
Meanwhile, so many boys today are sadly fatherless, and grow up without a positive male role model. I make no excuses for men who become abusers. But how less likely that outcome would be, had they been raised by a loving, non-abusive father, who they witnessed treating their mom and all females with respect.
Ronnie O' Neal's inflated ego and crazy grandiosity was clear during his trial, when his grandstanding, shouty performance defending himself, gave jurors a glimpse of what his victims had suffered at his hands. Put simply, Ronnie O' Neal is a bully, and all bullies are cowards. In addition, he's a little guy. It's one thing for him to murder a defenceless woman and children - but how will he hold up against men much bigger and tougher than him? The kind of hardened criminals who don't like wife and child killers? I don't envy him his future! He'll have a hellish time in prison - in my view it's highly questionable he'll survive it for long.
I'm not sure wife and child killer O' Neal should have been allowed to further insult the victims' loved ones by telling them he wasn't sorry, and repeating his lies that he didn't murder them in cold blood. Haven't those poor grieving people suffered enough? The spectacle of him cross examining the son he tried to murder aged 8 was appalling and unjust enough!
If that scumbag O' Neal had his way, his little boy would also be dead now, like his mom and sister. By a miracle, Ronnie Jr survived his vicious father stabbing and setting fire to him. The boy has now been adopted by a police officer and his wife, and has settled well with them. He was incredibly courageous as he had to face his evil father via a live link to the court room. Watching at home we couldn't see his face, only his small, burn-scarred hands, and we could hear his soft, well spoken and polite replies to questions put to him by his would be killer.I will never forget the moment when Ronnie O' Neal asked his son "Who stabbed you?" And after hesitating for a moment, Ronnie Jr bravely replied: "You did".
I'm glad O' Neal had to hear the victims tell him exactly what they thought of him. And I'm very glad he had to sit there and hear the judge dismiss his bullshit account of his daughter's brutal axe murder He can lie all he likes, he knows he did it, we know he did it - and his fellow prisoners sure as hell know he did it too! Good luck Ronnie, I've a feeling you'll be entering Hell much sooner than you anticipated!
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@bliss4383 100% right, Robert Wagner's version of events on the boat that night simply isn't credible, and his conduct since his wife's death - including refusing to submit to police interviews - strongly suggests guilt.
I think after 9 years Natalie was heartily sick of Wagner's controlling ways and jealous rages like embarrassing her in front of her co-star, Oscar-winner Christopher Walken. I believe she had made comments to RJ about divorce, and he wasn't going to let her leave the marriage alive. It's the classic 'If I can't have you, no one else can'.
Poor Natalie made the mistake so many abuse victims make, she didn't get herself away to a safe location before leaving/threatening to leave him. He was then able to stop her rejecting him, by inflicting the cruellest death imaginable on her. The bruises on her face and body tell an ugly story. How he could push her into the sea at night, knowing how terrified of dark water she was, abandon her to her lonely fate and sit drinking whisky for over an hour before raising the alarm, I do not know. Robert Wagner doesn't have a heart - he has a swinging brick! It's sickening he got away with killing his wife, just because he's a celebrity.
16
-
16
-
16
-
Al Stauch was too busy pursuing a workplace affair with a married female military colleague called Linda (and exploiting his toxic wife Letecia as an unpaid child minder to allow him to do it), to notice poor Gannon was being heinously bullied and abused by her.
If Al had only prioritised his two vulnerable children's health and happiness over his sex life, he would have realised Letecia was making his little boy's life a misery, and kicked her out. Divorce was obviously on the cards, after 5 years, the marriage had clearly failed (hence Al's affair).
Letecia was angry at his lack of attention - and took out her rage on his son. Divorcing that evil woman would have been easy - Al didn't even have any kids with her, so there would have been no custody battles or child maintenance payments. If he had only served divorce papers and got Letecia out of the marital home and away from his children as he should have done, Gannon would be alive today.
Ironically, Al's affair with the married woman ended, once Gannon's murder came to light. Soon afterwards, he would meet another woman (who had also lost a child), through a bereavement support group, marry her and conceive another son.
Let's hope that innocent little boy gets a better deal from Al Stauch and his current woman, than his persecuted, abused and viciously murdered half-brother did. .
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@emileelovsyapping Totally agree, it's a despicable thing to wish Yoko dead. Whatever people think of Yoko the fact is John loved her very much, and she made him happy. I believe that love was mutual and would have endured. You only had to see photos taken of Yoko by a paparazzi as she left the rear exit of the hospital after being told he had died, to know she was devastated.
They were a compatible and loving couple, a contented family with their 5 year old son Sean. If people are genuine fans of John, they should be thankful to Yoko that she gave him joy in his private life, and he was undoubtedly happy, settled and optimistic when his life was stolen from him.
'It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive', as the saying goes. John Lennon's last day on Earth was a happy one, spend with the woman he loved. They had breakfast together in a favourite cafe, then went to work together at the recording studio. John was excited about the 1980s and had every reason to believe he'd be here to enjoy that decade and beyond with his loving wife by his side. John's murder was a tragedy, but one that thankfully he knew about for only moments before he lost consciousness. Prior to the gunshots he was living a happy and fulfilled life, with the love and support of his beloved wife, and I for one will always be grateful to Yoko for that.
15
-
Yes, this was a targeted assassination, possibly by a killer for hire. Churches are rarely burgled, and nothing was stolen anyway - that killer was wandering about smashing a few windows as practice, psyching him/herself up before the target, Missy arrives. The suspect knew they had to kill her quickly and flee, because her exercise class members were due imminently.
The car seen acting suspiciously in neighbouring car parks 2 hours prior to the murder has to be connected. The driver kept turning their headlights off so their licence plate couldn't be read by the security cameras - it was obviously the killer lurking. He/she got there in plenty of time to kill Missy.
Police have let this high profile case go cold - it's coming up for 7 years since poor Missy was murdered. Appalling she has not had justice. I have to suspect her husband is behind it - they had marital issues, infidelity and debt, the classic background for domestic murder. And I believe he benefited from a big life insurance policy on his wife.
The fact both her husband and his father were out of town at the time of the murder is in itself suspicious - they were setting up alibis, as they knew they'd be suspects. The husband may have paid someone to do it, but was smart and made sure police couldn't find any trail to that, eg evidence of a big payment. I pray it will soon be solved - whoever did this to a lone, defenceless woman is highly dangerous and could well kill again. They belong in a locked cage for the rest of their life.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@Olo Lasinski Thanks for your response, and first off I must say your written English is excellent!
As an experienced British news journalist I've a good grasp of how police murder investigations are run in the UK. But I'm not so well acquainted with the US system or critically, the personalities and hierarchies behind this notorious (and now historic), Delphi double child homicide investigation. I suspect internal systems, personalities and politics are key to understanding the failed, five year investigation into the Delphi murders. It may be many years before those issues are exposed to public scrutiny - if they ever are!
The first observation I'll share is that Supt Carter was appointed head of Indiana State police back in 2012, so is about to mark 10 years in the job. From the research I've been able to do online, he got his boots under the desk, not on the ground, and hasn't set the world on fire in the role. It seems to me his style is to keep his head down, not rock the boat, and not take any decisive or left-field actions that might attract attention and potentially criticism. In short, he's a plodder, enjoying the cash and kudos attached to his role, without getting his hands dirty. Does that indicate good leadership? I would argue not.
The other important thing to stress as I've previously mentioned, is his inexperience as a homicide detective. He was previously Supt in Hamilton Ohio, which has well below the national average rate of violent crime. Before that he was a state trooper. This man strikes me as a law enforcement officer first and a detective second. Compare his style with that of fellow law enforcement figurehead Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a man so straight he even criticised fellow officers over their mishandling of killer Brian Laundrie in the murder of Gabby Petiro. See my point? Sheriff Judd's style is very different - he goes after perpetrators all guns blazing, and isn't too proud to ask for the public's help to catch them!
Supt Carter's policy from February 14th 2017 when Libby and Abby's bodies were first recovered, was to hold his cards so close to his chest they were practically super-glued down. I'm well aware police must hold back many details of a crime for operation reasons (cranks coming forward with bogus confessions etc). But the amount of information Carter kept out of the public domain was in my 20 + years experience reporting on serious crimes, unprecedented and unjustifiable.
What possible purpose did sitting on Libby German's video of the suspect for TWO YEARS serve? I wish this reporter had asked him that very question! It only helped the perpetrator stay hidden from those who might have joined the dots so soon after the murders, and turned him in.
A senior British police officer once told me: "The police don't solve crimes - the public do". That's a fact Doug Carter seems totally oblivious to!
Like everyone else, I can only speculate as to why Indiana State Police, and specifically Supt Doug Carter, are still in charge of the Delphi investigation, at least 4 years after proving their incompetence. I would argue their mishandling of the investigation was obvious within weeks of Abby and Libby's murders. Over time it became ever clearer the investigative team were out of their depth and highly unlikely to identify the killer.
The embarrassingly bad media conference Carter fronted in 2019 in which he addressed the killer direct, when he should have appealed to the person/people who recognised him from the video but haven't come forward, exposed his incompetence. All that dumb stuff about the murderer being in the room right now (he wasn't), and the mind games ("You want to know what we know, and pretty soon you will") were sensationalist garbage and a total waste of time. Why talk to the freak who murdered two children in broad daylight - he isn't going to get a pang of conscience and give himself up!
I hate to be proved right in a case as grave as this one, but here we are five years later, with two teen girls cold in their graves and their killer still walking free.
Immediately after the murders, normal police protocol was followed. That meant local state law enforcement took precedence by default, and decided the all-important strategies for the investigation. We were told Indiana Police had some assistance from the FBI. But the media was left in no doubt Supt Carter called the shots - with disastrous consequences. If only the FBI had been in charge. That was the first, critical problem IMO, from which all others followed, for two obvious reasons:
Number one, unlike the FBI, Indiana Police by their own admission are inexperienced in homicide cases. Those they do encounter are inevitably domestic murders, in which the identity of the killer is immediately known to them. The most difficult crimes to crack are stranger murders. And here we come on to the second reason this particular crime remains unsolved. Libby German and Abby Williams were not only killed by a total stranger, but even more challenging for investigators, this was no ordinary homicide.
For two children to be targeted and killed by a predator on a daytime walk in a public outdoor area (with potential rescuers/witnesses close by), is a crime of uniquely extreme characteristics. The man who did this is sexually motivated, which is why he was so strongly driven to take huge risks. So confident was he of not only overpowering his target and getting away with his attack, he chose to offend against not one but two victims.
My point is this is one hell of a warped and dangerous man, and this is unlikely to have been his first serious crime against females. He may well have killed before, and he must have other, surviving victims. He will kill again, and probably already has.
I suspect at the very start Supt Doug Carter was complacent, assuming it was such a shocking and well-publicised crime that someone, a work colleague or even a wife, was bound to come forward and give the killer up. But by failing to release the full, 40 second video clip (with audio), Carter did not facilitate that outcome. Instead of being proactive when the trail was warm, sharing selected facts with the public to help them identify the killer, Carter followed a misguided policy of silence and withholding ALL evidence.
It's Supt Doug Carter's strategies that have helped render this case unsolved after five years - if that isn't proof he needs to step aside and the team be shaken up with experienced FBI officers at the helm, I don't know what is! I really thought we would get such an announcement on the five year anniversary of the crime. I think it's a great shame Abby and Libby's families' haven't joined forces to demand Doug Carter's removal. The TV interview he gave on this show was an utter joke. He refused to answer pretty much every question, but most telling of all is his far less optimistic claims about catching the killer. His latest pledge is he'll identify him "Within 3 years" is pathetic. The killer must be laughing all over his face. In saying that, Carter revealed he hasn't a clue who he is today, any more than he did back in 2017.
And why the hell did he appeal to the public about Kegan Kline aka 'Anthony Shots'. when he was eliminated as a suspect five years ago, within a week of the girls' murders? This smacks of police grasping at straws, in case the girls met another guy that day through an online contact. But forensic computer experts have studied every device both Abby and Libby used. They hadn't arranged to meet anyone that day. They were just two teens doing what 13 and 14 year old girls do - going on a walk, taking selfies, chatting and laughing. Tragically they had the horrific misfortune to catch the eye of a predator, out looking for prey.
There are rumours swirling online about the crime scene, and the way the girls' bodies were left. If true, I believe some of those quirky details show a pattern of behaviour by the killer and should therefore have been shared by law enforcement. It could be a light bulb moment for someone who knows, or used to know him - an unusual, fetishist sexual act peculiar to him.
If Doug Carter remains on this case even one more year, I don't believe it will be solved until the perpetrator commits another murder, and effectively identifies himself. It would be an utter travesty if another woman or girl has to die, in order to find Abby and Libby's killer. Frankly I'm not convinced Doug Carter could find his own ass with both hands if someone turned the lights out.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@katetrinasuarez2017 Seems you've forgotten how Princess Diana spitefully dumped over 100 charities on her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996, among them Barnados and Help the Aged. The effects on those charities of losing her famous name from their letterhead was incalculable - but the loss of funding was immediate and devastating.
She retained just 6 good causes she was president/patron of, needless to say the most fashionable ones that got her the best publicity/photo opportunities, such as The English National Ballet, the National Aids Trust and Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. Prince Harry's abandonment of boring royal duties for a life of pointless self indulgence suggests he's a chip off the old block!
Diana loved the Aids/HIV cause, because it was a popular, youthful issue that brought her into the orbit of glamorous showbiz personalities and gay allies like Sir Elton John, Dame Elizabeth Taylor, and just about every top dress designer whose outrageously expensive creations ever graced her back!
Ironic you talk of Diana 'combating misinformation' about Aids, when she did the exact opposite. She once gave an interview in which she said she took her children William and Harry on private visits to meet Aids patients, but added that she lied to them and said the HIV+ men had cancer! She was so dim, she didn't recognise the hypocrisy of being so disgusted by Aids she had to call it cancer.
Your claim the princess couldn't possibly have been a narcissist because she did charity work, is laughable. In fact narcissists like Diana have always hitched their wagons to high profile charities, for guaranteed positive PR, power and influence. Another prime example of this was serial rapist and paedophile Jimmy Savile's lifelong patronage of good causes.
Diana only got involved with the anti landmine cause because her friend the movie director Lord Richard Attenborough persuaded her to. Needless to say it wasn't her idea - she never had an original idea in her head, beyond seducing other women's husbands. If brains were dynamite, Diana couldn't blow her tiara off!
Lord Attenborough did her a huge favour with that particular charity gig - photos of the simpering princess posing with limbless children went around the world, feeding her Mother Theresa aspirations. I seriously doubt Mother Theresa had a parade of unsuitable men delivered to her bedroom after dark by her butler, hidden in the trunk of his car!
Stop your ill-informed, simpering pro-Diana garbage.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@koryano321 I never said Bonin was faultless, I made clear throughout my post he caused the disastrous, extended stall!
My point stands, effective leadership would have averted disaster. But on top of Bonin's error we had a weak Captain, so unassertive and ineffectual, on returning to the chaotic cockpit his backside never left the jump seat! He literally should have got into the driving seat and taken charge immediately, if he had he could have saved the plane and every life. But unaccountably, did not. This crash shocked many because of the speed with which the plane went from happily cruising on autopilot at 35,000 ft, to hitting the Atlantic Ocean - just 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
You touched on a very important point I didn't reference in my earlier post - pilot training. That was clearly revealed to be inadequate by the Air France cockpit voice recorder which told the story. And undoubtedly the cockpit design which hid pilots' actions from each other so 'the left hand didn't know what the right was doing' was a big factor, as two pilots failed to see Bonin pulling back on the side stick.
As with pretty much every disaster, more than one factor combined to create tragedy. But I feel it's unfair and inaccurate to place most of the blame on Bonin and let Captain Dubois off the hook!
15
-
15
-
That's true - you won't meet anyone who will say different about Eamonn, he and his wife are genuine people who have time for everyone and no airs and graces.
Having worked with Phillip Schofield on a BBC show 20 years ago, I can confirm he's the polar opposite, an insufferable, full of himself nightmare, who thinks he's far too important to even acknowledge you exist when he passes you in a corridor!
Many, many people are thrilled to see him get his long-overdue comeuppance - but it's sickening it took literally decades to happen. When immoral TV executives pander to narcissistic autocue readers like Phillip and Holly, they create entitled monsters who genuinely believe they are so special, the basic rules of human decency, integrity and respect for others, don't apply to them.
Holly Willoughby needs to go next - but I'm glad she hasn't. To quote Maya Angelou, she's showing us who she really is! The fact she is clinging onto that sofa with a white-knuckle, death grip, determined to ride out the storm, proves exactly how ruthlessly self-serving she is!
If her statements about not knowing about the affair, being disgusted at the deception etc etc were true, don't you think she'd want nothing more to do with such a shabby set up, take the moral high ground and announce she was leaving 'This Morning'? She didn't because guess what - she's up to her neck in the swamp, and just as dishonest and shabby as the rest of them!
I think her decision to stay there - and events may yet overtake her and force her out - was a huge strategic blunder. The 'This Morning' brand is now as tainted as Phillip Schofield, and the ITV executives who colluded in the grubby affair and its cover up for at least FIVE YEARS, can't survive the fall out either. It's a sinking ship - and Holly missed the life raft!
If Holly Willoughby had possessed a good agent, they would have advised her to announce her departure from 'This Morning'. Taking charge of the narrative like that would have given her the best chance to save her badly tarnished public image, future TV career and overall bankability.
She will find it tough enough to lose the stench of her former partner-in-crime and 'Bestie' Phil! They are daytime TV's version of 'Ant & Dec', every time you see Holly, you can't help but think of him. Phillip Schofield's downfall demonstrates why TV double acts are such a risky business for the partner who is left standing!
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@randalthor6872 Agreed, Doug Carter is a total buffoon, who has no more idea who killed Abby and Libby today, than he did on day one. The killer left DNA at the crime scene, so the fact no one has been charged confirms loud and clear the murderer is still at large.
This 'Anthony Shots'/Kegan Kline sideshow is a total waste of time. The killer is clearly a middle aged man. And police have had no contact with him.
Libby gave police a golden piece of evidence, a video and audio of the killer, the best possible clue on a silver platter - and they still messed up! Law enforcement should have shared that fantastic video far and wide and in full with the media from the start, when people's memories of that day were fresh. But they hesitated, didn't put it out in full, and held back just about every other detail of the crime from the public - which was counterproductive to solving it! Contrary to what Doug Carter seems to believe, it's usually the public who ultimately solve crimes and identify killers, not police officers, no matter how smart!
The first two weeks after a murder are known as the golden period, when the perpetrator is most likely to be turned over to police by someone who suspects him. In those days when the murder date is still within memory, the killer's relative/work colleague, whoever can put two and two together and recognise the significance of something they said or did, or maybe a visual anomaly like a scratch on their face or dirty/torn clothing, that stands out.
But a month or two later, and they won't recall something so trivial anymore, or link the killer with the crime. Five years on, and this is very much a cold case, regardless of Supt Carter's bravado. That guy is as clueless today as he's ever been, and his replacement as the head of this investigation is long overdue. Two children deserve justice - and no female is safe while their killer remains at large.
14
-
14
-
14
-
Brian's a coward so he won't kill himself, and he won't survive much longer without people to help him. Which makes me think there must be someone harbouring him - most likely a relative. The police have performed abominably so far, so we cannot assume they are diligently checking out any family members who might be hiding him!
A neighbouring sheriff criticised cops for failing to arrest Brian for domestic abuse when the van was pulled over, and later for letting him flee his parents' house and go on the run after Gabby was reported missing. Sheriff, Grady Judd, said he would have put handcuffs on Brian for suspected domestic abuse when he pulled them over after two 911 reports of him assaulting her on the roadside. He also said when he returned from the trip in her van without her, he'd have taken him into custody and he'd have had no opportunity to escape. I hope the lousy cops in this case have to answer for their terrible judgements, which only put Gabby in a worse, more vulnerable situation, and further empowered her abuser and finally her killer Brian.
Have cops brought Momma and Dadda Laundry in for questioning? If not, why not? They need to put pressure on those two, their weird behaviour to date and total disrespect for the Petito family indicates he disappeared with their full support. It also suggests he's told them he killed Gabby, and they think he has nothing to lose by fleeing justice for her murder. Get the thumbscrews on those scumbags! They are so blindly loyal to their only son, their daughter revealed today they are no longer speaking to her. That's a huge clue as to the dangerously spoiled and entitled narcissist Brian Laundry became under their over-indulgent parenting.
I don't think he's smart or resourceful enough to evade police for even another week. When the rat is dragged from his hole, may justice be as swift and merciless as the violence he meted out on that beautiful and much-loved young woman.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
It wouldn't surprise me if Robert Wagner were bisexual. However the sexual tension on the boat that night was undoubtedly between Natalie and Christopher Walken - and Robert Wagner didn't like it one bit. This was witnessed on shore at a restaurant the three had dined at, as well as by the crewman on their boat. Colleagues on the movie they were filming remarked on the sparks that flew between them on screen - if they hadn't started an affair, I think it may well have been on the cards.
Wagner was known to be controlling, and inviting Walken to spend the night with them on that small boat was a recipe for disaster. I think Natalie was rebelling against a husband she was heartily sick of, 9 years into their second marriage, and threatening him with divorce.
I believe a toxic cocktail of alcohol, sexual jealousy, and fear of rejection built up in Robert Wagner that night, and exploded with him throwing her into the sea, then cruelly abandoning her to her terrible fate. Domestic abuse victims are most likely to be killed by the perpetrator when they leave/threaten to leave him. I think this was a classic case of "If I can't have you no one else will", with a nasty measure of revenge at her rejection in the method of his violence. Wagner of all people knew how much Natalie feared the 'dark water'. How he can live with himself after committing such an evil crime I will never know - but the fact he has to his current age of 92, confirms what an evil individual he is. Poor Natalie - only the good die young. 😢
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
And this poor guy knows if he had been at the house that day, his evil (half) brother would have murdered him with a bullet through the head too.
Why did the Amato family indulge that creepy little bastard Grant so much, that he felt entitled to steal $200,000 from them and kill them???
Grant Amato has been a grown man for over a decade, yet he spent most of his adult life pimping off his hard working parents and brother, never having to get a job and support himself because they made it unnecessary. They created a monster!
We are raising a new breed of inadequate males like Grant Amato - the modern 'man-child'. Boys who never grow up. They don't want to become men and take on the responsibilities of full time work, wives, children and a mortgage. They never want to put on a collar, tie and suit and do a day's work. They want to lounge on the sofa all day and night in slobby T shirts and sweat pants, living 'virtual reality' lives through the internet in which they are successful Alpha males, action heroes and chick magnets. If they have flesh and blood romantic relationships and father children, they fail to meet their responsibilities to those women and children.
The new breed of man-child is no use to anyone - the parents, women and children they disappoint, society, the economy... This breed of male did not exist in the generation of Grant Amato's father. Chad Amato and other young men of his generation became men when they turned 21. They expected to have a career, and to support a family though that career. They had to put away childish fantasies as children, because no one would entertain such self indulgence. But today we have a growing number of 'man-child' inadequates like Grant Amato, who expect the best things of life to land in their lap without making any contribution towards them. If this trend continues, and every future generation of males contains more and more of this self centred, self indulgent man-child, society is going to hell in a handcart.
14
-
14
-
14
-
@jackiec1586 I'm a newspaper journalist of 30 years experience and have studied many family annihilations. I see no realistic prospect of any scenario other than he committed all three murders inside the home, like 99% of family annihilators. Chris Watts isn't especially unique, in fact he's quite typical of the breed. They are generally covert narcissists, whose friends and neighbours will say: "I can't believe it, he wouldn't hurt a fly".
It's well known Chris Watts' parents and sister monitor online true crime and update him on the latest talk about him. They no doubt tipped him off about the so-called 'shadows theory' that he took a live child from the house. He liked it so much, he went one better and claimed to have taken BOTH children to Cervi 319 alive and murdered them there. No sighting of a second 'child's shadow' on the video or anything else to support CW's claim!
I believe he belatedly endorsed the 'shadows theory' a full six months after his murder convictions for several, self serving reasons. First he was bored pacing his cage after 6 months and wanted attention and headlines. He had agreed to collaborate with (now discredited) Cheryln Cadle on a book, and knew he must offer her 'new and exclusive' material in order to sell it (though she did such a lazy job, there's barely anything original in that self-published, plagiarised joke of a 'book').
Most important, I think Chris Watts wanted to do PR for himself, by pretending the murders were chaotic, disorganised, and he wasn't in his right mind. As he kept telling visiting detectives last year: "I didn't know what I was doing".
Obviously, to let two small, unpredictable children run riot outside your house to wake neighbours as you're taking their dead mother's corpse to your truck would be an act of madness. But Chris Watts wasn't mad - he was in his right mind and fully in control throughout the murders. That's why he would never have let Bella and Cece loose to mess up his carefully premeditated murder plans like that.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@carollemieux5254 And what exactly did Charles 'do to their mother'? Was it his fault alone that their arranged marriage didn't work out? Of course not! Half of all marriages end in divorce, that's life - and the odds were further against this one because it was an arranged union.
It takes two to make or break a marriage. Charles and Diana were simply incompatible. The way Diana tried to put all the blame on him for that was childish, vindictive and frankly ridiculous.
But the way she waged war on Charles publicly through the media, knowing how her attacks would hurt and harm her children (then old enough to be aware of her vendettas and vitriol), was unforgivable. She was not a good mother - and she was certainly no lady! If she was a decent human being and parent she'd have put her children first and maintained a dignified silence, thankful for the very generous divorce settlement she received from Charles, and his ongoing role as an excellent father to the boys. But Diana was too damaged and narcissistic to behave with wisdom and self control.
Diana's own multiple, meaningless sexual affairs outnumbered her husband's one relationship with the woman he would marry, many times over! Diana was a shameless hypocrite, crucifying Charles and Camilla with the Andrew Morton book and her calamitous 'Panorama' interview, while slyly keeping her own pursuits of married men out of the public eye. Ask the wives of the men she bedded what they think of the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts'.
Diana was manipulative, spiteful and fundamentally unhinged, and in the end the architect of her own doom. She survived just one year outside the royal family, before getting herself killed in a stupid and totally avoidable accident. The idiocy of her death, reflects the dumb way she conducted her life. If she had only given her two dependent children a single thought and fastened her seat belt, she'd have survived to raise them to adults. She let William and Harry down terribly.
13
-
13
-
@miletclauren3860 Exactly - if this trans takeover is allowed to continue, it will literally finish women's sports. Liar Thomas is clearly a man, and it is frankly ludicrous he even claims to be transsexual when he has neither had nor wants gender reassignment/ sex change surgery and retains his penis and testicles. Not so long ago that category of men were correctly termed what they are - transvestites or AGPs.
The female swimmers are distraught at Thomas' takeover, stealing their places, medals and prestige. How he has the NERVE to stand there, at practically double the size of the females (and clearly a male in a female swimsuit), then brazenly beat the women in every damn race, I do not know.
Scrub that - I do know how Liar Thomas has the nerve - he's a man and it is classic male entitlement and male arrogance! If his cheating weren't bad enough, the female swimmers are rightly unhappy that he is using their female-only changing rooms - and they have privately reported he is exposing his penis in there. He is a heterosexual, fully intact biological male (sexually attracted to females), changing alongside women! How the hell is that acceptable? Why should sportswomen - hell, ANY women - have to put up with that???
Liar Thomas is abusing women in every possible way, and he is being actively supported and enabled by the powers that be in women's swimming. It's a total bloody OUTRAGE female athletes are being disrespected in this way, it cannot be allowed to continue! We've already seen a male wrestler literally beat up a female wrestler and knock her out on TV, after she agreed to the bout with no idea she would actually be fighting a man. He could have killed her! Men do not belong in women's sports, whatever their damn hormone levels.
#SaveWomensSports #MenAreNotWomen #AdultHumanFemale
13
-
13
-
There was no pain in Diana's eyes, she was only too glad to be shot of Charles - she was bored to tears of him, as anyone can see in their later, joint public appearances when she rudely rebuffed and ignored her husband in front of the cameras. But she loved to play the martyr, and falsely present herself as a 'faithful, loving wife betrayed by a cheating husband', conveniently forgetting all her own sexual affairs - many with other women's husbands!
This interview provides many examples of her blatant dishonesty. She even denies she made the 300+ silent phone calls to Oliver Hoare, the married lover she exacted revenge on with that crazy campaign of phone harassment after he dumped her. She's got a nerve denying it was her - unluckily for Diana, a mole in the police took a big cash handout from the News of the World to give them the exclusive story of her stalking of the Hoares. It was a campaign of phone calls so extreme, they had no alternative but to report the Princess to police.
Diana was the classic 'woman scorned', LIVID that Hoare had not only refused to leave his wife Diane for her, but had actually dumped her by letter and returned her late father's cufflinks she'd gifted him. She behaved like a petulant child making those spiteful silent calls at all hours of the day and night, and from at least four different phone numbers, including local payphones. Diana was so ruthlessly self-serving, that when two plain clothes detectives called on her at home to tell her she'd been unmasked as the malicious caller, and must desist forthwith or face a humiliating public prosecution by the Hoares, she not only denied it was her - she actually blamed her innocent, 12 year old son William! The police knew it couldn't possibly be him - for one thing he was away at boarding school!
Funnily enough, the silent calls to the Hoares immediately stopped after Diana was spoken to by police. So much for her being a wonderful, devoted mother - she would even blame her own child for her bad behaviour, to get herself out of trouble when her back was against the wall! She was a thoroughly immature, self serving, spiteful individual, and it's ridiculous the way Diana fans still swallow the lies she told in the 'Panorama' interview and that work of fiction 'Diana Her True Story'. Never was a book more inaccurately titled!
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
This was a miscarriage of justice, no question.
If Jeffrey Dillingham got the death penalty by lethal injection (he was executed on November 1st 2000, aged 27), then his two accomplices in the brutal murder of 40-year-old Caren Koslow and attempted murder of her husband Jack Koslow in their home, should have been executed too. That's the couple's stepdaughter /adopted daughter Kristi Koslow, and her boyfriend Brian Dennis Salter.
Kristi Koslow masterminded this crime aged 17, along with the man she was sleeping with at the time, her then 19-year-old lover Salter - he brought his pal Dillingham on board, also 19, on the promise of a $1million fee. Apparently Salter lacked the balls to kill two unarmed, sleeping people in their beds, alone!
Salter was a coward before he committed this crime, and he remained a coward afterwards - as did his scumbag girlfriend Kristi Koslow, who started the whole, revolting sequence of events in motion. Without her, there would have been no crime committed, and Caren Koslow would not have been violently murdered by two young males, her life horrifically ended at just 40. Kristi's motive? She was angry her adoptive dad divorced her adoptive mom. Boo-hoo!
It's irrelevant that Kristi Koslow wasn't present at the crime scene, during these deparved, bloody murders. Kristi came up with the double-murder plan, she directed events, and she gave the two killers the security codes and floor plan to the home, to enable them to commit the crime. She very sensibly didn't physically take part, so she could convincingly play the innocent after her parents' deaths (though despite her intentions, her hated adoptive father miraculously survived). In many people's view, Kristi Koslow's sly cowardice makes her worse than the killers!
If you had to apportion blame for this heinous crime, the man who wound up executed for it was actually the least culpable!
In the view of any reasonable person, it's clear all three were at least equally to blame. So why did one, Dillingham, live with the shadow of his execution for years before being killed? The other two languish in prisons to this day, allowed to live and given taxpayer funded bed and board until they die of natural causes. WRONG!
13
-
13
-
@bugsbunny7205 We'll never know why Chandler had one of the bullets his pal Andrew Smith gave him engraved with 'Get Well Soon', and gave it to his brother Mitchell as he lay in a hospital bed recovering from a recent diabetes diagnosis.
But what Mitchell no doubt initially thought of as a joke gift, must have very different and sinister meaning to him, now he knows identical bullets ended the lives of his Mom and Dad. My heart goes out to Mitchell, on the witness stand he seemed a nice enough guy, very much like umpteen other conventional guys his age, living conventional lives. But unluckily for him, his younger brother Chandler was far from conventional. Chandler had never worked a day in his life or earned a cent aged 23. He lived on handouts his entire life, and didn't want that situation to end. So he responded to his dad's questions and pressure to do well at school and earn some money, with lies. Lies that became so ridiculously elaborate, they were unsustainable.
Where was his ambition? Where was his pride? Most teens get some sort of job just so they can earn enough money to go out and have fun with their own cash. Yet Chandler had never worked, so as a teen clearly had no wish to do a Saturday job as a shop assistant, or flip burgers at a fast food drive thru. Why not? Did he think such work was beneath him? He once asked his younger girlfriend for $5 dollars to buy himself a sandwich - most guys of 23 would find that humiliating!
So why did his older brother Mitchell take such a different path, launch a successful career in IT, buy a house and settle down with his fiance, while Chandler was an eternal 15 year old who would up a convicted double murderer in his early twenties? Both men were raised by exactly the same parents, in exactly the same home. Friends of the family spoke of Bart and Krista's devoted parenting to both sons. It's a real puzzle that in Chandler, they raised such a highly dangerous man, from birth.
As always when I follow shocking murder cases where the motive is nonsensical, I wish these freaks would be studied in prison. They will cost the taxpayer a fortune for 50 years or more, til they die in their cage. So while there, they should be studied like lab rats - society deserves to get some value for money out of them! Who knows, maybe greater understanding could be reached of how the Chandler Haldersons, Grant Amatos and Joel Guy Jrs of this world are created.
It used to be commonly assumed that killers had become dangerous adults because they suffered cruelty and/or neglect in childhood. But in recent years we are seeing more murders like this one, which prove over-indulgent parenting can be just as damaging as the abusive kind. Failing to say 'No' to children, or set down clear and consistent boundaries and expectations of good and respectful behaviour, can create dangerously entitled and narcissistic adults.
Criminologists have identified absent fathers as a common factor in males growing up to be violent criminals. Chandler was not the product of a single parent home - his father was not literally absent. But when his brother Mitchell described their childhoods, it was clear their Mom was the hands on, stay-at-home parent, while their dad was a workaholic accountant and a more remote figure as they were growing up. That made their Mom Krista far more emotionally invested in her sons than their dad Bart was. Mitchell suggested she was too invested, and a tad smothering, when they were no longer children. It is surely significant that it was dad Bart, not mum Krista, who was on Chandler's case about college and his supposed insurance job, and the parent who expected him to have money to pay them rent.
In the spookily similar, recent parental murders by Joel Guy Jr and Grant Amato, there was also an over indulgent mother, and a less emotionally invested father. In all three of these cases, it was the father who unwittingly triggered the murders, when he confronted his son over his dependent lifestyle, and belatedly tried to set down boundaries for his behaviour. These 'man-child murders' of parents by childish, twenty-something sons happen with such frequency, they should be a category of homicide all their own. And they surely deserve greater study and expert analysis. Because you can be sure Chandler Halderson isn't the last of them. Chilling to imagine it, but there are parents walking around today with no idea their beloved adult son is capable of killing and dismembering them in cold blood.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Nope, that's totally your invention. In reality, as the ugly truth is emerging about the ruthless narcissist and serial adulteress that DIANA was, Camilla is emerging as a very popular and respected public figure.
Camilla is doing wonderful work for important women's causes such as domestic violence, and is a sterling support to her mother-in-law the Queen. She is also a wonderful consort to her husband Charles, which Diana was never going to be - she was far too self-obsessed to be a decent wife to anyone!
Diana even failed her children by getting herself killed running around Paris with an Arab playboy. If the vain, vacuous Diana had only prioritised her two little boys, given them and her role as their mother a moment's thought and fastened her seat belt, she would have survived the crash with just a broken arm and bruising.
Diana was a disappointing wife, mother and woman. Ask Susan Mannakee, Julia Carling and Diana Hoare what they think of Diana, the nasty homewrecker and 'queen of tarts' who brazenly seduced their husbands!
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@carollemieux5254 Nowhere have I said Charles was blameless - but nor was he the villain Diana portrayed him! Let's be realistic here, Charles and Diana were two adults who entered into what they both knew was an arranged marriage in good faith. Diana herself admitted they were in love for the first few years - it dawned on her in a rare display of wisdom, that her children should know they were conceived in love. Sadly it could not last because they simply were not compatible - how was that Charles' fault?
I believe both Charles and Diana suffered as children from the lack of a constant maternal figure in their lives. Both were looking for nurturing qualities in a partner, that the other simply could not provide. They were therefore a mismatch. It's a common story, and it isn't realistic or fair to blame one party for the fact they didn't make each other happy, as Diana constantly sought to do. Mature, emotionally grounded adults accept responsibility for their own choices and actions - they don't seek to offload that responsibility/blame onto others, as Diana did with Charles.
Diana behaved like a bratty child, totally blaming him and telling tales to the media of his ONE affair - when she was having umpteen meaningless extra marital flings behind the scenes, many with married men!
She was a devious hypocrite, who had no business crucifying Charles and Camilla and acting the innocent 'wronged wife', when she was getting her butler to smuggle her lovers into Kensington Palace in the boot of a car! The nerve of the woman.
When the marriage inevitably failed within 5 years, Charles returned to his first love Camilla, and Diana turned to a cast of umpteen casual sexual liaisons. But she worked hard to keep them out of the news and preserve her 'innocent victim' image. The media war she waged on Charles was self indulgent and unnecessary, and hurt her children terribly. She should have exercised self control for her young sons' sakes.
It wasn't even that she wanted Charles - she fell out of love with him long before. But she did want to hang onto the high status and trappings that came as separated wife to the future king. That's why the 'Panorama' interview she secretly arranged behind the royals' backs in 1995, was such a disastrous own goal for her - it brought about her divorce a year later (a divorce she did not want at the time), and ultimately it could be argued, launched the chain of events that culminated in her death in 1997.
As for your charge that I'm quote - 'a nasty piece of work', I've never pursued or slept with another woman's husband, as Diana did many times, breaking up at least one marriage and trying to end a couple more. Unlike Diana the ruthless home-wrecker I am a 'girls girl', and I would not do that to another woman.
Nor as a mother would I ever 'forget' about my dependent children and fail to take 5 seconds to fasten my seat belt on every car ride. If Diana had only prioritised her children over her hedonism, she would have survived the crash.
Can you really find no better use for your time than defending a long-dead narcissist and serial adulteress?
12
-
@carollemieux5254 You are repeating the tired, exaggerated and invented stories Diana originated in her trashy, hatchet-job Andrew Morton book.
Why do people like you swallow her wholly subjective and self-serving version of events, real, imagined or embroidered, without question? Because she was pretty and had charm?
In fact there is no evidence Charles' romantic relationship with Camilla resumed until after the marriage to Diana had failed (by which time the formerly 'shy Di' was enthusiastically launching herself at many men, caring not one jot what Charles got up to in the country while she was enjoying a full life of London hedonism).
Charles did not 'leave gifts around' for Camilla, for Diana to find - that's a total fabrication! You are alluding to the hackneyed story about Diana finding a bracelet he had bought for Camilla before they married. As you say, he was 12 years older than Diana and had a past. Was it really so terrible he should give a parting gift to an old flame (who was now an old friend), as he moved forward into this new phase of his life as a very publicly married man?
Diana exploited that gift and twisted it to cast herself, yet again as the victim. It's what narcissists do. They are supremely manipulative - and boy have you been had!
Diana was certainly no innocent, virginal figure when she launched her vindictive media war against Charles and selfishly hurt her children. She was by that time very much a woman experienced in all things, and had no excuse for the terrible judgement she showed again and again, which damaged her kids, brought about a divorce she did not want, and irony of irony, launched the sequence of events that culminated in her own totally needless death at 36.
If Diana had the humility and maturity to count her many blessings, be philosophical about her divorce and the role she too had played in it, and generally behave in a way befitting a senior royal and mother of two, there's no question she would still be alive today.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@ljb8157 Your, to date, FIVE replies to my one post, each showing greater ignorance of domestic abuse than the last, are sadly too dumb to warrant serious consideration. That you can't even recognise the value of an independent, unbiased witness statement says it all! If you hold down a job, it certainly doesn't require advanced critical thinking skills.
It's been widely identified that this crime is getting enthusiastic attention from a cross section of lonely Incels, following the case from their mommys' basements. Incels strongly identify with Brian Laundrie, a loser who murdered his more attractive, popular and accomplished girlfriend because he was scared she would leave him. Laundrie is a logical poster boy for Incels because he's an unattractive Incel-type, who by some miracle snagged a cute girlfriend - then killed her. He pretty much embodies Incels' every twisted, conflicted, rage-filled emotion about females who won't fuck them.
It's fortunate this case was captured on police bodycam. That shocking footage not only exposed dire failings in law enforcement training for handling domestic abuse, it got Gabby Petito's murder greater publicity. Publicity will help inform and empower the overwhelmingly female victims of inadequate male narcissists like Laundrie. That will improve their chances of escaping such abusive relationships alive, as tragically Gabby did not.
Violence against women is a global pandemic far deadlier for females than Covid. In the UK alone, two women are killed every week by a male partner/ex partner. Last week a 28-year-old woman was murdered by a stranger on an early evening, 5-minute walk from her home to meet a friend for a drink. If women killed men in anything like the same numbers that men kill women, there would be frequent international debates about 'the crisis of female violence', and women would be forced to live under a curfew to keep men safe. But everywhere in the world, societies expect females to just accept that some males are inevitably violent. As toxic attitudes like yours show, often male offenders are not condemned and despised for their cowardly crimes against women, but are tacitly (and explicitly) supported.
The usual trigger for domestic murder is the woman leaving, or making moves to leave her abusive partner. These pathetic excuses for men can't take rejection, and won't let the woman leave and be happy without him. I have no doubt Brian saw Gabby slipping out of his control, leaving him and taking her van, electronic devices and money with her. Like Chris Watts before him, Laundrie's an entitled parasite, and she was carrying him every step of the way. The loser even stole from her bank account after he had killed her.
Brian Laundrie will soon be locked in the cage he'll die in. It's only a shame his Incel fan club aren't locked up with him - their hysterical, woman-hating tantrums are beyond boring!
I've been kind enough to patronise you awhile, as you're in such obvious need of an education. But as you've made abundantly clear you have nothing of value to add to this or any other thread, I can't reply again. I see you're continuing to post multiple responses to my superior posts. Your need for female affirmation is painfully obvious. Sorry Hunt, no dice!
12
-
He's a manipulative narcissist, like most domestic abusers and killers. Notice how he started off telling his son "It's good to see you". He's grooming the kid, hoping he can still exert influence on him and his testimony, as his father.
There's no doubt he murdered his wife and daughter that night in premeditated attacks. It's unlucky for him one child survived to tell the true story. O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked the children, and he killed her in an impulsive revenge attack. It's the oldest story in the book for family annihilators like him! The jury won't buy it - you could see he was capable of the crime from the aggressive way he addressed them. The guy is crazy!
The child has been adopted by one of the detectives on the case, and he is finally living in a loving, stable family. Not surprisingly his father had a history of domestic abuse, and had fathered a baby with another woman.
It's wrong this 11 year old has been forced to have this direct communication with his father and would-be killer. Poor kid was only 8 years old when his dad tried to kill the whole family, and set fire to the house to destroy evidence. This little boy has spent the last 3 years physically and mentally healing from his father's knife attack on him (when police arrived, his intestines were hanging out), and the loss of his mother and sister. He witnessed him murder his 9 year old sister with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck.
Having to speak with O'Neal again, even over Zoom, could badly traumatise this child, and set back his recovery. The law is an ass! Where is the consideration for victims of crime - and especially child victims?
12
-
12
-
I would not be remotely surprised if Harry was deliberately sly and disingenuous on the phone to his grandmother the Queen from America, giving her the totally false impression their newborn daughter would be named Elizabeth.
What a fitting and genuinely moving tribute to Queen Elizabeth ll it would have been, for Harry to bestow the beautiful, dignified, regal and historic name Elizabeth on his only daughter. He and Meghan really missed a trick there. They were VERY lucky his older brother William and wife Catherine had not already taken the name Elizabeth for their little girl Charlotte, but instead gave her the middle name Elizabeth (along with the name Diana, in common with Harry's girl).
Instead the Sussexes stupidly gave their poor child the made-up nickname 'Lillibet' (totally personal to the Queen), and effectively stuck two fingers up to his grandma in the process, when she was nearing the end of her life, recently widowed, and vulnerable. Their conduct was shabby in every way!
They could and should have officially named their little girl 'Elizabeth Diana', and could still have called her 'Lillibet' or 'Lily' informally, exactly as they wished. They were simply too stupid to recognise what an asset the name Elizabeth would be to their child - and to themselves - as a lifelong mark of respect to the Queen.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@edwinacaparelli9911 Richard Allen looks exactly like 'Bridge Guy' (the killer Libby recorded stalking her and Abby), because he IS 'Bridge Guy'. He came forward to authorities within days of the crime in February 2017, and identified himself as such!
Allen said he was at the Monon High trails and bridge at the exact time of the murders, wearing the exact same clothes as the man on the smartphone footage. He was spooked at seeing a still of himself from that video on TV news, and decided to get in front of the police by claiming to be a witness, not a suspect. He knew several witnesses saw him there that day too. What's more, he was the ONLY man seen by witnesses. Allen effectively locked himself down as the killer, with his own words.
There's also the small matter of his multiple confessions. He did it, no question. But sadly the Keystone Cops under buffoon Supt Doug Carter ballsed up the investigation and failed to identify Allen for 5 YEARS through sheet incompetence. That appalling delay has inevitably weakened the prosecution case, and boosted all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories (including - laughably - that an obscure religious order/sacrificial cult was responsible, yada, yada).
12
-
12
-
@user-lk8bz7hg2b I fully believe leaving the babies alone in the apartment was Gerry's doing - that is not a plan most mothers would make - or go along with. Children under 5 are very bonded with their mother and vice versa - that's not sexism, it's biological fact. I seriously doubt Kate was as relaxed as Gerry, during those suppers at the tapas bar. Evening get-togethers which were apparently so important to the 9 adults on the vacation, that they block-booked the same table for the rest of the week!
Context is all, when trying to understand a poor decision. The McCann's were on that sunny vacation with other medical professionals who had become friends through their work as doctors/specialists. In my view Gerry the cardiologist cared far too much about those work friends' good opinions of him, so was working hard to impress them. The last thing he wanted was his three small children cramping his style, as he was working hard to regale the group with witty stories that promoted himself, and dominated the conversation.
Infants require a lot of attention - they have needs, which must be met promptly by their caregivers. They cry, need nappies changed, need to be taken to the toilet, fed, watered, changed in and out of clothes, and various other boring inconveniences which are incompatible with grown-up socialising.
Work friends are a very different thing to old friends you've known for years, and are relaxed around. I believe Gerry dominated his wife and likely the entire group of adults in Portugal, and I strongly suspect it was Gerry who instigated the crazy arrangement to put all the children to bed each night and only check on them periodically. It was all done for adult convenience and Kate - and all of the mothers - should have stood up to him and never have agreed to it!
I do feel Kate has always been under her husband's thumb, that dynamic is clear in their TV interviews. If she was not she would surely have made better decisions for her children that night and prioritised their need for safety, over her husband's desire to socialise with adults only.
Frankly the McCanns are lucky they didn't lose all three children that night. And the rest of the parents in the group were also very fortunate their child wasn't taken. The fact Kate is still with the egotistical Gerry (who is the main reason the public dislikes the couple), only confirms he dominates her.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@daphnethurlow5388 Yes, Lia Thomas is a fully male bodied biological male, who has neither had nor wants surgery - so retains fully functioning cock and balls. Oh, and Lia Thomas is also a heterosexual biological male, ie attracted to women. HE should not be allowed to walk naked around the fucking female changing rooms! Yet he is - and if anyone were to complain, THEY would be condemned as having committed an anti trans, hate crime!
How is he 'transgender' anyway, when (like 90% of trans women) he retains male genitals? He's not transgender he's a transvestite, ie a male who enjoys presenting in traditional female attire. It usually a sexually motivated kink.
I am bloody livid about this, it is blatant misogynist abuse - why the hell are female athletes going along with it? They should be protesting from the rooftops! If they stay silent and allow this man to thrash them, take female athletes' places, medals and prestige unchallenged, they will have colluded in the destruction of women's competitive sports - and betrayed women and girls the world over.
They have got to wake up and speak out! #MenAreNotWomen
12
-
@nikiTricoteuse I think you summed up the situation perfectly. Tragically, the Amato family laid down boundaries for the youngest son Grant and enforced them WAY too late. By the time they finally did it, they had created a spoiled, entitled and utterly self centred narcissist, who believed his rights came way ahead of everyone else's.
Such an extreme narcissist, that he believed he was entitled to steal his parents' life savings and murder them when they told him "NO". Hard to believe, isn't it?
As you say, when they cut off his last source of funding, making it impossible for him to contact his imaginary girlfriend, they made him face up to his huge inadequacies. Feeling impotent and enraged, he lashed out in the most extreme way possible.
All the evidence points to Grant being a psychopath, and psychopaths are incapable of loving other sentient beings (humans or animals). So I think your theory is right - the murders were premeditated. Executing close family members who loved him, will have caused Grant no more emotional pain than swatting flies. The murders were an expression of rage at his family pulling the plug on his spending. But above all they were a practical matter, and he expected to get his hands on his family's remaining money and assets by killing them. That he thought he would get away with it is another indicator of his extreme psychopathy - because psychopaths don't feel fear, any more than they feel love, guilt, empathy or remorse.
12
-
The royal family were only too delighted by Diana's popularity. They weren't so keen on her massive vanity, self centred attitude and neuroses. The Princess of Wales was supposed to love and support her husband, but Diana wasn't prepared to do that. She wanted to take all the perks of the position - the fabulous wealth, fame and VIP treatment, without the first duty of the role, to be a good and supportive wife. The fame went to her head big time.
It was an arranged marriage and doomed to failure because Charles and Diana were incompatible in every way. When it failed he took up with the love of his life Camilla (who he should have married), and Diana had countless extra marital affairs, many with other women's husbands.
Yet she didn't want the public to know about her sex life, and all the men she had brought to her home by her butler, hidden in the boot of his car! Instead Diana batted her lashes at the camera and gave a TV interview blaming Charles entirely - as if she had been faithful to him! Diana was supremely manipulative, and it wasn't until years later when the truth came out about her collaborating on the Andrew Morton book, and her many affairs and obsessive stalking of ex lovers like married Oliver Hoare that people realised who she really was. Less the Queen of Hearts than the Queen of Tarts!
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@beckyysaurusaustine6498 I hate the misogynistic, false judgements made about this woman, and this marriage. Anna Nicole's beauty took her into a world of fabulous money and that kind of money sadly comes with cynical, ruthless people like her stepson and the top lawyers he hired.
I believe she fought the legal battles for her own reputation, and for the dignity and respect her loving marriage deserved, just as much as for the money. She fulfilled her bargain with her late husband, loved him and was loyal to him, I see no reason why he would not have done the same for her. She deserved every cent for making him happy - what did his son ever do for him? I bet he was a thorn in his side all his life, they were obviously polar opposites!
Does a person deserve an inheritance purely due to their accident of birth, or is the person who genuinely loved the deceased and gave them happiness, much more deserving? I know what I think!
Anna Nicole swapped tough, poor beginnings for the cold glamour and cynicism of showbiz, but she never became hard herself. Throughout, she remained a sweet, warm hearted person who tried to stand up for herself and survive until finally, perhaps inevitably, she could fight no more. God bless her lovely soul.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@francischabot1412 Great insight. Of course it's very easy for us to express shock and horror at the mistakes and oversights made in the confines of that cockpit, between that crew, on that night - and the disastrous, deadly repercussions for everyone on board.
If this tragedy tells us anything, it's surely how easily human error and its best friend, assumption, can sink us.
Lessons can of course be learned from this crash in professional, operational terms. But recognising the far broader, more universal and profound nature of those human mistakes, is key to ensuring nothing quite so disastrous happens in any other context.
That said, anyone who believes human error can be eradicated, may as well try to turn back tides, or stop rain falling!
11
-
11
-
11
-
@aprilmichelle703 Hi April - I wasn't talking about members of the public at Delphi who saw the suspect on the day.
I was referring to the people out there who know the killer personally - either closely, eg a partner, family member, friends, neighbours or work colleagues, or someone less closely acquainted who sees him regularly such as a bus driver, postman or a waitress who serves him coffee every week. The video is of sufficient quality that if you knew the man well, you would recognise him.
My point is that had the video been shown right after the February 13th 2017 murders, there was a much higher chance of one of those people recognising him and putting two and two together while that critical date was fresh in their minds.
If police had promoted the video far and wide immediately, it would have got lots of publicity (all TV and online news/true crime outlets would have loved the novelty value of showing genuine footage of the suspect in a recent high profile double child murder).
At that early stage so soon after the murders of Abby and Libby, those who knew the killer well may also have known his location that day, his schedule/working hours, and maybe even the clothes he was wearing. It could have immediately sparked a memory of something suspicious - say for example, the killer's wife recognised him, and remembered that week he told her he had taken his blue jacket to the dry cleaners, or had lost his scarf, or perhaps he'd even told her he planned to walk the bridge that day.
A friend or family member of the killer might think the video looks very like their loved one, and recall him acting strangely after the murders, perhaps agitated or excited, he could even have taken a day/days of work sick which is out of character. Armed with that kind of recent circumstantial evidence/detail, they may have felt more inclined to call police with his name.
Remember, this man almost certainly has a history of sexual offending against girls/women (for which he's never been arrested, as police can't match his DNA to the national database). That means he's highly likely to have surviving victims out there who would have potentially recognised him from the video - especially if police had released just one or two details about his unique MO to provide a 'light bulb' moment of recognition for anyone attacked by him before.
But by the time cops decided to release a section of the video two years later, all those kind of details would be long forgotten by the killer's personal circle of family, friends and acquaintances. Therefore they would be less convinced the man on the video is the person they know, and less motivated to call in with his name.
The amount of information police have withheld from the public in this case is unprecedented, and is a serious strategic mistake which has only helped the killer stay undetected.
11
-
@oldschoolfoil2365 In fact the Queen was never close to her eldest child Charles, he had a rotten childhood with a remote, not indulgent mother, who packed him off to boarding school aged 7. That's why the motherly, nurturing Camilla suited him so much better than needy, demanding narcissist Diana, the virgin blue-blood he was forced by the crazy conventions of the times to marry. Charles and Di were two needy people who simply could not help each other!
The Queen had no reason to want Diana dead, the notion is ludicrous to any British person who knows about old fashioned British values and reserve! Besides, Queen Elizabeth has always loved her grandsons William and Harry, and respected the bond they shared with their mother.
Diana was divorced from Charles when she died. Couple that with her obvious lack of intellect, and she was no threat to anyone!
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
They never do see it coming until it's too late, and their son is right there killing them. They have raised a dangerous narcissist, a viper in the nest, and unwittingly given him the power to literally destroy them.
These particular homicides of parents by lazy, entitled adult children who never cut the apron strings and supported themselves, follow a similar pattern. The moment mom and dad stop caving in to his demands, say no and make moves to end the free ride (withdrawing his allowance, telling him to get a job or confronting him over his lies), he will strike. In killing them he's expressing rage that they've said no and tried to set down boundaries 20 years too late, but there's also a financial motive (life insurance/inheritance).
We are seeing these kinds of murders of over-indulgent parents by bratty, twenty-something sons more and more in recent years. Grant Amato and Joel Guy were two very similar cases. It used to be assumed that people turned out killers due to an abusive upbringing, but these crimes show the opposite can be true. Parents who molly-coddle sons in particular (females rarely kill), unwittingly create dangerous narcissists who care about no one but themselves, and are so entitled they will literally kill if they don't get their own way. There have been so many of these kinds of murders over the last 20 years, I think they should be given a special definition of their own.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Yes, I think sadly Kathy got in over her head with an abusive man whose violent crime would taint her reputation and eventually leave her so terrified of going to jail herself, that she could not go on. He may well have told her he killed Victoria, or actively involved her in the cover up. He comes across as a controlling narcissist who expects the women in his life to prop him up, and do his bidding. So I think it's entirely possible he told Kathy about the murder and sought her help, in lying to police etc.
Or she may simply have worked out for herself that he had murdered his wife. The circumstantial evidence - eg the timing of their affair before Victoria vanished, which was central to his motive - was probably as compelling to her, as it was to the jury.
Prokopovitch's poor wife Victoria is the victim here, murdered by the man who had made public wedding vows to love her 'in sickness and in health'. But it's hard to escape the feeling he also has his girlfriend Kathy's blood on his hands. Her daughter, who cried for her on the witness stand, obviously thought her relationship with Jim had indirectly caused her tragic death by suicide, while in police custody. It was a sad end for a woman who was by all accounts a gentle soul and homebody, who loved her menageries of pets.
11
-
Diana was a lousy actress and all these years later the truth is out about her umpteen extra marital affairs - many with other women's husbands.
That she pointed the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she'd been dropping her drawers to a cast of thousands is the most breath taking hypocrisy.
It's a great shame she died when she did - had she survived into the internet age and been exposed to the greater scrutiny it would have brought, her spite, duplicity and promiscuity would have finally been revealed to the world. People still fawn over the late princess and her fictitious, self-serving account of her marriage, because she died young and beautiful.
Had she lived, grown older (and lost the attention of the tabloids to her younger, sexier daughters-in-law), and been exposed as the vindictive, immoral schemer she really was, she'd have had hardly any fans today! She has fans today, simply because she will never grow older, and is forever young and pretty - her fans are even more shallow than she was!
11
-
11
-
11
-
@KH-dm9zm Great posts. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and critical thinking skills can deduce from their extreme behaviour Chris and Roberta Laundrie knew their son had killed Gabby. If he's told them a fiction about her, eg that she went off with another guy, they would have shared that with her family. And they would not have felt any need to hire a damn lawyer!
It's patently obvious the mommy's-boy drove home to mommy (in Gabby's van, stealing $1,000 of her money en route), and as soon as his peanut head was through the door, spilled the beans about killing her. He put the most positive spin he could on it of course, with a ton of victim-blaming, and his parents supported him - as he knew they would. It's clear they'd over indulged him, and cleared up his messes all his life, at 23 he was a man-child who'd never held down a job or lived independently of them!
The Laundries deserve nothing but contempt for their disgusting disrespect of Gabby and her family, a young woman who had shared their home for the last two years. It can't be proved, but it's pretty obvious they knew her body lay abandoned by their son to the elements, rotting and possibly being eaten by animals. Yet they zipped their mouths, and helped Brian escape on foot before whatever was left of her remains, was found by police.
As parents, and as human beings, they should have had enough basic decency to speak to Gabby's desperate family But it's blindingly obvious to all, why they did not. They were protecting their killer son, from the consequences of his sickening violence against a defenceless woman. They over protected him his whole life - that's how he grew into such a disappointing and dangerous man-child.
It's sickening he's cheated justice, and let his folks off the hook too by dispensing with a high profile murder trial and a lifetime of visits to a maximum security prison. Gabby deserves some small morsel of justice, even if it's only the Laundries being prosecuted for harbouring a fugitive and hiding evidence.
11
-
11
-
Diana was a mistress many more times than Camilla. She had several affairs with other women's husbands, threatened many marriages and broke up at least one, Will and Julia Carling's.
Diana wasn't even in love with Carling - she just seduced him for the hell of it because he was a celebrity, caring nothing about his wife at home.
Diana was a stinking hypocrite, crucifying Camilla in the media when she herself was a home wrecker who had many more affairs with married men. Camilla's one affair was with one man only, a man she loved and who loved her, and who she's now happily married to. Diana's grubby affairs were all about sex and cheap thrills, and not one of them lasted!
Had she not got herself killed in that dumb and totally avoidable accident, it's doubtful Diana would ever have achieved a happy marriage, as Charles has done. She was far too self-centred, narcissistic and needy, no man could ever have made her happy. She had no idea how to be the supportive, steadfast partner men need.
I do wish Diana had lived though, it would have been very entertaining to see how she struggled with ageing. All the shallow Diana fans who only worship her because she died young and pretty would have abandoned her years ago, when she started losing her looks and having more and more cosmetic surgery to compete with her younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law Catherine and Meghan.
It would have been a hoot watching her desperate attempts to look good at 60, and grab the headlines from her sons' wives! She'd inevitably have become a pathetic, isolated figure, living on past glories as Prince Charles' wife. Marrying into the royal family was her only notable achievement, and though she never once acknowledged that fact, every other blessing that came her way was thanks, directly or indirectly, to Prince Charles.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Amen, I am so sick of other people being blamed for Chris Watts' depravity - some even blame his totally blameless wife for the fact he killed her and their children! Chris Watts acted alone, like most family annihilators. He was a fit young man of 33 who needed no help to overpower and kill a petite pregnant woman and two little girls. He's disgusting - he alone is responsible!
The three murders were pre-planned weeks in advance, as were the victims' squalid 'graves' at Cervi 319. It wasn't coincidence that the children's heads only just fit through the tiny, 8 inch entry hatch on the oil tanks - Chris Watts has to have measured Bella and Cece's heads in advance to make sure of it. He took the Friday before Sunday's murders off to look after the children while Shanann flew off on her business trip. No one knows where he went that day but I believe he stopped off at Cervi 319 to dig Shanann's grave - probably with the children in the car. He will never admit to that, because it shows how utterly callous, ruthless and premeditated his crimes were.
Nor will Chris Watts ever admit he killed the children first, before Shanann got home. That's why he belatedly endorsed the so-called 'shadows theory' peddled on YouTube, that the neighbour's video of his driveway shows a live child's shadow. Six months after his murder convictions, he decided to go one better than the armchair detectives, and claim he took BOTH children from the house alive. Baloney! He said that to divert people from the ugly truth that he actually killed both children first, in their beds - as the forensic, autopsy and circumstantial evidence proved.
11
-
Cinthia - no one has 'proof' of how another person feels (and especially not people we have never met, let alone know personally). Like you, all I have is the evidence of my own two eyes, and I see a couple with strong mutual chemistry. The signs strongly point to Meghan and Harry being in love. And why wouldn't a woman fall for Harry, regardless of his money or status? He's a very attractive man! If you are accusing Meghan of seeing an opportunity to be happy, and taking it, then I'm sure she would plead guilty as charged! Who wouldn't grab a chance of happiness when it presented itself, wouldn't you? It is quite a stretch to suggest she's an evil, cold hearted woman who only said 'I do' to this man for cynical motives, and not for love. Why some people are making such nasty, negative accusations about her I do not know. She's a pretty, intelligent, successful, impressive young woman who married well - she's not a serial killer! I am happy for her, but then I am self confident enough not to feel threatened by another fabulous woman. I only wish all females had my self esteem, then they wouldn't waste their lives writing character assassinations about a perfectly pleasant woman like Meghan. She and Harry have lots in common in their support for good causes, so the marriage will work very well in practical terms too. Meghan is a breath of fresh air to public life, I can't wait to see what she's going to achieve! How fab to have a proud feminist in such a high profile position, women need a great spokesperson like her.
11
-
11
-
11
-
@MACMIAMI Exactly, it was a meaningless, throwaway remark Charles made to lighten an embarrassing moment when a TV interviewer was asking intimate questions about the newly-engaged couple's feelings for each other.
Ironically he said it to make Diana feel more comfortable - but it has been held up as some terrible slight and used to crucify him forevermore! Diana wasn't bothered by it at the time - it was only years later, when she recognised she could exploit it for more of her favourite commodity, sympathy, that she raked it up as evidence he was a terrible husband. Utter rot!
The truth is the couple were happy and faithful for the first 4 years of their marriage - Diana once admitted this herself, when it dawned on her she wanted her sons to know the truth, that they were born in love. After Harry was born their mutual incompatibility was too much, and they began living separate lives. Diana abandoned Charles to country life in Gloucestershire, while she raced off to the bright lights of London and her glamorous, bachelor flat at Kensington Palace.
The supposed devoted mother sent her two sons to boarding school at her first opportunity, so they were out of her hair and she could carry on umpteen affairs with different, unsuitable men - many of them other women's husbands. Diana had a nerve pointing the finger at Camilla, when she was a serial home-wrecker!
Charles, not surprisingly, turned to Camilla his old friend and old flame. She too was trapped in an unhappy marriage, and as neighbours in Highgrove it's not surprising they rekindled their love. Diana was too busy having fun living the single girl life in London with a procession of secret lovers, to care a jot who or what her estranged husband did!
People really need to stop idolising Diana as if she was Mother Theresa. She was a very pretty, very charming, seriously narcissistic and flawed woman, whose selfish, reckless hedonism got her killed in a totally needless accident aged 36. She got everything she desired out of that marriage to a future king, fame, adulation, riches and VIP status, and ironically once she was shot of the one aspect of the union she didn't like - Prince Charles - and all-set for a life of self-indulgence, she threw it all away in a split second decision not to wear her seat belt.
11
-
11
-
@stepheneurosailor1623 The prosecution made the point about the prison phone call/inappropriate slasher reference in context of a conversation he was having about his parents' memorial service, to demonstrate how callous and unmoved he was at their deaths. Obviously that supported their assertion he felt no remorse for murdering them, and deserved the most severe custodial sentence.
If he was aware those calls were not private but monitored by third parties, the inappropriately frivolous tone of his chat is even more striking!
Having followed the trial, I'm surprised at your view he had an accomplice whom the police never identified. There would surely have been evidence for that. Are you of the view his girlfriend Cat helped him, and police decided not to pursue her in exchange for her testimony? I recall a few people said that in live chats, as she gave evidence during the trial. I don't share that view.
As a young, fit man in good health (despite his various health hoaxes), he was perfectly able to shoot two adults dead, dismember them and scatter their body parts. He had the house to himself, no job/time constraints, and the use of a car.
Cat's mother remarked in her evidence that Chandler looked physically 'exhausted' on 4th July, which would fit with his macabre activities of the last few days.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
BOOM! The second Johnny Depp told Amber Heard the marriage was over, was the start of her vicious, six-year vendetta against him. I believe she was capable of killing him, as the worst narcissistic abusers can kill their victim when they end the relationship.
Such abusers won't accept rejection. When the victim dumps them, they take away their power. They are so warped and controlling, they then 'take their power back' in the most perverse and vicious way possible, by murdering them.
In my view Johnny Depp is only alive today because he left the US for a music tour of Europe, right after telling Heard he was pulling the plug on the marriage. If he'd stuck around, I feel he could have been found with the large knife she gifted him inscribed 'TILL DEATH' sticking out of his heart. And this could have been a murder trial, with Heard spouting the same, heinous lies about him assaulting her, to prop up a self defence story.
With Johnny out of the country, the spurned wife could no longer physically attack him. So she did the next best thing and launched divorce proceedings, and took out a restraining order, to tell the world she had rejected him for being an abuser. And as Depp himself said, from that big lie, sprung all the increasingly outrageous lies that followed it, about donating his $7m settlement to charity, about his supposed physical abuse and even sexual assault fictions.
She wanted revenge on him for daring to reject her. And she wouldn't be content till she'd ruined him and turned his name into box office poison. She got pretty far in her campaign, bolstered by the #MeToo movement - and the fact most women who make such allegations are telling the truth. She shamelessly rode on the true, terrible stories of the many female victims of violent men. But Johnny Depp is no such man - and the total lack of evidence confirmed it.
Eventually when the Op Ed appeared two years after their divorce was finalised, he recognised she would continue to defame him and milk their 15 month marriage indefinitely, if he didn't take her to court. Far from him 'coming after her' as her lawyers claimed, she wouldn't leave him alone and left him with no choice but to sue. This interview is troubling, as it indicates she's so crazily narcissistic, she won't even be shut up by a big legal defeat at jury trial!
She's only digging herself a deeper hole, as the majority of the public who watched the trial live, took the same view as the jury - they did not believe her. She's lying again when she claims to still love Depp - first off, she doesn't know the meaning of the word. Second, if she loved him, she would have moved on and quit slandering his name at every opportunity. But the last point is surely this - if he really had 'beaten her up' and even raped her, why on earth would she feel anything for him but contempt? Yep, she exposed herself as a liar, yet again!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Glad @CourtTV discussed the brutal reality of Jorge Torres' prolonged and horrendous suffering, locked inside the suitcase as his oxygen ran out, while his girlfriend mocked his distress and repeatedly denied his desperate pleas to release him. This crime is right up there among the worst categories of sadistic, cruel and depraved murders.
I've followed this story for the last 4 years (and seen Sarah Boone's outrageous, entitled conduct in custody - which judging by her dramatic weight gain, sure didn't put her off her food). But until watching this report tonight, I wasn't aware the suitcase flipped over and moved some distance from its original position on the lounge floor, between the two Smartphone videos recorded by the defendant. I think Boone will have a very hard time explaining that away in court.
The flipping of the suitcase and it's progress around 2 feet across the room, could not have been achieved by Torres himself. It had to have been done deliberately by Sarah Boone, and it had to take a significant amount of effort on her part, to achieve. 4 years ago she was a slight woman, I'd guess around 30lbs lighter. She must have expended considerable effort, and I am guessing mostly used her legs/a combination of legs and upper body, to overturn that heavy suitcase containing an adult man.
Let's not forget she was drunk at the time too, as her slurred words on video confirm. Why, in her drunken, unsteady state, was it so important to her to turn that suitcase over? The answer is sadly obvious, and utterly chilling - she was getting pleasure from torturing Jorge Torres, and escalating his suffering inside the horrific, zippered tomb from which she knew he could not escape. She had him totally defenceless and at her mercy, and she planned to enjoy every minute.
The starkly different position of the suitcase between videos, proves that this murder involved prior, sadistic torture. It also supports the Prosecution case that it absolutely WAS murder, and not some 'unfortunate accident', as she claims. Her motive was obvious, to make her hated boyfriend suffer her deadly revenge, for his prior alleged sins against her of domestic violence and infidelity.
Jorge Torres' autopsy revealed multiple injuries, most notably a severe and heavily bleeding wound to his head, plus other bleeding cuts and abrasions, severe bruising, and black eyes. During her initial police questioning, Boone pleaded total ignorance of those injuries. Prosecutors concluded they occurred when she pushed him down the stairs, inside the suitcase. That was likely her first, serious assault on him, before filming the subsequent, infamous cellphone videos taunting him.
Boone denies pushing him down the stairs, claiming he got into the suitcase on the ground floor. But the fact she flipped the case with him inside it, as proven on the video images, again supports the prosecution case that he sustained his nasty injuries from a prior tumble down her stairs inside the case, which she did not film.
We will never know how or why Jorge Torres made the deadly mistake of climbing into that case. The evidence of torture captured on video suggests to me this was a premeditated crime, and that Sarah Boone slyly tricked him into the suitcase on some lighthearted pretext, with a very sinister, hidden agenda.
I believe he entered the case upstairs, not downstairs as she claims (suitcases are typically stored in bedrooms after all). Once he was zipped inside and she was satisfied he was trapped and helpless, she committed her first assault on him, pushing the case down the stairs, from the very top to the very bottom, with all her might. It was such a violent and forceful descent, a neighbour heard it and thought Boone was moving heavy furniture. That alone could have killed him, had he suffered a neck injury for example, banged his head, or had any kind of cardiac event on the way down.
Sarah Boone's blatant lack of remorse immediately after discovering her partner's body next day, and her ongoing lack of grief for his terrible suffering and death, confirm exactly how ruthless she is. Her number one concern, first, last and in the middle, is always herself. It was only too predictable she asked the officers in the interview room if she could get back the 'expensive' ring she'd given Jorge (at the time he was wearing it while lying lifeless on a slab at the morgue). When told no, she expressed anger that his family, who she hated, would get to keep it. This was not a grieving woman begging for an item of jewellery for sentimental value. It was all about the ring's monetary value. You got the distinct impression if she could have visited his lifeless corpse and yanked it from his cold, dead finger, she'd have done it in a heartbeat.
Boone really thought she could not only torture and kill her boyfriend, but film herself doing it, and walk away a free woman just by telling cops: "It was unintentional". Her arrogance and delusion are off the scale, and will be on full display at her imminent murder trial. She's so far removed from reality, I'd bet money she'll make the huge mistake of taking the stand, assuming she'll charm the jurors. It's gonna be a wild ride!
This is a woman who cynically uses the fact she's a mother, to present herself to detectives (and others), as a responsible, caring and decent human being. But she's fooling no one. She's shown scant concern for her only child since her arrest for this now infamous suitcase murder. The homicide aside, Boone is an alcoholic, domestic abuser and chronic narcissist. Frankly it's no mystery whatsoever that her son's father, won full custody of him. Thank God he did!
Jorge Torres' death was an unimaginable tragedy, which his children and other loved ones must live with for the rest of their lives. But if there's one silver lining to emerge from this vile crime, it's that Sarah Boone's innocent little boy will be forever spared her toxic presence in his life.
Jorge paid the ultimate price for his abusive relationship. But he was an adult, and he made a choice to be with Boone. Her son however, had no choice. I bet his life has much improved in the 4 years she's been held in custody. Poor kid likely receives a ton of mail from Mommie-Dearest the serial letter-writer, in that same, crazy oversized scrawl she harasses the judge with. But mail can be burned, trashed or returned to sender. An abusive parent can show-up on your doorstep any time, and ruin your day.
I think Sarah Boone's imminent Guilty verdict and Life sentence for murder will be a huge relief to her son and her ex-husband. They will be totally free of her, for the first time ever. I wish them both speedy healing, and all the very best for a brighter, Boone-free future.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@jessicascuderi3157 Great post, yes, Nickole and Nate show that the most seemingly ordinary people can be utterly extraordinary when the chips are down.
Nickole went with her woman's intuition and alerted police, even as Chris Watts was calling her cell phone and telling her not to. Females have an innate, inner alarm system to keep us and our vulnerable children/loved ones safe. It rarely if ever steers us wrong and we ignore it at our peril, as this case reminds us!
Chris Watts' hostile body language towards his wife's friend when he arrived at the house was chilling - if looks could kill! And we know if she hadn't called cops but had turned up to his house alone, he was perfectly capable of killing her too, to silence her.
Nate wasn't fooled by his neighbour's big handshake and 'bumbling, harmless family guy' act. Nate is what Chris Watts pretended to be, but never was - a genuine, decent, loving husband and father. I reckon that's why ultimately Nate smelled a rat about Chris Watts. Nate IS the genuine article and knew how he would behave if his wife and kids disappeared out of the blue, so he saw a mile off that Chris Watts wasn't acting in any way like a genuinely concerned, innocent man.
I so wish Shanann had met and married a 'Nate' kind of guy, and never had the misfortune to be fooled into marriage and kids by evil psychopath Chris Watts. How different her fate would have been.
I sometimes imagine Shanann alive and well in a parallel universe where she never even heard the name Chris Watts. I can see her as a happy wife and mother with a loving husband who is as attractive and likeable as herself. They are known in the community as a great couple, upbeat and dynamic with shared love of family, quick wits and sunny personalities. He clearly respects and adores her, thanking his lucky stars every day that he met and married his soul mate. That is the happy, fulfilled life Shanann fully deserved and should be living today. Tragically it was not to be, and no amount of wishing can turn the clock back to change it.
For me, a famous poem by John Greenleaf Whittier sums it up:
"Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: It might have been".
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@carollemieux5254 You have swallowed the late Princess Diana's media manipulation and self-pity party, hook, line and sinker. I don't believe Prince Charles was perfect, nor do I accept Diana's massively skewed character assassinations on him. There was fault on both sides but this was merely a marriage failing - it wasn't any kind of tragedy, as Diana pretended for public sympathy.
Half of all marriages fail - why was Diana so bitter and twisted about hers? She didn't want Charles any more than he wanted her, they were totally incompatible! She made it blatantly obvious on their joint public appearances from the late 'eighties, that he bored her to tears. But she didn't want to see him happy with someone else - while she was sleeping with any man with a pulse (and many with a wedding ring!) Diana was a disgraceful home-wrecker, with no conscience whatsoever about sleeping with married men.
Many women suffer greatly in a divorce - emotionally, financially, in all kinds of ways. Diana emerged from hers young and beautiful, with two fine sons, £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace home complete with a team of staff on call 24-7, a Princess title she had fought hard to keep and top VIP status for life. She got an awful lot of glittering prizes from that failed marriage she kept bleating on about!
Diana had a wonderful life ahead of her, and every opportunity to meet a man who did make her happy. But a year after her divorce her own lousy, hedonistic choices got her killed in a stupid accident, that robbed her children of a parent and caused them horrific emotional trauma. She did that to her children by not prioritising them when running around with her lover, and failing to fasten her seat belt - a 5 second job!
Your comments simply don't reflect the reality of the marriage, or the characters involved. So sadly it isn't possible to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject. Shame.
10
-
10
-
10
-
Narcissistic psychopaths like her won't allow the object of their obsession to end the relationship, because that takes away their power. They murder that person to take their power back, once and for all. I blame this woman's dumb, indulgent mother to an extent. She should have taught her daughter to respect other people's right not to love her, or date her, or even be her friend - people have a choice to spend time with you or not, you have no right to force yourself on people as this evil bitch did.
She wouldn't give Ryan a choice about dating her- every time he ended the relationship, she cried hysterically, and stalked him incessantly, so he would give in because he felt guilty about hurting her. He owed her nothing - who the hell does she think she is??? She hated him because he didn't want to be with him. She loved re-living the murder, how she shot him in the head SIX times. There can't have been much left of his head after she was done. That's not self defence - it's rage and hate. Shana Hubers is as dangerous as abusers get - she belongs in a locked cage for the rest of her life, for she will always be a serious public safety risk.
10
-
Ladies - pay close attention to how a man treats you as you move out of the early honeymoon stage, and really get to know him. Financial meanness is a huge red flag you should not ignore!
Shanti was a beautiful, successful, intelligent and much-loved woman - she was highly eligible, for many reasons. But this parasite (as her first husband rightly called Tronnes), was primarily after her money only.
Shanti was a smart woman, but she was not wise to this creep's true intentions - he didn't love her. Sadly the smartest women can miss, or wilfully ignore many red flags in a man's behaviour, because they don't want to face the disappointing reality of who that man is. Far too often women think they can/should fix everything that's wrong in a toxic relationship, and take far too much responsibility for the fact it's failing.
After one year of marriage, she was living like a squatter in a house her husband had gutted and made uninhabitable. It didn't even have a working kitchen! What's more, Tronnes owned the house outright, and never added her name to the property as co-owner. If that wasn't bad enough, he never worked a single day throughout their union - and despite having persuaded her to marry him by falsely claiming to be a multi millionaire, she was the sole breadwinner.
Shanti began to notice every time groceries had to be paid for, or a restaurant bill arrived at the table, Tronnes took a step back, and it was always her credit card that came out. Why did she tolerate that? She even switched the beneficiary of her $350k life insurance policy from her beloved only son Jackson, to Tronnes - no doubt at his persuading. Total madness!
The relationship was so bad, they clearly weren't even having sex any more, living not just in separate beds, but in separate wings of the house. Police discovered Tronnes was a member of a same sex sauna/bath house, a fact his wife was unaware of. Poor Shanti must have been desperately lonely and unhappy with this man.
The trigger for the domestic murder is only too predictable - Tronnes knew Shanti would not tolerate the miserable life he had given her for much longer. On the day he brutally beat and strangled her to death, I suspect she told him of her intention to leave him. Divorce would have meant dividing their assets, but murder would get rid of the woman he'd never loved (narcissistic abusers care only for themselves), and get him a big pay-day.
Shanti made the fatal mistake of sleeping at the wheel, and clinging to an abusive relationship long past its expiration date. She's not the first woman to make that mistake and be killed because she stayed with her abuser too long, allowing him the access and opportunity to kill her - and sadly, she won't be the last.
I am so sick of hearing of domestic murders of fabulous women, by inadequate, toxic males. Please ladies, watch and learn from these tragedies, and don't let it happen to you. Pay close attention to how your partner treats you, and how the relationship makes you feel. Are you happy and secure, do you feel loved, valued and respected? Do you laugh together, talk together, enjoy simple shared pleasures like a walk in the park or a home cooked meal? Shanti was living with a lazy fantasist, who wouldn't share his one asset with her - the marital home - and expected her to fund his lifestyle. He didn't even provide a nice home for their married life - for the last 18 months of her life she was living in a building site.
If all that weren't bad enough, it appears the marriage was celibate, despite his lie to police that they had sex on the night before her murder. Forensics proved otherwise. Shanti was getting nothing out of that marriage but misery and expense - not even sex or affection. Don't make the same mistake girls - get out without delay, and never look back. Stay too long with such a man, and you may not live to tell the tale.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@EclecticG A huge and hugely sincere THANK YOU to YOU and every other wonderful, courageous and decent person who has written positively in response to my consistently honest, good faith online posts.
To be clear - I am grateful to every response under my original post here, supporting truth and integrity, in the face of appalling, cynical and self-serving LIES.
We, the honest and truthful witnesses, know most people, are good people, who oppose every fake, disingenuous, post you typically see here.
In closing, I must stress: Please value and share, the TRUTH. So many important, honest and profound outcomes depend on your courage and honesty. Go for it!
God bless you, my friend. XXX
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Yes, easily - those girls were just 13 and 14, nothing in their young lives had prepared them for the terror they experienced that day, at the hands of a sex predator. It's a very common reaction to freeze with fear if confronted in such a way, and comply with everything the perpetrator orders you to do, in hopes that's the best way to stay alive. But it rarely is.
I feel we should teach our teens self defence and survival techniques for such situations as part of their school education. Girls in particular are raised to respect adults (especially men), never say 'no' to them, and to be 'nice' and compliant.
We should instead be telling our girls to do the opposite of everything a would-be attacker tells you to do, plus make as much noise and effort as possible to escape him. Scream "NO!" as loudly as possible to attract the attention of passers by, kick, bite and FIGHT if needs be. The crucial point is to resist going with the perpetrator to what the FBI calls; 'the second location'. Because the second location is the quiet location, away from other people and the hope of escape, where he plans to do his worst to you. The second location may be his car. In Abby and Libby's case it was 'Down the hill'.
10
-
Bailey the service dog Charles got for autistic JJ was valuable because he was specially trained (as well as being a pedigree Goldendoodle). So Lori tried to sell him for $1,500. But unluckily for her, the organisation that had trained Bailey saw her advert and immediately intervened, telling Lori it was not her dog to sell, and taking him back.
The dog's training had cost that organisation many thousands! Bailey was re-homed to another child like JJ with special needs. And JJ lost his best friend - after losing his devoted dad Charles, his loving big sister Tylee, and even his grandma and grandpa Kay and Larry Woodcock, whose regular contact with him Lori spitefully stopped, after Kay received Charles' $1 million life insurance - that she thought was coming to her, after she and Alex murdered him!
The last few months of JJ's life, as the most important people in his life were taken from him - and then even his dog disappeared - are heartbreaking. He must have been the loneliest little boy in the world when Alex Cox finally came for him that fateful night in September. .😭😭😭
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@josephcraffigan8489 I wasn't aware we were arguing! There is no argument. Any object is only worth what someone will pay for it. I didn't say estimates are not made - of course they are, we heard a few in this video. The point is, estimates are only that - estimates. And in the case of unique items of great historic/cultural significance, estimates are generally wildly inaccurate because no one can possibly know how high bids would go were they ever put up for sale.
The1987 auction of the late Duchess of Windsor's jewellery is a perfect example. In every case, Sotheby's estimates fell massively short of what each item sold for. There was an international bidding frenzy among the super rich. Royal provenance adds an immediate and huge premium - not least because it's so rare for royal treasures to be sold to the public. But the infamous and dramatic history behind Wallis Simpson's jewels - the abdication crisis and the legendary love story that caused it -
gave these lots huge added glamour and therefore value.
As I've pointed out, estimates are totally academic in most cases, because items like Princess Diana's engagement ring will never be sold. The ticket price Prince Charles paid for that ring in 1981 is actually irrelevant and gives no indication of it's massive value on the open market today. He short-changed Diana really, because as a manufactured ring that anyone could buy at that time, it was worth far less than a unique ring he could have plucked from the royal vaults.
In theory Diana's sapphire 'high street' ring should be worth far less today than, for example Camilla Duchess of Cornwall's engagement ring, featuring a flawless, 5 carat emerald cut diamond, which Charles selected from his grandmother Elizabeth the Queen Mother's fabulous personal collection. The ring he gifted Camilla is a far superior ring to the late Princess of Wales' in every way. But there can be no doubt which of the two rings would fetch the most money at auction, and it's purely down to the popularity and global profiles of the two women who owned them.
So it's kind of pointless you going on and on as though an item's value can be set in stone at any given time by some absolute, unchanging formula. It can't.
The question of how royal treasures were originally acquired and whether the royals should continue to lay claim to them, is a totally different subject. Hate to break it to you, but the evidence suggests they won't be changing hands any time soon! Enjoy your day and stay well.
10
-
You talk about Brian as if he's in the same category as Gabby - He is her murderer! She is the only victim here, along with her heartbroken family and friends, and they are the only people deserving of sympathy. I doubt anyone but his warped parents will mourn Brian the fiance-strangler.
Brian has taken the coward's way out, which is to be expected from a cowardly domestic abuser and killer. Gabby's loved ones have been cheated out of the closure they deserve from a full trial, and justice for their murdered child.
As far as Brian Laundrie's parents Chris and Roberta are concerned, his death is a little bit of karma - they will experience some of the pain her family have. However, they have the comfort of knowing their child died at his own hands and by his own choice - he was not terrorised and brutally murdered by someone he loved, trusted, and planned to spend his whole life with! Gabby's death by strangulation at his hands, was infinitely crueller and totally unjustifiable.
The Laundries should now be prosecuted in Brian's place for withholding evidence, aiding and abetting a fugitive and every other offence that can possibly be thrown at them. They are scum. Maybe now they might have a little empathy for the suffering they put Gabby's parents through, in barring their doors and windows and refusing to answer their pleas for information. But I doubt it, those two care about no one but themselves - and in their killer son they spawned an evil sociopath in their own image. Good riddance to Brian Laundrie - the only good domestic killer is a dead one!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@SHAWNEESKYWALKER Yes poor Charles did all he could to save himself and Loriu's children, when he realised what a toxic, dangerous individual she had become once she joined forces with lover Chad Daybell.
Charles spoke to police, to his own and even to Lori's family, expressing his very real fears for his life and the children's. He even consulted his divorce lawyer and began proceedings against her to end the 13 year marriage. But incredibly Charles loved Lori to the end and abandoned those proceedings, hoping they would ultimately reconcile and raise JJ together. Instead she wound up murdering JJ!
Lori was crazy about Chad Daybell (literally!) but strung Charles along because she wanted to be his wife when she and her brother Alex murdered him, to get her greedy hands on his $1m life insurance.
Charles was murdered for the $1 million Lori assumed she'd get on his death - but found he'd switched to his sister, to ensure his children were provided for. There was another reason they murdered Charles - he was the children's main protector. With him gone, Lori, Chad and Alex could pursue their diabolical plans to get rid of JJ and Tylee, who they described as 'obstacles'.
They could so easily have let them live, and not had to raise them. Tylee was almost an adult at 17, and JJ's grandma Kay would have happily taken him. But Lori wanted to steal the children's monthly incomes (from benefits and inheritance), and furious at Kay for getting what she regarded as her $1m life insurance payout, she killed little JJ out of revenge.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@stepheneurosailor1623 Chandler's bad-taste memorial service comment was mentioned by the prosecution at the end of the trial, when they were making statements to the judge about his jail sentence, and recommending the longest possible life term.
His prison phone calls were being recorded and monitored by the authorities, but apparently that possibility never occurred to him (he's hardly the master criminal is he?!) He said some pretty heartless things about the loving parents he murdered, proving he felt no remorse or guilt for his heinous crimes.
To be capable of not only murdering, but then dismembering and scattering the dead bodies of close relatives, reveals a deeply depraved and dangerous psyche. Chandler can never be judged safe to walk freely among decent people again.
He will die in his cage. While he's there at the taxpayers' expense I hope expert psychologists and criminologists will study him like a lab rat, whether he likes it or not. There have to be some clues as to how this much loved, middle class man (and others like him, eg Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jr), became dangerous killers.
10
-
Anyone who becomes royal by marriage, then divorces out of the royal family, automatically loses the HRH title. It wasn't any kind of snub against Diana, it was the normal protocol. Captain Mark Phillips and Sarah Ferguson didn't moan about losing HRH when they divorced Princess Anne and Prince Andrew, they knew that was to be expected. Why did Diana make such a fuss about it?
If Diana was the sweet, humble, down-to-earth 'People's Princess', her fans claim, she wouldn't have cared a damn that people no longer had to curtsy to her! That she threw a huge tantrum about it, and even cried in front of 14 year old William (she was always leaning on the poor kid and using him as an emotional crutch), shows what an egotistical narcissist she was.
She was so dumb, she got herself killed in a totally needless accident. On her divorce, the Queen offered her the best Scotland Yard security team for life, the kind of top VIP protection money alone can't buy. She felt Diana deserved that level of security, as mother to the future King William. But Diana churlishly stuck two fingers up at her former mother-in-law and refused her generous offer. If she'd had brain cells in double figures, she'd have accepted and kept herself safe for her children's sake. She didn't even use some of the massive £17 million divorce settlement Charles gave her, to employ her own security team! She was totally irresponsible, a woman of 36 acting like a teenager.
Diana died because she handed her personal safety arrangements to the crooked Mohammed Al Fayed (using her for publicity, he'd pimped out his coke-head, playboy son for her sexual entertainment), and forget about her two children and failed to wear a seat belt. Experts agreed, had she only given William and Harry a thought and buckled up, she'd have walked away from the cash with no more than bruising and a broken arm. Some mother she was - she failed in every parent's first duty, to stay alive to raise your children to adults.
10
-
10
-
10
-
Prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to build a strong case against Wendi Adelson. They know she's an attorney, and will hire the best defence team her late husband Dan Markel's money can buy. They must bring their A-game, and have certainly had enough time to prepare. I pray they have uncovered a killer 'Gotcha' piece of evidence against her.
There are hints of cracks developing within the Adelson family. In recent years Wendi has been keeping her brother and parents at arms length, terrified of following them to prison. I wonder how Charlie feels, knowing he will die behind bars because he was manipulated to arrange a murder by his mother and sister?
Mom Donna is facing the same horrendous penalty, and again I imagine is pretty resentful of Wendi, her only daughter, who no longer visits her parents. She and husband Harvey are now pretty much estranged from her and their two grandsons. Donna now faces leaving prison in a body bag, all because, in her eyes, she was a devoted mother who stuck her neck out to solve her daughter's 'problem'. And this is the thanks she gets - Wendi has turned her back on them, out of ruthless self-preservation.
I wonder if the anger Charlie and Donna feel towards Wendi, the family princess/golden child who pushed for and endorsed her ex husband's murder, could prompt them to turn on her, and take them down with them, either now or in the future?
Alienating them is a risky strategy by Wendi - they have the power to put her away for life, though obviously they would have to incriminate themselves to do it. But it would not be the first time the Adelson family had a huge bust up. As was mentioned in this report, eldest son Rob is estranged from them after Donna refused to respect his right to choose a non Jewish bride.
Rob recently had closed door meetings with prosecutors and may give evidence against his mother at her imminent murder trial. His evidence, giving an insider perspective on the twisted family that allegedly arranged their son-in-law's murder, would be fascinating. And what of Harvey, the Adelson family patriarch, like Wendi, named by prosecutors as a conspirator in Dan Markel's murder? Will he face justice next? There are many more gripping chapters to come in this story. But the one the public most keenly awaits, is the prosecution of Wendi.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Exactly! This sicko wanted to own his wife, to him she was merely a possession to be used and abused. Typical double standards of the narcissistic abuser, it's fine for him to disrespect her and have affairs, but he demands total obedience and devotion from her.
A woman is at highest risk of being murdered by her abuser, when she ends or threatens to end the relationship. This removes his power at a stroke, and the worst abusers may decide to take back their power in the ultimate, twisted way, by ending her life. It's the age-old 'If I can't have you, no one else will'.
How many more Anas out there right now as I type this, living miserable, frightened lives with abusers who will some day kill them? Far too many. In the UK alone, two women are killed every week by an abusive partner/ex partner. More must be done to keep women safe, and to educate men about respectful relationships (these crimes are almost exclusively male perpetrated). I believe children/teens should learn about this stuff at school, knowledge is power.
10
-
10
-
Speak for yourself. Most people saw through the manipulative Princess Diana's fake, eyelash-batting 'victim' act many years ago!
The woman was unhinged, a vain, vacuous airhead who couldn't be a good and loyal wife to Charles or anyone else. All she wanted was casual sex with umpteen different lovers - most of whom she introduced to her innocent little boys. She had a very nasty habit of chasing other women's husbands too!
But fools like you still want to believe the garbage she sold to the public in the Andrew Morton book, and her notorious BBC Panorama interview in which she disgracefully attacked the father of her children and the institution that her eldest son would one day lead. And all out of pure spite and vindictiveness - when she didn't want Charles herself, she just didn't want him to be happy with the ONE woman who he turned to when his wife rejected him.
All the time Diana was pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, she was was sleeping around with unsuitable men - many of whom were married! There were many more than "three people" in the marriage - Diana deliberately 'forgot' to mention all her own lovers! She was a devious, spoiled, narcissistic liar and hypocrite. She died at 36 because yet again she put her lover and hedonism ahead of her own children and failed to wear her seat belt.
Can't wait to see Queen Camilla, she'll be a wonderful ambassador for Britain, just as she's been a superb. loving and loyal wife to Prince Charles - something his first wife, Diana the backstabber and adulterer, most certainly was not!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Exactly right - the police confirmed very early on, this was not a hate crime. But predictably, trans activists exploited it as such, falsely claiming that the victim, a trans identified teen boy, was killed due to his trans status. Not true!
In fact the killers, a boy and a girl now aged 16, shared an obsession with sadistic violence, watched torture videos together, and over years plotted in sickening detail the gruesome murders of at least five of their friends. The motive was not bigotry, but blood-lust.
The defendants have turned on each other, and are claiming their co-accused was to blame. I have no doubt the jury will see through that well-worn ruse! They are clearly two extremely warped and dangerous individuals, who egged each other on.
I hope, despite their young age, the killers will serve proper prison sentences, reflecting the horror of their knife violence against another child. More must be done to stop kids carrying knives!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@gerardmackay8909 Thanks - it's good to find voices of sanity like yours here. The Diana fans are an 'interesting' breed, aren't they?!
Decades after she was exposed as a narcissist who died on vacation because she entrusted her safety to the shady Al Fayeds, fans are still writing about her as though she were some saintly Mother Teresa. She didn't even prioritise her children enough on that holiday, to fasten her seat belt!
Diana's sexual exploits make Camilla look like the blessed virgin, and her self delusions are on a par with her crazy worshippers.
Like Diana herself, these idiot groupies demonise Charles for falling out of love with her (just as she fell out of love with him - arranged marriages usually fail), and refuse to acknowledge she'd have been nothing without the royal family!
Diana didn't become a star because of any great talent or achievement. She wasn't a celebrated ballerina (as she had fantasised since a teenager), actress, model, writer or sportswoman. Neither was she accomplished in the arts or sciences. She was a homely, aristocratic girl, who ended her expensive private education at 16, without a single qualification. She became world famous only for marrying the British heir to the throne. Whoever had bagged Prince Charles for a husband would have been subject to exactly the same intense, global scrutiny and interest as Diana was.
It was sad for Charles that as recently as the 'seventies he was so restricted in his choice of bride, that he had to marry a much younger woman (so she'd have no sexual history), and a woman from the aristocracy. Thank God times change, and his eldest son William was less restricted in his choice of a life partner.
William got himself a much better wife than his dad did! Catherine is devoted to William, and quite content to let him take the limelight and shine, while she steps back and supports him. That's very different to Diana, who got a taste of fame then couldn't get enough!
Ironically Catherine doesn't crave attention but is a far better public speaker than her late mother-in-law, and far smarter too. I'm not a royalist, but think she has potential to make a real difference in her role as Queen.
Of course her relationship with William was allowed to develop over many years and be tested. Poor Charles was never able to get to know Diana. If he had, he'd have kicked her into touch long before she got the ring on her finger, and priceless tiaras on her empty head!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@milkandspice1074 Well the failure of the marriage was a far bigger disaster for Charles, because as heir to the throne it left him without the woman he and everyone else expected to be his Queen!
I agree, Diana was clearly too young for marriage - but she went into it enthusiastically, and from her wedding day onwards showed she adored the limelight and all the glamour that came with life as the Princess of Wales.
In fact she loved it so much, she dragged her heels and didn't want a divorce. But her vindictive BBC 'Panorama' interview put paid to that and backfired on her big time, as it prompted the Queen to order a divorce pronto. Unfortunately Diana was so dim, she thought she could publicly kick her estranged husband in the balls and continue to enjoy all the perks of being his wife in name only!
Diana was not 19 when she began showing her true, spiteful colours - colluding on the Andrew Morton book (a pack of self-serving, self-pitying lies and exaggerations), the back-stabbing 'Panorama' interview in which she attacked the institution her son would one day be the head of, and embarked on umpteen affairs with married men. She indulged in all that bad behaviour as a mature, 30-something mother of two who should have had the morality and decency to behave better!
Nor was she an immature 19-year-old when she stupidly put her personal safety in the hands of the shady Mohammed Al Fayed, forgot she was mother of two dependent children, and failed to fasten her seat belt. Diana had no excuse for the lousy choices which ultimately cost her her life.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@MrThecarebear Get real! There isn't a single word of 'justification' for the mass media in my earlier post. Just truth. George Michael playing the victim in this interview isn't just disingenuous, it's hugely disappointing.
George Michael was world famous from the age of 18, and an expert in how the media worked - he played it like a champ. He wasn't dumb, quite the opposite, he was a highly intelligent man, fully aware he was playing with fire in terms of his global profile, by having sex with strangers in public locations. What did he think would happen if he ever got arrested - a news blackout?! Maybe the risk of media exposure was part of the thrill for him.
He would have triggered exactly the same level of mass publicity had he been having illicit sex with women, in those circumstances. Assuming the role of victim and accusing the media of 'homophobia', was a shameless piece of misdirection he knew would win sympathy. Many fell for it - astonishingly some still do today!
Like most people, I couldn't care less what turns other people on, and I certainly have no issue with homosexuality. But I find hypocrisy repugnant - particularly from a superstar like George Michael, who had no reason whatsoever to hide in the closet in an era (and a profession), which wholeheartedly embraced gay men and women. Sir Elton John made exactly this point.
As a UK TV producer in the 1990s I knew George Michael was gay. It was an open secret in television. But the public did not, because he chose to remain firmly in the closet. And he worked very hard to achieve this. His post-WHAM! pop videos from the late-'eighties onward, typically featured him playing a macho heterosexual, lusting after females. In addition his publicist ensured he was photographed on the arm of various beautiful women, rumoured to be his latest girlfriend. None of them were, obviously, he was dating men. He did gay people a huge disservice with that fraud which went on for a staggering SIXTEEN YEARS! Pretending to be straight wasn't just cynical and cowardly, it was totally unnecessary.
It's hugely disappointing for the gay community that George didn't proudly, publicly come out as the magnificent gay man his friends knew and loved. Frankly, when he gave this and other big interviews after he was outed, he owed gay people a massive apology. He should have outed himself years earlier! Instead his long-term deception gave his arrest for cruising far bigger shock value, and gave the media the power to out him. He stupidly handed his arse to the 'gutter media' on a plate, to mock and ridicule him - and by association, all gay people.
As I've said before, that kind of hypocrisy by public figures is meat and drink to journalists, and they were bound to report it. Exposing hypocrisy among the rich and powerful is a central responsibility of a free press, and the hallmark of any democracy.
George Michael had no one to blame but himself for the media storm he brought on his own head, by his own behaviour and choices. But instead of eating humble pie, he had the nerve to attack the media for telling the truth about him - something he had determinedly refused to do, for many years.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Diana overdid the eyeliner terribly - her make up was stuck in a 1980s time warp! She also overdid the 'shy Di' upward glance through her lashes - though it was very effective at seducing other women's husbands (Barry Manakee, Oliver Hoare and Will Carling, to name just three of the many married men she pursued and seduced).
Diana had a damn nerve pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she herself was the most hard-faced home wrecker around! It's a great shame she didn't live. She would have hated ageing and losing the media limelight to her younger, more attractive daughters-in-law Catherine and Meghan. There would have been frequent fall outs between her and her beleaguered sons as they tried to keep her and their wives happy. And with the rise of the internet, her frequently appalling, narcissistic tantrums and bad behaviour generally, would have been exposed to the public. Had she lived, she would have been found out!
In dying young, Diana's self-styled martyrdom as the supposedly 'innocent, wronged wife' is a myth that's endured with her gullible fans. Those who know better, know better - and the truth will out, as it always does with public figures. History will ultimately judge Princess Diana a shallow, self-serving narcissist who died sticking two fingers up at the royal family who made her, and gave her every glittering privilege she recklessly threw away that fateful night. Keeping bad company and accepting the shady Al Fayed's hospitality, then failing to think of her dependant children and fasten her seat belt are the reason Diana died needlessly at 36. Her death in a stupid accident was a tragedy entirely of her own making.
9
-
@beachlife2968 Don't forget Eamonn and Ruth were only on 'This Morning' one day a week, Friday, and they were not close to Phillip Schofield - far from it, they didn't like him. Ruth even made an official complaint about his on-air rudeness to her, during a live link to 'Loose Women'.
Eamonn admits they heard rumours about Schofield and the young runner, but they were not in the 'in crowd', and didn't know for sure - they could hardly report him for a rumour! However, Holly Willoughby and ITV execs WERE on the inside, and they certainly DID know about Schofield's affair with a teenage runner he'd got a job on the show - ITV were paying for cars for the young man to and from Schofield's London apartment to the TV studios, overnight!
ITV and Schofield's co-host Holly Willoughby actively colluded in the cover up to protect him - they are up to their necks in this! The fact they are still lying about it now, this time to save their own necks, is a disgrace and Eamonn is absolutely right, Holly Willoughby, Kevin Lygo, Martin Frizzell and the rest should be held fully accountable, and an independent inquiry should investigate the true facts!
That cover up culminated in that total farce of the 'This Morning', 'coming out' episode in 2020. Unbelievably, that was scripted and stage managed during Eamonn and Ruth's Friday show, without their prior knowledge or consultation - and they were the presenters! No wonder Eamonn looks so uncomfortable when you watch the footage - he has clocked the fact Schofield's agents, ITV execs, and even Victoria Newton a senior exec at The Sun, are watching the whole ridiculous 'confession' from the sidelines in the studio.
If I were Eamonn and Ruth, I'd be livid at being disrespected and used like that, treated with no respect, and forced to participate in what was clearly a very suspect stunt! The couple are honest, decent people of integrity - and that's why Schofield and the powers-that-be didn't like them, and ultimately had them booted off 'This Morning'.
I've worked as a freelance TV producer for over 20 years, and have worked with both Phillip Schofield and Eamonn Holmes, I can confirm they are like chalk and cheese. Eamonn is warm, down to earth and approachable - he has time for everyone who works on his shows, Schofield is the opposite, an egotistical horror who thinks he's too important to bother with the 'little people', ie the researchers and producers who work so hard to make him look good!
It is all those hard-working production staff disrespected by Schofield (and the snooty Holly Willoughby) over the years, Eamonn is speaking out for - and I and many others applaud him.
9
-
9
-
It's hard to understand, because money was the least of Peter Falk's assets - he was a lovable, talented, charismatic man, and would have been even if he had never become famous. For a decent woman, those qualities alone would be enough! That it appears she married him primarily because of what he could offer in terms of money and status is tragic. He deserved better than that - true love. But sadly, wealthy men often choose unwisely. The late great British movie actor David Niven married a beautiful woman called Primmie, who adored him, and gave him two lovely sons. But Primmie died in a freak accident, falling downstairs in the dark at a friends house during a game of hide-and-seek. David Niven was heartbroken at her loss, but he re-married quickly - a beautiful but ruthless Swedish model who was cruel to his motherless children and latterly, when he was an old man and dying, cruel to him too. Men can be too easily swayed by a woman's looks, when they should be looking into her heart!
9
-
@CatalinaFOIA Wow yes, lots of spooky serendipity there!
Thanks for explaining, for some reason I missed that info when I watched the video. I can't have been paying attention - think I was stunned that so many who encountered Chandler in the days after he'd murdered his parents said he gave them the creeps! I reckon the family dogs must have been terrified of him too, as silent witnesses to their beloved owners' dismemberment. Poor darlings couldn't tell anyone.😿😿
This is why evil, cold blooded killers like him are ultimately found out. They are so out of step with normal, emotionally-functioning people, they can't even convincingly fake heartache at loved-ones going missing. Plus Chandler was telling Bart and Krista's oldest friends they'd gone to a casino with a strange couple, a ton of cash and boxes of liquor - when they knew full well they were a stay at home, anti gambling, and boozing couple, and accountant Bart was described by several as 'tight' with money!
I hoped as the trial unfolded we might learn why Chandler told that particular lie about his parents, when it was such an unlikely story to anyone who knew them. I kept expecting a witness to pop up and say Chandler had been captured on CCTV stealing $1,000 from his dad's account and stocked up on booze to take to his girlfriend's house for a surprise engagement party or something! I guess like so many other aspects of this horror story, it will remain a mystery.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Are you talking about Supt Doug Carter? He's a disaster - he mishandled the Delphi murders all the way to cold case status, and needs to be replaced forthwith. His inexperience in dealing with homicides made him over-cautious, in holding back far too much information from the public. That has played a huge role in it remaining unsolved. He only released a single still of the murderer, and sat on the longer video of him for two whole years! Why? That's the question this interviewer should have asked him.
It was clearly a massive mistake by Carter. Had he shown the fuller moving images from day one, there was the best chance of someone who knew the killer coming forward with his name, recognising his clothes or remembering his schedule from that afternoon. Two years later, the trail was cold and the video had lost a lot of its power. Remember, this killer's DNA and fingerprints are not on the national database - he's never been arrested before. That and the fact he was undoubtedly a stranger to the girls, makes him especially hard to catch - and makes the video evidence crucial!
Libby was only 14 years old and must have been terrified. She knew something was not right about that man. Yet she bravely recorded video and audio of him - a gift for law enforcement. And yet they inexplicably failed to make use of that gift from the very start, when it was of most evidentiary value and should have been shared far and wide.
Supt Carter should not have given this five year anniversary interview, it was another strategic mistake. It only showed - very clearly - he is no closer to identifying the killer after five years, than he was on day one. All his bluff and bluster from his cringe-making 2019 media conference is gone (ludicrously addressing the killer direct with his dumb: "You want to know what we know, and some day you will" guff, saying he might be in the room right now, etc etc). He was clueless about the killer's identity then after a two year investigation, and three years on he's still no further forward!
On the five year anniversary Carter is decidedly less cocky and upbeat, saying he hopes to catch the killer "within three years". That's as good as a confession of failure, that he clearly hasn't got a clue who or where he is!
If the killer watched this TV interview it will only confirm to him he's got away with his audacious crime, and make him feel all-powerful. It's as good as an invitation to re-offend. Doug Carter has failed. He needs to step aside now, and let experienced homicide detectives take over. Though I fear it's already too late for this heinous double child killing to be solved. Police simply kept too much information hidden from the public for too long, not allowing them to help identify the perpetrator. Two little girls brutally abducted and murdered on a daytime walk deserve justice, and ALL women and girls deserve to be safe.
This murderer is as dangerous as they come. He was prepared to kill not one but two victims in broad daylight, in a public place, potentially within reach of rescuers/witnesses. He was no doubt enacting a long-held sexual fantasy. A man prepared to take that level of risk is highly motivated and narcissistic, believing himself smarter than police. And in the case of Supt Doug Carter, he may be right!
In my view the man who murdered Libby and Abby will kill again - if he hasn't already. Sadly I believe that next homicide will be the police's best chance of catching him. Frankly I'm not convinced Doug Carter could find his own ass with both hands, if someone shut the light off.
9
-
9
-
@yogeshsawant4934 Very true - but once Diana got her hooks into Prince Charles and the chance to become Princess of Wales, with all the global fame, prestige and glamour that glittering status brought, she would not have given up Prince Charles if he had 100 mistresses!
Diana came out of her divorce with £17 million in the bank, two fine sons, a Kensington Palace home, senior royal status (for all her bleating about losing HRH as every royal divorcee does, she was still Princess of Wales), and top VIP status around the world. Some victim!
Hilarious how she pretended Charles broke her heart. You've only to see footage of the couple from a foreign tour in 1991 to see Diana was heartily sick of him. Her contempt was clear in her cold, stand-offish body language and refusal to even talk to him in the back of limos. She'd have happily handed him to Camilla gift-wrapped!
But playing the innocent, wronged wife on 'Panorama' and the Andrew Morton book she sneakily set up, got her more public sympathy. Even as she was sleeping with umpteen different, casual lovers - including several married men - she crucified Charles and Camilla for their genuine relationship - which endured and led to marriage.
I seriously doubt Diana was capable of being a good wife to any man. She was far too needy, narcissistic and self involved.
9
-
9
-
9
-
Seriously?! The host concludes there was quote: "No fault on the officers". Did he watch the police bodycam footage? Cops totally misidentified the abuser and the victim - after receiving not one but TWO 911 calls from independent witnesses who saw HIM assault HER! Two weeks later Gabby Petito is dead by homicide, and Brian Laundrie is on the run from justice. There was plenty of fault on the officers, and Moab police chief Bret Edge has taken a leave of absence while those officers are under investigation. This is without question the worst TV report I've seen to date on that highly controversial bodycam footage!
In fact the bodycam video is drawing worldwide condemnation from leading politicians, domestic violence experts, the judiciary and even from fellow police. Does 'Law and Crime Network' have its head in the sand? Florida Sheriff Grady Judd said there were ample grounds to arrest Brian Laundry for assault that day. After viewing the bodycam this week he concluded: "I can tell you that according to Florida law, when she was the victim of domestic violence originally, he would've been arrested".
And Sheriff Judd also criticised the North Port Police Department for allowing Laundrie to leave his parents' home while his girlfriend was missing and go into hiding: "I can tell you at this sheriff's office, when he showed up with her car and she was no place to be found, we would never have let him out of our custody that day".
Police pulled the van over because of the 911 calls both citing Brian Laundrie as the aggressor. Therefore they knew there was strong independent corroborating testimony of his violence to Gabby Petito. If they had arrested him, maybe he wouldn't have felt so smug, entitled and empowered after his brush with the law, that his violence escalated to murder.
The Keystone Cops actually bought his fake 'nice guy' act, and never once confronted him about the witness reports of him beating his girlfriend, least of all questioned him about those very serious allegations. Those cops made a bad situation worse - sending Gabby (a lone female), off in a van she'd told them she wasn't confident driving, to park in an unfamiliar place and spend the night alone in the vehicle, and driving Brian to a hotel to enjoy a comfortable night on her credit card. Next day, Gabby was no doubt feeling more emotional and vulnerable than ever, while a cool, calm and collected Brian knew she'd welcome reconciliation with him - entirely on his terms.
I can't believe at the end of the bodycam when discussing the couple with colleagues, that dumb cop not only said this wouldn't escalate to murder, but talked about 90lbs Gabby as if SHE were the abuser! That cretin is a disgrace to his uniform and should be fired - preferably from a freaking cannon! The sight of him buddy-ing up to Gabby's soon-to-be murderer and telling him, quote: "You're not in any trouble", will stay with me for a long time. Shocking!
No wonder so many women are killed by their partner/ex partner every day of the year, when law enforcement are so totally clueless about what a dangerous abuser looks like. Domestic violence perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, and victims overwhelmingly female. Ditto domestic killers - victims of domestic murder are almost exclusively female. Police above all should know this! As the woman, it was Gabby, not Brian, who was at potential risk of serious harm, and whose care should have been prioritised by police. Her murder by him just 2 weeks later tragically confirms it. 'Law and Crime Network' - you need to do much better than this, your analysis of this notorious case is inaccurate, misleading, and overall utterly appalling!
9
-
9
-
Diana had many more extra marital affairs than Charles did - she notched up umpteen lovers, (many of them married men like Charles' old friend Oliver Hoare, who she harassed with 300 malicious phone calls when he dumped her), to her husband's one affair with the woman he loved and would in time marry. Diana was the promiscuous one, not Charles!
But she slyly kept all her grubby, adulterous affairs secret from the press, so she could play the innocent, wronged wife and crucify Charles in the Andrew Morton book and the BBC Panorama interview.
Diana was a total fake, a deceitful, manipulative, self pitying hypocrite. When she bleated about there being "Three people in the marriage" she mis-counted, as she 'forgot' to count all her own lovers, who massively outnumbered her husband's one! You attack Charles as though he were a womaniser who broke his wife's heart - not true on either count, he was committed to Diana for the first 5 years of their marriage, until they both knew they were totally incompatible and ill-suited. That Diana fell out of love with her husband just as much as vice versa, is beyond question. The amount of men she pursued showed exactly how 'heartbroken' she was about her marriage breakdown - not at all!
You only have to see footage of Charles and Diana's joint public appearances/foreign tours from the late 'eighties, to see that Diana was bored to tears of her husband, and didn't care who knew it.
She behaved abominably! Royal wives like the Queen and Princess Grace of Monaco had more dignity and behaved like ladies in public, maintaining a dignified silence about their private lives and living by the age-old adage "Never complain, never explain". Diana behaved like a petulant brat, throwing hand grenades at her ex husband for loving Camilla - when she didn't want him anyway!
What was Diana griping about anyway? On her divorce, she got a generous £17 million settlement, a huge Kensington Palace apartment, the title Princess of Wales (everyone who divorces out of the royal family loses HRH status - that Diana made such a fuss about it and the fact people no longer had to bow/curtsy to her, only exposed her ego and snobbery), a huge team of personal staff, and of course, two fine sons - one a future king.
Her wealth, privilege and place on the world stage were assured. Yet the pampered princess was always so full of self pity. Hearing her spoiled youngest son Harry complain to Oprah Winfrey about his lot, one of the world's most privileged VIPs, was like a repeat of his mother's self-serving and spiteful 'Panorama' interview. Harry's a chip off Diana's block for sure - another whining, ungrateful pain in the butt, who never did a proper day's work and has no idea what real problems are!
Had the princess lived, she'd no doubt be single still, because the self obsessed air head couldn't be happy with any man long-term - she was too damned needy, narcissistic and demanding. In contrast, Charles found a happy marriage with Camilla, the loving, down to earth woman he should have married in the first place. The reason you never hear any rumours that William and Harry dislike their stepmother, is very simple - they adore her and get on very well with her. She is a calm, contented home maker, who makes their dad happy too, unlike their neurotic, awful mother, who picked fights with their dad - even publicly with her nasty book and Panorama hatchet jobs, and was more interested in poring over her own photos in the press every day than being a supportive wife!
After marrying into the royal family, fame rapidly went to Diana's empty head. She couldn't get enough of it. Unlike her son William's fantastic wife Catherine, who is supportive and discreetly defers to him (as the future king) on their public appearances, Diana never once hung back or respected that her husband's royal position was senior to hers. She not only felt she had equal royal status with Charles (despite marrying into the royal family, not being born to it), she quickly believed her own publicity and that she was a far bigger royal figure than him! Diana wasn't intelligent enough to fake humility.
Thankfully William was allowed the freedom to choose his bride, and selected Catherine after many years of getting to know her. His poor dad had been forced into an arranged - and doomed - marriage to a blue blooded virgin.
In the Andrew Morton book, Diana pretended she walked down the aisle 'like a lamb to the slaughter'. What rot! She emerged from St Paul's Cathedral that July day a princess, with a big smile on her face, as triumphant as the cat that got the cream!
It was Diana's dream come true, and gave her the world fame, wealth, glamour and VIP status she craved. She didn't marry for love, but to become a princess and future queen - she admitted she met Charles only 13 times before he proposed! Of course she didn't love him, it was a business arrangement on both sides and she knew it. Diana went into that arranged marriage with her eyes wide open and firmly fixed on the prize!
Charles was a far better parent than Diana too. She died in a dumb and totally needless accident while running round Paris with a coke-addicted Arab playboy, having so much fun she forgot all about her two dependent kids and failed to wear her seat belt.
What terrible parenting! No one with dependant children has the luxury of leaving off their seat belt. She was totally irresponsible. If Charles had behaved like that with some slapper he'd just taken up with, the public would have roundly condemned him - yet Diana got away with behaving like a reckless teen who'd just discovered sex!
Thankfully those two heartbroken boys could rely on their loving and dependable father Charles. How ironic that for years, Diana tried to compete with her husband over who was the better parent in the public's eyes. Yet she lost that childish contest she had started, miserably, when she failed in every parent's most basic duty - to stay alive to raise her sons to adulthood. It was not Diana who was there for her children, but Charles.
Poor Harry was only 12 years old when his mother had her fatal car crash, and admits he has few memories of her. Thankfully for him and William, they share a great father.
Charles was there for them, when their mother let them both down so terribly. He stepped up without hesitation, brought their mother's body home to the UK and made sure she had a dignified funeral, despite her decidedly undignified death.
Prince Charles picked up the pieces and gave his boys the emotional security and love they needed after that terrible, life-changing trauma of their mother's death. If the tables had been turned and Diana had stepped up like that for the boys after Charles' died in a crazy accident, the Diana fans would be proclaiming her a hero on a par with Mother Teresa! Yet Charles does his sons proud in their sad bereavement, and he is called a 'terrible father'.
The Diana fan club is even more crazy and contrary than she was!
9
-
9
-
9
-
@honeyspoonbeewrangler4550 On the contrary, I wouldn't want anyone to think I was personal friends with a long deceased and discredited, immoral airhead who chased other women's husbands. I keep better company!
Ask Julia Carling, Susan Mannakee and Diane Hoare (for starters), what they think of Diana, the Queen of Tarts. They are just three of the women whose marriages the princess did her best to break up - and in the case of the Carlings, succeeded before they had reached their second wedding anniversary. She didn't even love Will Carling, he was just a celebrity conquest she boasted about to her pals. Diana was the biggest home wrecker around!
I was a national newspaper reporter in the nineties and frequently wrote about the 'War of the Waleses', as Charles and Diana's acrimonious split was dubbed. So I'm vastly more knowledgeable and better informed about the players in this story than the deluded Diana fans posting here.
But let's face it, that wouldn't be hard. Many commenting are so out of touch with reality, they think she was murdered by Prince Charles!
Why would anyone assassinate Diana? She was too stupid to pose a threat to anyone but herself - as she did that fateful night when she got herself killed letting the shady Al Fayeds provide her security, and failed to fasten her seat belt. If brains were dynamite, Diana couldn't blow her tiara off!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The death penalty would have been yet another lazy, cop-out for Chandler, and no punishment at all. Far worse for him to live, and face 50 long years locked in a cage. Plenty of time to live with his pathetic self, and the fact everyone knows his true identity as a psychopath, pathological liar and man-child, who shot his unsuspecting parents in the back then cut them up and dumped them like garbage.
Soon it will hit Chandler, with mounting horror, that the only two people in the world who really cared about him are no longer around to give him practical and emotional support. He took Bart and Krista for granted his whole life. But he can never lean on or take them for granted again, because he wiped them both off the face of the Earth.
His Mom and Dad were the two people who would have been there for him, no matter what. They would have loved, forgiven and valued him, as their much-loved son. Irony of ironies, they would probably have died for him. And he killed them. Who does Chandler have left to turn to, now he's shown his true colours? No family members, after the horrors he inflicted on his parents. And friends will be even harder to come by.
Brother Mitchell will pick up the pieces of his life as an adult orphan, knowing he must move forward without the love and friendship of his Mom and Dad. His fiance, their upcoming marriage and maybe some children, will keep him focused, as will his successful career in IT. I highly doubt Chandler, the sibling who literally blew their family apart with a firearm, will feature in his recovery or future plans.
Mitchell's future has many advantages over Chandler's, not least money. Thanks to Chandler murdering both parents, the Halderson's life insurance and total assets will all go to Mitchell - estimated to total well over a million dollars. It won't bring them back or take away Mitchell's pain at their loss, but I hope that money will help to build him a better future.
Something tells me as the years roll by, convicted double-killer Chandler will be consumed with self-pitying thoughts of the parents and the money he missed out on, when he chose murder as a solution to his problems. Chandler takes the term 'Loser' to a whole new level!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@claytondavis7415 Police stopped the van because they had received not one but two independent witness 911 reports of HIM hitting HER. Therefore it is appalling that those officers not only failed to question Brian Laundrie about those very serious allegations of his violence against Gabby, they incorrectly identified him as the victim just because he had marks on his face!
Police should know male domestic abusers often have such marks on their face and body - they indicate he recently attacked a female and she defended herself the only way she could, lashing out with her hands. Those marks were clues to HIS abuse! Cops of all people should know this stuff. That they don't reveals their training in this area is totally inadequate and must be improved.
Domestic abuse victims are overwhelmingly female and perpetrators are male. And domestic abuse homicide victims are almost exclusively female. Again, police should know this. It was therefore Gabby, not Brian, who was at risk of serious harm and who deserved support and help as the victim - while as perpetrator, he deserved to be arrested and questioned about those two witness reports. People do not dial 911 for no reason!
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd slammed his police colleagues, saying they had ample reason to arrest Laundrie for domestic abuse that day. If they had, and he'd been reprimanded, I doubt the coward would have been so quick to put his hands on her again.
Instead the cops totally messed it up, treating him like an old pal, and driving him to a hotel for a cosy night of Netflix. In effect, police endorsed his abuse, with the effect he felt emboldened to not only continue his physical attacks on Gabby, but to escalate them to her murder just two weeks later.
9
-
Exactly, I agree with you 100%. In truth, Jessie Smollett is a massively OVER paid, not to say overrated actor, who doesn't know the meaning of the definition; 'public servant'.
His actions as an actor involved in charity/political activism were always entirely self-serving. And the outrageous Chicago faked-mugging that landed him in court, was only an escalation in his previous offending!
Born into privilege to a wealthy and celebrated media family, for years Jessie Smollett shamelessly traded on his ethnicity (and latterly, his sexuality as a gay man), to present himself as the underdog in exchange for public loyalty, support and career advancement.
That cynical strategy worked very well for Jessie Smollett. Celebrities and huge public figures like the Clintons and Obamas lapped it up, and just couldn't get enough of him. But in trying to foist this latest outrageous, criminal fraud on the public to boost his own image (and bankability), Smollett signed his own death warrant.
Who would leave a damned noose around their neck, after two BLACK 'muggers' inexplicably tried to publicly lynch him??? Give me a break! I doubt he will ever live this down - and he shouldn't!
Smollett invented a ridiculous, joke of a fake crime for his career advancement - and discredited all the people subjected to real hate crimes every day - women, people of colour, the physically and mentally disabled, etc etc. Smollet is a total disgrace!
9
-
9
-
9
-
Yes, Alex Cox had planned to murder Joseph Ryan way back in 2007 when he ambushed and attacked him with a taser gun in a parking lot, where he'd come for an access visit with his then 4 year old daughter Tylee (just as 12 years later he'd murder Lori's next husband Charles Vallow, on an access visit to little JJ).
Alex later told a friend he planned to murder Joseph that day by throwing him in the trunk of his vehicle while stunned by the taser, then driving to a remote location to shoot him and dump his body. But the taser failed to fully deploy, and Joseph fled and called 911. Alex was arrested and served three months in prison for aggravated assault.
He retained a pathological hatred for Joseph Ryan, repeating Lori's slanderous lies that he'd SA'ed daughter Tylee (allegations investigated and rejected by Child Protection, who ruled Tylee had been coached to make false statements against her dad).
When Joseph's body was found in his double locked apartment in early April 2018 he'd been dead for at least a week. Advanced decomposition meant foul play could not be detected, and it was ruled a natural death. But I don't buy it for multiple reasons. Lori knew she'd benefit financially from Joseph's death, and sure enough in August 2018 she received a payment of $60,000 to her account from his life insurance policy.
Tylee immediately received around $4,000 a month in death benefits, as Joseph's only child. Lori had full access to that money and treated it as her own. The following year, one month before her murder. Lori had Tylee's benefits payments switched from her daughter's bank account, to her own. She also switched the beneficiary of her own, $2m life insurance policy to her eldest child, son Colby alone (she clearly knew Tylee and JJ wouldn't be around much longer).
I have no doubt Joseph Ryan was murdered by Alex and Lori - they have admitted as much to their brother Adam Cox. People can, and do get away with murder. The outrageous police incompetence in this case, which allowed heinous killers to get away with murder time and time again, resulted in at least three avoidable homicides. If Lori and Alex had been charged with Charles Vallow's murder as they should have been, there's every possibility Tylee and JJ, and Tammy Daybell, would still be alive today. Ironically I believe if Alex Cox had been kept behind bars, he too would be alive - because Lori and Chad would not have been able to kill him!
9
-
9
-
@sosad9381 Chris Watts' latest so called 'confession' to the police is a pack of lies, full of more holes than a Swiss cheese.
His family tipped him off about the so-called 'shadows' theory, ie the idea that the shadow of a child can be seen walking about on neighbour Nate's security video, as Watts loads his dead wife into his truck. That's baloney - like 99.9% of domestic killers, Chris Watts murdered all victims in the house, likely in their beds, where he wouldn't be witnessed, and they couldn't escape or raise the alarm.
He executed them all with ruthless efficiency, because he's a sociopath incapable of love. He knows it - and he's desperate to hide that truth, and cling to some remnants of his tattered 'nice guy' mask by selling the idea that his killings were impulsive and that he was out of control, not in his right mind, as he kept repeating to cops "I didn't know what I was doing". He knew exactly what he was doing, before, during and after the murders of his victims and their burial in squalid, pre-planned graves.
He confirmed the nonsense 'shadows' theory touted by clickbait YT channels because it supported his big lie, that the murders were not pre-planned but were impulsive crimes of passion.
He had no reason to delay the children's murders till he got to the Cervi dump site - in fact Cervi, a works site, was not a safe place for him, as evidenced by him crying and refusing to accompany cops there to help find the bodies. He was terrified of seeing work colleagues there, who would confront him without his mask and despise him. To Chris Watts, his false, 'nice guy' mask is all! Would he really risk workmates witnessing him in the act of murdering his little girls, and unmasking him as a child killer? No way - he killed them all in the house and drive their corpses to Cervi for disposal.
When he told this part of the fiction to cops, about supposedly killing the girls at Cervi, you could hear the cogs whirring in his brain as he made it up as he went along. He even got the murder method wrong, saying he strangled the children. They were actually suffocated - the typical way to kill children in their beds, by smothering. which is the real way they died.
Even after pleading guilty to these heinous murders of vulnerable people who loved and trusted him, Chris Watts works hard to manipulate people's perceptions of him. He wants us to believe he really was that loving husband and father and great, all-American guy. But he was somehow 'provoked' into murdering these three family members (coulda happened to anyone!) and lashed out - not once, but three times - impulsively and 'not in his right mind'. Utter BS!
Chris Watts doesn't fool me, and he shouldn't fool any intelligent person. He murdered all three victims in the house in pre-planned attacks, and did his damnedest to get away with it. He believed the children's bodies would deteriorate fast in the oil batteries. And he no doubt had plans to return to Shanann's body and either bury it deeper, or more likely burn it, to ensure it too disappeared speedily.
He thought he'd get away with this crime, keep his 'nice guy' mask, and be living happily with his mistress today - no doubt in the house Shanann had created and decorated so tastefully. He though Shanann's friends, family and society undervalued her and her children, as he did. He thought he was smarter than law enforcement - and he thought he was entitled to destroy and end the lives of people who had become inconvenient to him. He was wrong on all counts. I wish Chris Watts a very long and miserable life in prison - and an eternity of misery at his next destination, Hell.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Agreed, Boone's home videos are truly, incredibly disturbing. She had so many chances to let Jorge out of that horrific zippered tomb, let him stretch and breathe, and let him live. But time and time again, she deliberately and determinedly chose not to free him.
This wasn't negligence, or any kind of accident. She didn't fall asleep in a drunken stupor on the couch, wake up, horrified at 5am and let him out in a panic, before immediately dialling 911 (and God knows, that would have been bad enough).
Instead, she deliberately went upstairs to bed, leaving him trapped in the suitcase totally alone in the darkness and silence, on the ground floor. And there he stayed, until finally, who knows when, death ended his suffering. He must have been utterly terrified when the awful truth hit him, that his girlfriend wasn't coming to his aid.
Sarah Boone finally got up the following lunch time and found him - dead for some time, purple in the face, with rigor mortis. And let's not forget, she had abandoned him to climb the stairs to bed, after repeatedly ignoring his pleas to free him because he couldn't breathe. It's all there on the shocking videos she made - videos that are about to destroy her outrageous 'Not Guilty' plea in court!
It's total BS she thought Jorge could release himself. She knew damn fine he could not, he told her many times, as proven by her own videos. If he could get himself out of the suitcase, why would he beg her over and over to release him? Why, with increasing desperation, would he tell her: "Sarah - I can't breathe"?
It makes no sense at all. She knew he was trapped inside that horrific, confined case, could not breathe, and had no hope of escape without her intervention. Yet she did not intervene - she went up to bed.
Boone's not guilty plea is a huge mistake. I can't wait to see her own warped decisions sink her in court. We all know what she did - thanks to her nasty little videos, we've seen her crime unfold with our own eyes (the videos alone prove her aim was to torture and humiliate her hated boyfriend).
You would not do such a sadistic, cruel thing to a dog, least of all your own partner. She deserves to die behind bars and I really hope when she's found guilty and sentenced, she does not get parole. This was murder of the most heinous and depraved kind.
8
-
8
-
@lm7092 Exactly, Diana certainly wasn't the smartest - her dreadful, poorly delivered speeches and lousy choice of lovers proved that! But she had bags of cunning, and was immensely manipulative and self serving.
Her biggest skill was media manipulation. But even that was starting to disintegrate when she died. She had let too much light in on the mystery, befriended too many journalists, and they were starting to get close enough to see the gaping flaws in her character. Many were getting closer to turning on her. And if the truth emerged about her behaviour, they would have the power to destroy her carefully cultivated image as the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts'.
Diana was only able to crucify Charles and Camilla in her infamous 'Panorama' interview of 1995, because she had successfully kept most of her own extra marital affairs out of the newspapers. She could never have pointed the finger at them, had the far more shocking truth about her own sex life been common knowledge. She was a total hypocrite!
Diana worked very hard to keep her grubby sexual adventures a secret from reporters - many of which were with married men. She was not the innocent, wronged wife she made out, far from it.
She had been sailing close to the wind for about 12 years, in reality caring nothing about Charles and Camilla because not only had she fallen out of love with her husband, he was at Highgrove, Gloucestershire, while she had settled in at Kensington Palace, London, where she could live the live of a sexually adventurous single woman, with the help of discreet staff and latterly, two sons away at boarding school.
But the tide started to turn in 1995, when the News of the World broke the story of her stalking and harassment of Oliver Hoare, making 300+ silent phone calls to his home after he ended their 2 year affair. The public was suddenly getting a glimpse of the real Diana - not the sweet, innocent, big-hearted wife and mother she played so well, but a malicious, self-serving and mentally unstable adulterer, who had no qualms about pursuing married men!
The irony of the Diana worshippers whose comments we see here, is that had she lived and reached the age of 60, they would have abandoned her years ago. She'd have been exposed and discredited by the media, as the liar and actress of dubious morality she really was. And public interest in her would have dwindled, at exactly the same rate as she aged and lost her looks!
She has passionate fans today only because she died young and beautiful, and will forever remain so. If she'd lived and they'd seen the wrinkles, and face lifts, and weight gain, and fights with her sons because she was jealous of their younger, more beautiful wives, I seriously doubt she'd have held onto many of her fans!
8
-
8
-
8
-
@automechs360 Your post would have been much easier to read had you arranged it in paragraphs, rather than one long block of text!
The reason Diana was considered a suitable wife for Prince Charles in 1981 was her status as Lady Diana Spencer, member of a top, British blue blooded, aristocratic family with links to the royal family going back centuries. Crucially, her suitability as a senior royal was also dependent on the fact she was a virgin. Incredibly, as recently as the late 1970s, the heir to the throne was expected to marry a virgin, ie a woman who had no sexual past.
Diana did not lose her title of Princess of Wales on her divorce in 1996, as you state. She was still Princess Diana after her divorce and after her death - as mother to the heir to the throne Prince William, she retained her high status as a senior royal.
All she lost on her divorce was the preface HRH, according to usual royal protocol. Though Diana presented it as a spiteful move by the royal family, in truth anyone who divorces a royal ceases to be able to use the title 'His/Her Royal Highness'. It happened to Prince Andrew's wife Sarah Ferguson too, who also divorced in 1996, and lost HRH, remaining Duchess of York.
It doesn't reflect well on Diana that she cared so much about her HRH title and the fact that as a result people were no longer obliged to curtsey to her! She thought she should be the exception to the rule, a special case, and should keep HRH. Which only shows how inflated her ego was.
Prince Charles was hardly 'a playboy' after his marriage to Diana. Arranged marriages like theirs often fail - they simply weren't compatible in age, intellect or character. When the relationship had broken down he picked up with one woman only, his old flame Camilla, the love of his life who he later married - so not a playboy by any stretch of the imagination! However Diana had countless extra marital affairs she kept secret (many with married men), and her suitors were often smuggled to her by her butler, hidden in the trunk of his car. Ironically the playboy tag is far better suited to Diana, than to Charles.
Had Edward V111 been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson, the accession to the throne would have remained exactly the same, because Edward and Wallis remained childless (she was almost 41 on their marriage, and he was rumoured to be infertile from childhood mumps). However if he had married Walllis their strong Nazi sympathies may have scuppered Britain's victory in World War 2. And had that happened, who knows if the monarchy would have survived at all!
8
-
@sharoncolewilgis8696 Diana was a public figure (and her lavish lifestyle was funded through the public purse), so people are more justified in commenting on her life than most celebrities!
As a national newspaper journalist and TV producer in the 'nineties, I was privy to a great deal of inside information on Diana. My view that she was a spiteful, self-serving narcissist is based in fact and indeed personal experience, and is shared by other well informed people who had professional dealings with her. With respect, your posts are just fluff that reveal your ignorance.
But you don't need the inside scoop to know the princess was a very toxic individual - many smart, insightful people worked it out for themselves just fine, based on information in the public domain!
Ask Tiggy Legge Bourke what she thinks of Diana, the woman who approached her at a party and cruelly alluded to a totally false rumour that she'd recently had an abortion (a fiction Martin Bashir successfully conned dumb Diana with, as part of his campaign to win the Panorama interview).
Ask Diane Hoare what she thinks of Diana, the woman who ruthlessly pursued her late husband Oliver (an old pal of Prince Charles), and when he broke it off, bombarded their family home day and night with silent phone calls.
It's a little known fact that when Oliver came clean to his wife about the affair and they agreed to report Diana's literally 100s of malicious calls to police, she shamefully lied to detectives that her son William had made them! Hardly the doting mother.
Ask Julia Carling what she thinks of Diana, the woman who chatted up her rugby star husband Will Carling at their Chelsea Harbour gym, and arranged private 'training sessions' with him - in her Kensington Palace bedroom. Julia had been Mrs Will Carling for only a few months when the Queen of Tarts broke up her marriage! (Will Carling once shared an hilarious - if ungentlemanly - recollection of the princess, which I won't repeat!)
That's just three people whose lives were upturned by the vile Diana, there are many more. Who knows how many more marriages she'd have tried to break up, had she lived?
Your many, obsessive responses show you're a member of the Diana fan club, so I realise this will fall on deaf ears. By all means defend a woman you never met and know zilch about, many do. But at least do some research on her life, so you know why people better informed than yourself don't buy into the 'people's princess' myth!
8
-
8
-
@simplydanlrene4276 Good to see an intelligent, thoughtful contribution to this thread.
There was certainly ample evidence of BPD in Diana's adult behaviour and choices (I would argue there are clear indications of Narcissistic Personality Disorder too). And with the traumas she faced in her formative years - most seriously, what she experienced at age seven as the 'abandonment' of her mother - perhaps that's not surprising.
It's never been publicly acknowledged but Johnnie Spencer, the father Diana and her siblings idolised, was an abusive husband to her mother and a remote parent to them. It took much courage and soul-searching for Frances to finally leave him, a wealthy aristocrat of influence with historic links to the royal family and at the highest levels of society going back centuries. Johnnie was a crashing snob, long determined that one of his three daughters would wed senior royalty. Diana delivered the jackpot to him in marrying the future king.
The only way Frances could escape her miserable marriage was to pack a case and sneak out like a thief in the night. Domestic abuse experts have identified that the period when a victim leaves their abusive partner is the most dangerous for her personal safety. There was no way Frances could have succeeded in taking her four children with her - Johnnie was powerful, and would have made sure he got them back fast by whatever means he deemed necessary.
So she had to reluctantly leave them behind, resolving to fight for custody immediately. It was a doomed plan. He fought Frances tooth and nail to keep charge of their four children, dragging her through the courts and wielding his status as an aristocrat to brand her an adulteress and unfit parent. He even charmed her own mother Ruth to support him, and give evidence against her daughter!
And after securing this hard won victory, Johnnie proceeded to hand over the children he supposedly cared so much about to a succession of young, inexperienced (ie cheap) 'nannies', mothers helps and au pairs. Diana and her siblings saw little of their father growing up, he was a remote figure who they nonetheless put on a pedestal till the day he died. When he remarried, he prioritised their hated stepmother Raine over them, no doubt stirring up Diana's painful feelings of parental abandonment.
But arguably the worst thing he did to his kids was bad-mouth their mother to them. He went to great pains to give them the idea mummy didn't want them, and had run away and chosen a man over them (her second husband Peter Shand-Kydd).
It would not be surprising if this gave Diana a deep-seated mistrust of those she was in close relationships with, and a latent dislike of women. Her lack of conscience over sleeping with other women's husbands time and time again is interesting.
I think the lack of a constant maternal figure as she was growing up was a significant omission. Ironically, that was a childhood neglect she shared with Prince Charles, whose mother was said to be remote. Charles and Diana both sought the rock-steady emotional support they had missed out on as children - but could not find in each other. He eventually found it in Camilla, whose nurturing qualities Diana lacked. We will never know if Diana would have found a man who made her happy. I suspect not.
Diana's 'terrible' childhood is often referenced by her biographers, However, many people suffer far worse traumas and tragedies as children than she did, and do not behave with the same shocking self interest and lack of moral compass. History repeats, so perhaps it's only too predictable Diana's life featured adultery, divorce, and neglect of her children which finally manifested in her own death when she failed to think of them and fasten her seat belt on a final, fateful trip with a casual lover.
At the end of the day, every one of us must take responsibility for our own conduct. Blaming others, be it a disappointing husband or an absent mother, is surely nothing more than a convenient cop-out.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
No mystery about 'Why'. These murders were sexually motivated, regardless of whether the girls were raped/sexually assaulted before they were killed. The perpetrator was fulfilling a long-held sexual fantasy. He may or may not have killed anyone before, but he's certainly committed prior sexual offences - though he obviously escaped arrest for them.
If Indiana police only had the experience and sense to release brave Libby's video and audio recording of her and Abby's killer from day one, instead of inexplicably sitting on it for TWO WHOLE YEARS, they'd have had a far better chance of someone turning this evil freak in. Why on Earth did they only release a single, still image from the video, for 24 months?
Had the video been released in February 2017 right after Libby and Abby were murdered, the chances of someone correctly identifying him to police were at their highest. Carter and co were clueless about how to conduct a homicide - and worse, a double homicide - investigation, so were crazily over-cautious.
Supt Doug Carter is a buffoon. He held back every damn detail of the crime, meaning the public didn't have enough information to help police solve it. Many years ago as a young newspaper reporter just starting out, a senior police officer told me "Law enforcement don't solve crimes - the public do".
How right he was. If only Doug Carter had respected that truth from day one, and given the public every opportunity to help him identify the man who murdered Abby and Libby. Five years on we are way past that golden window of opportunity. High time Doug Carter was taken off the case and replaced with an experienced, senior homicide detective who, unlike Supt Carter, has a proven track record in bringing killers to justice.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
100% right! It beggars belief those parents prioritised their desire for adult-only evenings with pals, drinking wine and showing off to each other at a tapas bar (they were professional colleagues who met through their medical work), over the safety of their vulnerable children.
Frankly the McCanns are lucky they didn't lose all their children that night, and the other adults in the group are also fortunate their child wasn't taken. Every one of them was put in harm's way, every night they abandoned them for the tapas bar - though incredibly, in addition the McCann's had chosen to leave the door to their apartment unlocked, which is probably why Madeleine was targeted.
Everything I've seen of Gerry and Kate indicates he dominates, and she is weak and defers to him. I suspect it was Gerry's idea to put all the children to bed, then hang out together at the tapas bar like a group of young, carefree childless couples. Nominating one parent to do a quick patrol of each apartment to check on all the children every 20 minutes or so was wholly inadequate, and clearly left the children vulnerable.
Even if one child woke up scared and alone after a nightmare (as poor Madeleine told her parents she had done the night before she disappeared), or was suddenly taken ill with no grown up to turn to, it was not acceptable. I cannot imagine a mother coming up with that lousy, irresponsible 'child-minding' arrangement - and most mums simply would not agree to it.
Gerry strikes me as a typically full of himself, Alpha male hospital consultant. We've seen how he dominates his wife, I imagine he dominated the whole group too. I bet he was centre-stage during those tapas evenings, showing off, telling witty stories and generally playing the big-shot heart specialist in front of his fellow medical professionals. If so, the last thing he wanted was small children (his own and other people's), cramping his style and taking the limelight off him.
The demands of the under-fives are not compatible with grown-up socialising! Little ones have multiple needs that must be met by their caregiver(s) as priority - bathroom breaks, nappies, food, drink, entertainment and sleep. They whine and cry when they're unhappy. It's hard for a man to be centre stage and a great raconteur with infants around - the toughest audience of all.
The group of 9 adults block-booked the same table at the tapas bar every night, that's how important those adults-only evenings were to them. After Madeleine vanished, police considered the possibility an abductor/burglar had seen the group's block booking written in the bar's reservation book, and knew those apartments were unattended every evening. It practically advertised it.
I've always puzzled over the fact the group didn't just take all their kids with them, and head out together en masse to any of the local restaurants for supper together as one big family. Portugal and its eateries are family friendly after all, as is the Continent generally. Bistro-owners expect to see small children sleeping on parents' laps, or in buggies alongside them, as the adults relax, chat, eat and enjoy a glass of wine. That is completely normal, the atmosphere and climate are conducive to those relaxed, family gatherings. What's not normal is putting your kids to bed without proper adult supervision, and heading out for a fun evening as though you are a group of young, childless couples on a stag/hen weekend!
There's simply no excuse for the McCann party choosing to exclude their children from their dining arrangements each night, in family-friendly Portugal. It's bloody outrageous! And it put their children at unacceptable risk of harm - which tragically transpired for little Madeleine, just 10 days short of her 4th birthday.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
A great result by the professionals who put together this prosecution - police, doctors and pathologists. But it's chilling Ian Stewart got away with murdering his first wife Diane in 2010 through an incompetent coroner, who did not consider the possibility of foul play after her sudden death as a healthy 47-year-old - while alone with her husband.
Had that coroner only done a full forensic autopsy as she should have done, not the standard 'natural causes' version, it would have exposed the victim's suffocation. He would have been prosecuted for Diane's murder at the time, and his next victim Helen Bailey (and her beloved dog Boris), would be alive today. Diane's sister Wendy had suspicions about her death, and quizzed the coroner. But she was given the impression it was natural causes. Women's intuition is a powerful thing, you ignore it at your peril. Ian Stewart was only, finally prosecuted for Diane's murder because he murdered Helen Bailey, 6 years later.
Had he been content to marry multi millionaire author Helen and share in her wealth, he would be a free man today, his first murder never having been investigated! Makes you wonder how many other men are walking free around now who got away with murdering a spouse. Stewart would be one of them if he hadn't been so damn greedy, and decided he wanted all Helen's money and property for himself.
Thank God for the massive fluke of Diane wanting to donate her brain to medical science. Ian Stewart must be kicking himself that he allowed it - as the police detective in charge said after the Guilty verdict, without that brain evidence, he would not have been convicted. Now he's a convicted double killer, with a whole life sentence, who will die in prison.
I hope his sons Jamie and Oliver cut him off completely and decide he is dead to them - they owe him nothing after he murdered their loving mother, and deprived them of her - and she of them - forever.
Diane lived for her children, and looking at the photos of Stewart when he was younger, it's not surprising. My God, he was even uglier as a young man! And according to neighbours, he was charmless, weird and very creepy too. How he persuaded one eligible woman to marry him, never mind two, is utterly mind boggling!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@JP-xd6fm For the record, reports so far indicate Earl Moore Jr the late victim in this case was an alcoholic, not a drug addict. His alcohol addiction aside, there's no evidence he had any history of violence, or posed any threat to paramedics/police that night or at any other time. In fact the police bodycam footage makes it clear he was slipping in and out of consciousness and in no state to pose a danger to anyone but himself.
There's no question frontline workers in all emergency services from police to paramedics, have challenging and sometimes dangerous jobs. From time to they will deal with people whose behaviour is volatile for various reasons including addiction and mental health issues.
That's why such emergency workers are required to have a full, specialist training to a high standard, and why they are expected to adhere to recognised rules of good practise and professional conduct.
Maintaining these high professional standards is in the interests of safety for themselves and the public they deal with. What we saw on the police bodycam video was two paramedics, a woman and a man, whose conduct and interactions with patient Earl Moore fell so far below good practise and professionalism, it is alleged to have caused his death and prompted first degree murder charges for both of them.
All patients are entitled to expect medical professionals to act in the best interests of their health and safety - whether their personal history features addiction issues or not! But that blatantly did not happen here. Earl Moore was repeatedly sworn at by the medics, verbally abused and told to walk out of his house to the waiting ambulance when it was clear he couldn't even stand unaided.
When it became clear Mr Moore was drifting in and out of consciousness after his first heavy fall to the floor, the paramedics did not amend their heartless approach and bring the gurney for him - they continued to demand he walk, resulting in further dramatic falls in which he may have sustained serious head or other injuries.
As we know, outside the house the struggle continued, before the male defendant placed his patient face down on that gurney with excessive force, and strapped him down tightly. He suffocated to death soon after.
There's no excuse for the criminal conduct of those two monsters. They fully deserve to be convicted of murder, and thanks to the police bodycam proving their vile mistreatment of a sick and defenceless patient, I'm confident they will be. It's an additional disgrace that the police officers present that day not only failed to stop the medics' unlawful abuse, but at times were recorded participating in it.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
As well as this biological man stealing female athletes' places, medals and prestige, he is no doubt using the females changing rooms. Like 90% of trans women, Lia Thomas is fully male bodied, happily retains his cock and balls and has no intention of having surgery to lose them.
Lia Thomas can literally get his penis out in the female changing rooms in front of women, with no negative consequences. Oh and by the way, Lia Thomas is a heterosexual biological male, ie sexually attracted to women. If anyone dares complain about him walking around in the buff waving his meat and two veg about, THEY could be branded 'transphobic' and charged with a hate crime.
How the hell is he 'transgender'? He isn't - he is quite clearly what until relatively recently was correctly termed a transvestite.
Eddie Izzard used to do whole stand up routines about being a proud transvestite. Now suddenly he's 'transgender'. Why? Because being transgender fashionable, and comes with huge privileges for men - like thrashing women at their sports, and accessing female-only spaces.
This madness has got to stop - female athletes must boycott any contest in which a male born person (otherwise known as a MAN), is competing!
#MenAreNotWomen #DicksOutOfWomensSpaces #AdultHumanFemale
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
It's a bit rich George claiming he was persecuted by the press, and accusing them of 'homophobia' - he totally brought the publicity on himself by having sex with strangers in public places, including Hampstead Heath, and getting himself arrested!
Frankly, he should have owned his behaviour and choices, and taken the consequences like a grown-up. The disingenuous self-pity he feigns in this interview hasn't aged well.
His cries of homophobia were bogus. He'd have got exactly the same bad publicity, if he'd been caught 'dogging' on the Heath with women - and he knew it. Gay or straight, as a celebrity, you can't live that kind of 'out there' sex life, and not wind up in the papers.
George Michael was always a reluctant gay rights campaigner, and that's another major area of hypocrisy here. He hid his homosexuality for many years, churning out pop videos in which he lusted over female supermodels, and even dating the occasional, glamorous woman to maintain the pretence he was straight.
As his friend Elton John, among others, has asked - why on earth didn't he just come out? It wasn't the 'sixties when being gay was illegal. Back then stars like Danny La Rue, Rock Hudson and Liberace had good reason to live a double life, and pretend to be straight. In more enlightened modern times, George Michael had no excuse!
The sad truth is he never came out - but instead, he was outed by the press. And that's the true source of his anger and frustration - journalists caught him in a lie. That's what made his love of 'cruising' a far bigger story. If he'd only come out of the closet of his own accord, his arrest wouldn't have been such a sensational story. As a TV producer, I knew George Michael was gay, but the public certainly did not. That's what gave those headlines such power, he'd hidden his homosexuality for his entire career. As the saying goes, "It's not the crime that gets you - it's the cover-up".
Not surprisingly, the long-term partner George boasts of in this interview, Kenny Goss, did not stick around. By all accounts Kenny is a good man, who loved George very much. But when one partner wants promiscuity and the other monogamy, the relationship is doomed.
Sadly George wound up in a volatile, on-off relationship with a Lebanese hairdresser called Fadi Fawaz. On the night he died, Fawaz slept in one of George's cars parked outside his Oxford home - after they'd had a row. Fawaz found him dead in bed on Christmas Day 2016. The much-loved and hugely talented George Michael died alone. He was 53 years old.
Fawaz was livid at not being mentioned in GM's will, and has been a thorn in the side of the Michael family for years. He had to be evicted after moving into the star's Highgate mansion without permission, and was later arrested after returning there. He also wrote defamatory Tweets, such as claiming George committed suicide on the fifth attempt. His statement was condemned by the family, citing the coroner's verdict that George had heart disease and a fatty liver, and had died of natural causes. How sad George spent his last years with such a man - a partner he claimed suited him, because he too was into open relationships.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@NavajoSunBeauty Hi - It wasn't my intention to appear to be arguing/disagreeing with you, I'm sorry it came over that way. I wanted to add greater context to your accurate post about the children's cause of death.
As a journalist and long time campaigner against domestic abuse, accuracy is important to me too. I'm hyper alert to the minimisation/justification of such heinous domestic crimes, which is seen with disturbing regularity in online forum comments.
I feel it's critical in a case as complex as this one people know the full story. Though even when all the facts are known, a small minority will still relate more to the perpetrator, than to the victims.
I've even seen it argued Josh Powell loved his children, and never would have killed them if only the 'poor guy' had been given full custody as was his 'right' as a father. Yes, there are people out there who argue a wife and child killer was a suitable person to have sole, unsupervised access to two little boys! The misogyny among a percentage of people runs deep. I'm British, so sadly didn't see the show, what was your verdict?
8
-
Diana set her cap at Charles because she did not want the simple life you describe. She wanted the fame, glamour and VIP status of becoming a senior royal, and she got it. On her wedding day she looked like the cat that got the cream! Arranged marriages rarely work out, and theirs was no different. Divorce happens, it was not the tragedy Diana pretended, to get public sympathy. She fell out of love with Charles and had dozens of extra marital affairs to his one affair with the woman he would marry. It was very hypocritical of her to attack him as she did and beg for sympathy with her sly, self-pitying book and the 'Panorama' interview (which upset and embarrassed her children hugely). A good mother would have kept a dignified silence for the sake of her little boys!
Diana emerged from the divorce with two fine sons, £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace apartment and world VIP status. She did very well out of her doomed union with Charles - as a single woman, the world was her oyster. But she threw away that wonderful, privileged life when she stupidly allowed the shady Al Fayeds to exploit her fame and handle her security.
And if she'd only given William and Harry a thought and fastened her seat belt, experts say she'd have survived the fatal crash with a broken arm and black eye.
Diana was damaged by her parents' divorce, and very narcissistic and needy. It's doubtful she could have achieved a happy committed relationship with anyone. I think she would ultimately have found every man wanting in some way, and moved on to the next. Her many failed and frivolous relationships strongly indicate that!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I haven't loathed a defense attorney this much ever! The disgusting, disrespectful way she addressed that brave survivor of a murderous knife attack, by her animal of a client. UGH!
I realise the justice system relies on everyone having legal representation, but when I see a lawyer like her paid handsomely to put an absolute PoS like him in a good light and demonise his victim, it makes me sick to the stomach.
I don't care if that lady drank 5 bottles of tequila and was blind, roaring, outrageously drink - her partner Matthew Terry stabbed her seven times IN THE NECK! Nothing she did explains, let alone justifies his revolting, bloody violence. It's only thanks to her incredible determination to flee the house, and the heroic work of medical experts, that saved her life.
How dare that stick-up-her-ass lawyer sneer and look down her nose at that noble survivor of an horrific, domestic murder attempt, during the cross examination? That kind of unprofessional conduct should not be allowed!
7
-
7
-
Nope, no remorse at all, and no sadness even that her boyfriend died. We saw that total lack of emotion from her on police bodycam footage, right after Jorge's death. She clearly didn't love him. From day one, her only concern was for herself!
Psychopaths lack sufficient empathy for the normal emotional reactions of healthy non-psychopaths, so they can't mimic their typical behaviours (eg crying for the deceased victim), even when it would be in their own best interests to do so. We see this in killers all the time. I'm noticing a smirk on her face a lot too - 'Duper's Delight' - because she thinks her lies are working with the jury. They aren't, she comes across as the arrogant, manipulative liar she undoubtedly is!
Boone claims to be the victim here, but she has no clue how to act like a victim - because of course she isn't one! She'd have helped her cause if she'd just cried at one point, and at least expressed some pain/sadness over Jorge's death. But she forgot to! 🤣🤣🤣
All she did to play the victim, was to portray the real victim as a villain, and blacken Jorge's character. Her performance on the stand comes across as blatantly fake and horribly self serving. She never once mentioned being scared of her boyfriend, during her first police interview four years ago. It's obviously a new explanation for her vile crime, cooked up by her and her lawyer (whose regular prompting of her on the stand, is utterly laughable).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
If America's gun obsession was justified, and made sense, Amie would be alive today. Because if gun ownership worked, as the firearms lobby claims it works, she'd have made sure she carried a weapon at all times, and would have shot Gareth Pursehouse dead when he confronted her inside her home.
But Amie, like the vast majority of homicide victims, was not kept alive by a gun. And her tormentor and killer was not taken out by one, before fatally harming her. More's the pity! If only Amie were in the dock for killing HIM inside her home, a toxic abuser and would-be killer, no one would miss. She would be acquitted for sure. I would support gun ownership - if it worked, and saved good people like Amie. It doesn't.
But the fabulous, much-loved Amie is gone and the world is a lesser place.
UGH that creep is a revolting specimen, no wonder Amie wanted nothing to do with him. It's terrifying she survived her violent, abusive relationship with Pursehouse 8 years previously, yet he returned to take her life so long afterwards. He was a ticking time bomb.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@susanbloomfield6060 You make an excellent point which I'd overlooked - you're absolutely right, Charles and Diana had settled into a rapprochement in the last year of her life. Diana had feared divorce, but in a contradiction so typical of her, had only hastened it by colluding with that ill-judged BBC 'Panorama' interview.
It turned out she had nothing to fear from officially drawing a line under the failed marriage. Prince Charles was generous to his children's mother in the divorce settlement, and she retained all the glamorous perks of her position as a senior royal and mother to the future king.
We heard a lot about her tears and devastation at losing HRH status, as anyone who divorces out of the royal family forfeits that unique prefix. I don't recall Princess Anne or Prince Andrew's exes Cpt Mark Phillips and Sarah, Duchess of York bemoaning the loss of HRH. Funny that the supposedly down-to-earth 'Peoples Princess' was so preoccupied with people no longer having to curtsy to her...
But she retained the title Princess of Wales, so to all intents and purposes her privileged life as one of the world's most famous and revered public figures continued unchanged. And she was set free from the husband she'd long ago tired of, and first cheated on in the mid-'eighties. She could now openly date whomever she chose (though as before, she would need to be discreet about any married lovers).
Diana's fans are so blindly loyal to her, they see her life as a kind of Grimms' fairy tale, with a cast of heroes and villains.
That's how Diana presented it to the public, casting herself in the role of Queen of Hearts, and Camilla as the wicked step mother. History has already exposed the truth, that there were no martyrs in this tale, only damaged and ill-matched people who should never have married. That Diana finally admitted Charles was a good dad to their sons after all the years of rancour, speaks volumes. After all, she never missed a chance to lob a hand grenade at her ex husband!
There's no question Charles stepped up to the plate and was a loving, devoted father to both his sons after Diana's sudden, tragic death. William and Harry were aged just 15 and 12 and desperately needed that emotional support, after losing their mother in a shocking and needless accident.
Sadly Harry's self indulgent conduct as an adult, courting the media to settle scores and express self pity, have clear echoes of his mother's behaviour. Those games backfired on her big time, and I believe have backfired on Harry too, for he's no longer the public's favourite son. Naturally Prince Harry got a lot of sympathy for losing his mother so young. But one now has to suspect he was spoiled and over indulged as a result of that tragedy - while as heir to the throne, his elder brother William was not so molly coddled and is a better man for it!
Just imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and Prince Charles, not Princess Diana, had enjoyed a string of different lovers both during and after the marriage, as she did. And imagine if Charles had died one year post divorce, alongside one of those many lovers in a high speed Paris car crash, while failing to wear his seat belt. He would be roundly crucified for his recklessness and irresponsibility as a parent!
And had Diana been the surviving parent having to quietly pick up the pieces for her sons, and give them the love and reassurance they needed from her, their sole parent, she'd be hailed a hero and the perfect, strong and dedicated mother. Yet we rarely see such condemnation of Diana's recklessness, nor recognition of Charles' achievements as a loving single father to his boys.
The double standards of Diana fans and their desperation to present her as a tragic heroine, are as ludicrous as they are hilarious!
7
-
7
-
Prince Harry is a self obsessed, self pitying, whining narcissist, just like his ghastly mother. He certainly takes after Diana, bleating to TV interviewers about how hard done by he is, when he is one of the most privileged, wealthy, high status VIPs in the world!
His ego is out of control. Thank God he's moved to America with that Godawful American actress, a drama queen in every sense, whose fake stories of being suicidal while pregnant mirror Diana's lies. Harry fully deserves her!
They won't even celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary. Post divorce, Harry will be left high and dry in America, having to stay there to see his children, never fitting in with LA celebrities and no friends back in his home country 'cos he back stabbed them all. The idiot also takes after his father - James Hewitt!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The fact the doctor told police his wife gave him a back rub that day, to explain that his skin may be under her fingernails, is chilling. It suggests Mabel scratched her husband, as she tried to defend herself during his murderous attack.
That poor woman knew her husband, the father of her three children, the man she trusted and shared a home and bed with, was killing her. It's hard to imagine a more horrible and heinous betrayal.
And for what? Money - and Greed. Mabel was almost certainly about to leave him - the most common trigger for a man to murder a woman. Like so many domestic killers, Dirk Greineder chose murder over divorce, so he wouldn't have to give his wife her share of their jointly owned assets.
Their children know full well their father killed their mother. The way the daughter constantly shakes her head while defending his 'innocence', is very revealing body language! (19:55). They are still being controlled and manipulated by their narcissist father, just as he controlled and manipulated the entire family. If only poor Mabel had realised what he was capable of, and got herself to a safe, secret address to launch divorce proceedings. So many women are murdered because they make the fatal mistake of staying in a soured relationship too long - and give their abusive partner the opportunity to kill them.
7
-
7
-
Are you for real?! You completely overlook the fact Andrew Smith provided the murder weapon (plus 480 rounds of ammunition), in a double homicide!
This could not 'happen to anyone', because most of us don't go around gifting deadly firearms to immature, 23-year-old men, whose biggest life achievement is scoring high in childish, 'shoot 'em up' video games.
Andrew Smith is a despicable man-child. If he had a shred of decency he'd cooperate fully and respectfully while giving evidence, not rudely tell one attorney "It's none of your business". It's a murder trial, if an attorney asks a question, it's their business! It's for the opposing attorney or judge to challenge defence or prosecution questions, not the witness!
Bart and Krista Halderson warmly welcomed Andrew Smith into their home, gave him a comfortable bed, home-cooked food and hospitality. And he repaid them by bringing a powerful SKS rifle and a ton of ammo into their house, without consulting them. Worse, he agreed to keep that highly questionable gift to their son a secret from his hosts.
However, the couple were let in on the secret soon after, when Chandler lured them down to their basement and shot them both in the back like the cowardly snake he is, before dismembering them both and dumping their body parts in public areas.
Do you think the late Bart and Krista Halderson would share your sympathy for Andrew Smith?
7
-
7
-
This is far and away the BEST channel for intelligent, insightful coverage of the Chris Watts murders - BRAVO Derek Van Schaik, your analysis of this merciless psychopath is spot on. People are fascinated and horrified by this case because Chris Watts had appeared to be a loving husband and father, great son and brother, reliable neighbour and dependable co-worker. No one who knew him - not even tragically his victims the closest people to him, his pregnant wife and children, could have imagined the disgusting, depraved acts he would commit.
As a quiet introvert, people projected good qualities onto Chris Watts - they assumed his silence and introspection indicated a gentle, thoughtful, submissive man. How wrong they were - he was a cowardly, cold-hearted narcissist whose lack of personality and drive drew him to the warm, sociable and energised Shanann. When he met her he wanted her, pursued her determinedly (love bombing is the typical MO of a psychopath who uses full-on flattery, flowers, dates, gifts etc etc to win someone over fast and get power over them), then proposed and achieved his end goal - he wanted Shanann for his wife. The unsuspecting Shanann thought this was about love - but psychopaths love nobody but themselves. His pursuit of her was to meet his own, selfish desires at that time - attractive, charismatic and popular Shanann was great for the dull, undynamic, no-personality Chris Watts' image and ego. He enjoyed the reflected glory he got as husband to a glamorous, popular and confident woman.
Family life with her suited him down to the ground (she owned her own $400,000 home and sold it to buy the family house she and he moved into), she contributed the lion's share to their fun new married lifestyle. In return, he was willing to play the role of loving husband and father - until he got bored of it and decided a wife and children didn't fit into his future plans.
Shanann and the children were always at risk of being killed by Chris Watts, because he never, ever loved them or felt any genuine emotion for them. So the minute he decided they no longer served any useful purpose in his life, he was able and willing to end their lives, to erase them from his own. He could do this without a moment's emotion, sadness or even guilt - as evidenced by his behaviour during this TV interview.
People struggle to accept this shocking truth, because as a non psychopath it's tough to understand how a psychopath's mind works. Studies have proved a psychopath's brain is different to a non psychopaths. The pathways to emotion centres in the brain controlling feelings like love, empathy, guilt and even fear are weak in psychopaths (the weak connection to feelings of fear explains why psychopaths are risk takers and could explain why Chris Watts was so relaxed and expected to literally get away with murder). These weak brain pathways connecting to normal human emotions make them capable of unspeakable acts like these murders, and the vile, ruthless cover-up that followed.
However, psychopath's are not just born, they are made too - extreme cases like Chris Watts almost certainly became so dangerous from a combination of nature/genetics which gave him that warped brain, with it's lack of connection to human emotions, but also crucially from nurture/upbringing too. One only has to observe Chris Watts' parents, who have behaved so badly in interviews and in court, and clearly enabled their son's out-of-control narcissism. Their obvious spite against Shanann, a woman they never liked or felt was good enough for their son, has continued even after their son brutally murdered her and her babies and dumped their bodies like trash.
I will never forget their appalling disrespect for the victims and Shanann's family, when they stood up in court (as they had a right to do, as supposed victims themselves), and brazenly took more time than Shanann's family to talk - not about Shanann, Bella, Celeste and Nico - but to tell their evil son that they loved him and forgave him! That was a huge slap in the face for Shanann's family, and totally inappropriate. It should be noted Chris Watts never looked up at his mother as she addressed him, requested his father's support when he was first arrested and told his mother not to come, and according to reports has not allowed her to visit him in prison.
I hope psychiatrists will take advantage of CW's life sentence and study him in prison to learn more about how men like him become so damaged and dangerous. His childhood will be pivotal - and I suspect it would not take long for experts to find he has a deep seated hatred for his mother, which in adulthood translated into love-hate feelings towards women who attract and repel him in equal measure.
I stress though, psychopaths who behave in extreme ways as CW has done, are created by a combination of nature and nurture - in other words, they are both born and made. An eminent psychiatrist studied himself and discovered to his horror, he had the brain of a psychopath - with those weak pathways to human emotions such as love, empathy etc. He had the kind of brain typical of ruthless murderers like Chris Watts! However, he had turned out to be a great guy, successful in his home and career lives - and the reason? He had a wonderful childhood, with a warm, loving secure family who loved and supported him. He said if he had had different parents and an unhappy childhood, he could easily have ended up taking a very different and sinister life-path!
Fascinating subject - I hope Derek does more videos about psychopaths and crucially, explores how we non-psychopaths can spot them! Not all psychopaths are murderers, but they are all capable of wreaking terrible damage and destruction on the people around them. Many psychopaths are highly successful in business and politics - I can think of a very high profile man who may well fit the profile of a psychopath!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Poor seals, imagine the last minutes of their lives, mothers and babies slaughtered in front of each other by an invading mob of upright aliens, the ice and sea turned into a bloodbath around them.
From peace and contentment, to a sudden Hell of terror, pain, and confusion. Death, when it came, must have been a final, blessed release. Those poor, poor souls.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Naija guy Agreed, good comment. Of course Chris Watts is by no stretch of the imagination, a normal, mentally healthy male. He was an extreme psychopath from age 18 and highly dangerous to women and children. Tragically he had learned to mimic the typical emotional responses and behaviours of non-psychopaths very convincingly, so was able to hide in plain sight. Mimicing these behaviours, he was able to persuade an attractive, highly eligible woman that he loved her and would be a great husband and father.
He could have hooked many women with his devoted, loving suitor act, but Shanann happened to be the unlucky woman he targeted, pursued and proposed to. She married him and carried his babies, slept beside him for seven years with absolutely no idea of the obscene acts of violence he was capable of, and would one night unleash on her and her unsuspecting children, after weeks of cold planning and premeditation. This was no crime of passion - it was the very opposite, the cold execution of three vulnerable people who loved and trusted him, because he decided they had become an inconvenience to him.
If Shanann had been educated about the M.O. of covert narcissists, she might have recognised who Chris Watts really was and had a chance to escape him with her children. Alas, she only saw the ugly truth when it was too late, as he sat his full weight on her pregnant belly and strangled her to death. Shanann was a good woman and I'm certain she would want other women to learn from her tragedy, and be wise to covert narcissists like Chris Watts. A fantastic YouTube channel called LIVE ABUSE FREE explains this shocking case and the psychology behind it in fascinating detail. Shanann was targeted by Chris Watts because she was an Empath, and they draw Narcissists to them like bees to honey. Narcissists come in both sexes and most are not murderers but some, like Chris Watts are highly dangerous and capable of murder. The most dangerous variety of narcissist, ie the killers, are overwhelmingly male. I don't say that to man-bash - it's a simple statement of fact as anyone who follows true crime will attest.
Stay safe ladies, research covert narcissists and get clued up about their M.O. Had Shanann been wise to them she might never have married her killer, and the killer of her daughters and unborn son.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Agreed and I totally understand why Gabby's heartbroken family have started a charitable foundation for abuse victims like her - they have lost her, but desperately need some good to come from that tragedy.
One of the critical changes her homicide needs to trigger is better domestic abuse training for law enforcement, so they never again mishandle an abuse situation as they totally messed this one up.
It's devastating that cops squandered a golden opportunity to give this story a different outcome. I believe Gabby could be alive today if they had received proper training in domestic abuse, and taken appropriate actions that day. They were so utterly clueless about the red flags, they misidentified Gabby as the perpetrator and Brian as the victim.
At the conclusion of the second bodycam after the couple have left the scene, cops de-brief together and one actually says he could have arrested Gabby but decided not to because they were obviously a couple 'in love'. He seriously thought Gabby was the villain and deserved to be locked up, and that this was a healthy relationship. How totally, outrageously wrong can you call it!
Had those officers been trained to recognise the reality - a female victim and a male abuser (as previously confirmed by not one but two independent 911 witness reports) - they'd have identified and prioritised her as the victim, and come down hard on Brian as the abuser. Florida Sheriff Grady Judge has slammed his police colleagues, saying there's no question they should have arrested Brian Laundrie for domestic abuse that day.
By sending Gabby off to sleep in the van alone overnight and treating Brian Laundrie with kid gloves, cops made her more isolated and vulnerable and him more entitled and empowered. Far from punishing his nasty, bullying behaviour, police in effect endorsed it and there's little doubt this fuelled the horrific and rapid escalation in his violence to homicide, just two weeks later.
Lessons must be learned from this domestic crime and the police failings that preceded it. But it will take repeated, determined campaigns by victim advocates like the Petito family, before we see any meaningful change. Police attitudes and misogyny are deep rooted, and inevitably reflect the society they serve.
Better training for police raising their awareness and knowledge of the typical conduct of perpetrators and victims, could have fantastic knock-on effects for the scourge of domestic abuse. How wonderful if law enforcement led the way in educating society on domestic abuse, which ends the lives of an estimated 150 women worldwide every single day. Home is not 'where the heart is' - it's the place a woman is most likely to be murdered, by a man she knows well.
The late Gabby Petito, and all women, deserve so much better from the police, whose job it is to protect and serve victims - not their abusers/killers!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@pamelabacker2420 I agree it's unfortunate the royal family has adopted the American obsession with oversharing. The late Queen Elizabeth's enduring popularity was in great part due to her quiet dignity and discretion, in 'never letting too much light in on the magic'. I hope William will continue to follow his grandmother's wise example.
Sadly his idiot, attention-seeking brother Harry is following their mother's lead. The late Princess Diana was one of the worst culprits for oversharing, with her sly, bombshell book and 'Panorama' TV interview full of deeply personal and vindictive statements - both of which hurt her two children terribly.
But you are quite wrong in stating Charles ever said he 'never loved Diana'. In fact he said the opposite - that the resumption of his romantic relationship with Camilla only happened after his and Diana's marriage had irretrievably broken down. This happened in 1986, and Diana too was unfaithful from that time onward, though she slept with a long list of men, mostly unsuitable, many married.
Her first extramarital sexual relationship was with her married personal police bodyguard Barry Mannakee. When the affair became known about, he was moved to other duties. He later died in a motorbike accident. His poor widow Susan Mannakee is among the many wronged wives devastated when the princess pursued and bedded their husband.
Diana's shameless pursuit of England rugby star Will Carling ended his marriage to wife Julia before their 2 year wedding anniversary (Diana was never even in love with him - he was merely a celebrity notch on her bedpost). And the princess did her damnedest to split her lover Oliver Hoare from his wife Diane after he dumped her, with a malicious campaign of over 300 silent phone calls round the clock. Woe betide any man who didn't do Diana's bidding!
It's ironic how Charles has been crucified for his ONE relationship with Camilla which led to a happy, faithful marriage, while Diana's selfish, immoral home-wrecking activities go mostly uncriticised!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
If George Michael had only come out publicly as the gay man his friends knew and loved, instead of hiding in the closet for 16 years pretending to be straight - and betraying the gay community - news of his cruising activities would not have had half so much media impact! The issue was not his homosexuality, but his hypocrisy.
It was the fact he had lived a lie and presented an entirely false public image as a straight man for his entire career, that was the story. As the old saying goes "It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up".
His disingenuous cries of 'homophobia' in this interview as he plays the victim, are a cynical ploy for undeserved sympathy. He would have triggered exactly the same level of media interest had he been caught 'dogging' with strange women - as he well knew!
George Michael was famous from the age of 18, he understood how the media worked, and he played it like a champ. But he was used to being in control of his image and his publicity. Living a lie for so long made him vulnerable to negative publicity - it would always catch up with him at some point. His arrest in a public toilet was that moment. A star who has sex with strangers in public will inevitably get major headlines - but when in addition it exposes a fundamental fraud, the story will run and run!
When he was caught having public sex with men, he handed journalists the power to to 'out' him, and to mock and ridicule him for his duplicity. Sadly his deception inevitably brought unfair mockery of all gay people. George Michael should be eating humble pie in this interview, and apologising to the gay community he did such a disservice to with his fake, 16-year, heterosexual act.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@CharleyMK9867 Yes, I know what 'down to earth' means. I also know a covert narcissist when I see one - Diana was one of the best!
Covert narcissists are deeply duplicitous and manipulative. They act the victim, winning people's trust and sympathy - but in reality, are ruthlessly self centred and self serving. Diana had a lot of people fooled with her 'poor little me', victim act, yourself included.
Her 'Panorama' interview was a case in point, an hour long 'self-pity party', in which she condemned her husband's one affair (conveniently forgetting her umpteen casual shags with a cast of different men - there were MANY more than "3 people in the marriage"!), and spitefully putting the boot into his future role as king. Only terminally gullible Diana fans would fail to recognise that TV performance as the exercise in cynical manipulation and spite it undoubtedly was.
Diana was not the first or last covert narcissist, sadly, the world is full of them. Be careful out there - you're exactly the kind they prey on!
7
-
7
-
@Javas_Dream Diana was not Prince Phillip's wife - she was his daughter-in-law! Diana was married to Phillip's son, Prince Charles.
Diana wanted to join the royal family from a teenager. Marrying Prince Charles and becoming the Princess of Wales was literally a dream come true for her.
She got world fame, adulation, top VIP status and two healthy sons out of the marriage. It served her very well - she was no victim!
Inevitably, she and Charles fell out of love with each other - it was totally mutual. Diana's ill-disguised boredom and anger with him on royal tours at this time told the story - she was done with him! Not too surprising really, as it was an arranged marriage and they rarely go the distance.
Diana pretended Charles broke her heart to win public sympathy, slyly colluding with her book and the BBC Panorama interview. Her aim was to present herself as the innocent, wronged wife of an adulterer and crucify her husband for his one affair with Camilla. Meanwhile Diana herself was enjoying MANY extra marital affairs behind Charles' back - one with his married friend Oliver Hoare!
In fact seducing other women's husbands was a special pastime of Diana's. For her to present herself to the public as some kind of saint, the self-styled 'Queen of people's hearts' as she put it, was brazen hypocrisy and frankly sickening!
Ask Susan Manakee, Diane Hoare and Julia Carling, just three of the women whose husbands Diana ruthlessly pursued and bedded, what they think of the Queen of Tarts!
Charles' affair was with one woman and it was a love match - they are now happily married. I doubt the self-obsessed, narcissistic Diana could have been a good wife to any man!
7
-
7
-
7
-
@josephcraffigan8489 Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to unique, historic artefacts (the Crown Jewels for example), in the ownership of the royal family for many generations and never, ever will they leave their ownership or be sold.
The value of the metals, jewels etc are relevant only if they were not the historic items they undoubtedly are. Yes you can value them purely according to their precious metal weight, the gemstones etc, ie the intrinsic value, but obviously that's not an accurate value in the context of their history. And estimates of such unique pieces can only ever be that - and may be wildly inaccurate.
Princess Diana's sapphire and diamond engagement ring (now worn by Prince William's wife Catherine), is a case in point.
Made by jeweller Garrards, it cost £28,500 when Prince Charles bought it in 1981, which equates to around £112,000 today. Unusually for a royal engagement ring it was not bespoke or from the royal vaults, but was available to the general public to buy when Prince Charles purchased it for Diana (she chose it from a tray of rings all available at that time from Garrards).
So there must be ordinary members of the public - albeit wealthy ones - who also bought that exact same ring at the time it was available for Prince Charles to purchase.
I've no idea how many of that exact same ring Garrard produced when it was part of their catalogue, but there are certainly a number of identical rings to the late Princess Diana's in existence, and obviously they will have the same intrinsic value as Diana's (though because they are the exact same model of ring that Diana chose for her engagement 40 years ago, they will have a premium attached for fans of the Princess who would love to own 'her' ring - or at least a duplicate).
However, none of the unknown owners of the ring could hope to sell theirs for anything like the value of the ring Catherine Duchess of Sussex now wears. Her ring's worth was recently estimated at £500,000 on the open market, purely because the iconic Princess Diana wore it for so many years (she loved it so much, she even wore it in 1996, after her divorce), and its royal provenance in general.
But as the most famous and often worn piece of jewellery the late princess owned (she was photographed wearing it more than any other bauble), its value is impossible to accurately estimate. Diana remains a legendary and much-loved public figure. Interest in her is still so fierce internationally, the sky's the limit if her iconic engagement ring were ever auctioned.
£500,000 is surely a drop in the ocean - serious jewellery collectors, history buffs and Diana fans would almost certainly bid millions to own that historic ring that symbolises Princess Diana more than any item she owned in her 36 years on Earth.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@christineblackshaw876 It's hilarious how you Diana fans condemn Charles' ONE extra marital relationship with the woman he wound up happily married to, but turn a blind eye to Diana's shameless extra marital bed hopping, much of it with other women's husbands! Diana was a mistress many more times than Camilla was - she may have been a virgin when she married (that was a requirement to become Princess of Wales), but she more than made up for it later!
Her favourite past time was slipping her private phone number to married men. Ask the wives of Barry Mannakee, Oliver Hoare and Will Carling, to name just three, what they think of the self-styled Queen of Tarts - Oops, Hearts! I doubt they share your enthusiasm.
The way Diana played the innocent, wronged wife and crucified Charles and Camilla in the media, while sneaking around behind the scenes sleeping with anything with a pulse (and a wedding ring), was rank hypocrisy.
Diana was a manipulative narcissist who got herself killed running round Paris with her lover, an Arab playboy. If she'd only remembered she was a mother, given her dependant children William and Harry a thought and worn her seat belt, she'd have survived the crash to raise them to adults. Doesn't that just say it all?
7
-
He's a lazy, entitled 23-year-old man whose parents had been so over indulgent with him his whole life that he still lived at home, and had no ambition to stand on his own two feet, earn his own money or nurture grown up ambitions of a career, owning a home or raising a family.
When his parents belatedly attempted to confront him over his failures and lies he saw his free ride ending, and killed them both for a life insurance payout. He probably thought the £500,000 (split with his brother, so actually $250,000), would be ample to ensure he never had to work for the rest of his life! If you've never earned your own money, you are clueless about its value.
We are seeing more and more of these kinds of homicides in recent years. Western societies are creating a breed of entitled young men with no ambition beyond leeching off others. They often go from indulgent parents who keep them in comfort, to an indulgent partner who also cossets and protects them from the real world responsibilities of being a man. Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jnr are two very similar recent cases, they follow a sadly predictable pattern. I think this particular crime is now so prevalent, it should be given it's own name - maybe 'Man-child Murders'.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The two elderly male victims met and befriended their 34 year old killer Yostin Mosquera during a holiday to Columbia last year.
They invited him to stay with them in London, and he enjoyed the first of two vacations as their guest in Autumn of 2023. That trip was uneventful, and the men repeated the invitation to him.
Mosquera murdered and dismembered his hosts during his second visit to stay with them in July 2024. Very sad they trusted this guy they didn't know, who apparently didn't even speak fluent English!
No doubt he saw they had a nice lifestyle in London he wanted for himself, and decided to kill them both, in order to steal their home, bank accounts etc. Police confirmed the victims had hardly any living relatives, so they may not have been reported missing for a long time, had the killer escaped detection.
Thankfully he made the huge mistake of dumping the body parts at Clifton Suspension Bridge, little knowing it's a suicide hot-spot so covered with CCTV and patrolling security staff, plus high fences he could not throw the suitcases over. He could not have chosen a worse place to dispose of his victims.
I hope he is promptly deported after his murder conviction - the British taxpayer should not be funding a double killer's bed and board, during his inevitable life sentence.
7
-
@swifty8503 You're fully entitled to like or dislike any presenter. But it's laughable to say Eamonn spoke out against Schofield because he needs publicity! He's doing very well on TV - he has never stopped hosting shows, ditto his wife Ruth Langsford.
I've seen many comments online praising Eamonn, and many are from people like myself, who have worked with him in television. We don't compliment him for any reason other than to speak as we find - he is a decent, down to earth man who has no airs and graces, and respects TV colleagues - whether it's the runner who brings him a coffee or the make up lady who powders his face, or the producer in charge.
People like working with Eamonn - the same goes for his wife Ruth Langsford, a lovely, approachable woman. It's no surprise to me she is still in touch with the young lover Schofield groomed so shamefully, then threw to the wolves, and is supportive to him. Personal feedback about famous people tells the real story!
You will see the opposite kind of comments from those who - again like me - have worked with Phillip Schofield. Schofield is the polar opposite, a vain, egotistical creep who thinks he's far too important to bother with 'the little people' - he doesn't even acknowledge colleagues on set!
Eamonn could have taken the easy path and kept his trap shut, for his own career - like Dermot O' Leary, Allison Hammond, and so many other spineless self-serving presenters looking the other way, and looking after number one. Instead he is using his fame for good, to speak for all the people - and there are lots of them - who for years were bullied, disrespected and silenced by Schofield and the ITV powers-that-be.
This was not a fleeting error of judgement by Schofield. That 'affair' was going on for FIVE YEARS under everyone's noses on 'This Morning', yet Holly Willoughby and ITV still brazenly lie and pretend they knew nothing about it! And ITV successfully covered up for Schofield for a further three years, after the young man was booted off 'This Morning' and moved to 'Loose Women', because Schofield had finished with him.
It was a massive conspiracy in which ITV bosses and Holly were fully complicit - the ridiculous farce of his staged 'coming out' live on the 'This Morning' sofa (totally managed on camera by Holly, as a bemused Eamonn and Ruth looked on from the sidelines), confirms it.
The determined cover up to protect Phillip Schofield, at the highest level of ITV, lasted a staggering EIGHT YEARS! Imagine the hell of working on that show, during that time. If anyone reported Schofield's inappropriate relationship with the runner, or indeed complained about his generally obnoxious, arrogant and rude behaviour, it was only ever them who faced consequences by being fired (Eamonn and Ruth), after they had signed gag-order NDAs to ensure they couldn't speak about it afterwards.
Phillip Schofield was untouchable, and he knew he could get away with anything. Holly Willoughby was treated with the same kid gloves by TV executives, and was arrogant and superior with colleagues too - ITV created two monsters. She and the 'This Morning' brand are forever tainted. The public has now seen the ugly truth of the show and its narcissistic hosts.
This is corruption of the most serious kind, a heinous abuse of power by Schofield - who first met the 34-years-younger man when he was a little boy aged just ten years old (and Schofield denies grooming him!) And it is serious misconduct by ITV executives, particularly coming after the paedophile sex scandals of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and the rest - like Phillip Schofield, celebrity sexual predators hiding in plain sight on national television.
And you attack Eamonn Holmes for having the integrity and backbone to speak out and condemn it all?! You totally missed the point my friend.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Exactly! Are the panel here against ALL divorce?!! Charles and Diana's arranged marriage was doomed from the start, and it ended by mutual agreement because they simply weren't compatible. No one's fault - and not the tragedy Diana pretended, to win public sympathy, and spitefully crucify her ex - she wanted out of the marriage every bit as much, she only pretended Charles broke her heart to cast herself in a sympathetic light with the public.
Why is Charles one affair with the woman he loved and went on to have a happy marriage with condemned, while Diana's multiple, grubby adulterous sexual flings with unsuitable men (many of them other women's husbands) are simply ignored? Diana was no angel! She fought very hard to sneak around, and keep her own, umpteen lovers out of the public eye!
Had she lived, the situation would be no different - Diana admitted herself she did not want to be Queen. Being Queen would have meant being a faithful, supportive wife to Charles, a role she wanted even less! Unlike the self-obsessed, vain and vacuous Diana, who could not have been a good wife to any man, Camilla loves Charles and is happy to be a supportive wife, not seeking the limelight or praise, or trying to compete with him for headlines and popularity, as Diana constantly did like a spoiled child.
Camilla is proving to be a wonderful Queen, her work for women whose lives are ended and/or blighted by the scourge of domestic violence, shows she's a 'girl's girl' - something Diana, who ruthlessly pursued other women's husbands, and ended at least one marriage, could never claim to be!
7
-
Agreed. When you look at the totality of evidence, the most reasonable explanation for Victoria's sudden, suspicious disappearance is that her husband killed her in a domestic homicide after years of abuse, and successfully hid her body in the works sludge pools.
The total absence of a body, after extensive professional police searches, is in itself powerful evidence of foul play by a third party. Suicide victims are usually found, murder victims are not. When a woman suddenly vanishes without a trace never to be seen again, you can be sure she was murdered - and by far the most likely culprit is her partner. Who else but Jim had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He had the means, motive and opportunity.
Her ill health was becoming a drain on his patience and finances. And when his affair with the new girlfriend Kathy heated up, he had far better uses for the family cash, ie taking her to hotels for pornographic photo shoots, and blowing hundred of thousands of dollars gambling in casinos.
His contempt for his missing wife was clear in the way he spoke of her to police - it was obvious he did not want her back! If he was guilty of nothing more than falling for another woman after his wife's supposed 'suicide', why did he and Kathy repeatedly and determinedly lie about it to police, and under oath? Again, that's circumstantial evidence indicating their intention to cover up a very serious crime of spousal murder, which was triggered by their affair.
The way he told relatives with certainly that his wife was dead and would never be found, spoke of personal knowledge of her whereabouts. And that was supported by the evidence the jury heard about the industrial waste outlets he used in his dumper truck driver job for a paper factory.
When the senior detective revealed in court that Jim had told him he had a key to access the chemical sludge pools (which were NOT covered by CCTV cameras), it was clear where Victoria's remains lay - and why they had never/would never be recovered.
Prokopovitz's defence lawyer was visibly shocked at the news, and stammered his responses, as his client notably stayed silent. Old Jimbo slipped up there with police - as narcissistic killers often do. The key revelation was a real slam-dunk moment for the prosecution.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Agreed - but remember this was an abusive, unbalanced relationship from the start, they met when she was a young student and he the older, Svengali-style professor teaching her. It was unethical!
Clearly the balance of power was always in his favour. But we know abuse victims like Carmin find it hard to escape controlling, manipulative men like Tom Murray, for multiple reasons - emotional and practical. The very fact he murdered her with such horrific violence when she ended the relationship, shows exactly how warped and controlling he was. It's unfair to victim blame, if you haven't experienced this kind of unhealthy relationship with a controlling male.
Of course she should have left him and not become pregnant. But she loved him - as proven by her decision to stick with him for 18 years (terrible shame - wasted years when she could have met the love of her life Larry). And frankly, men who marry women and have regular sex with them must be grown ups, and recognise that a baby is a likely consequence! She was in her thirties when she conceived - women's body clocks are urging them to get pregnant at that age. Very sad she was married to such a dangerous, warped man. Watching his pompous, superior air with police after recently battering and stabbing his wife to death. I was struck by how physically repulsive and peculiar he is. Not a bit attractive. Lord knows what she saw in him!
It is appalling that he resented the pregnancy that HE caused, and the beautiful baby that HE fathered. He obviously didn't like the idea of his wife giving time and attention to someone other than him! It was his vile attitude to the pregnancy and their tiny daughter, that finally made her wake up and recognise the marriage was over - and she needed to escape it with her child. Unfortunately as domestic violence statistics prove, women are at far higher risk of being murdered by an abusive partner when they leave/talk about leaving him. That is the most dangerous time for a woman, around the break up.
Tom Murray is a poor excuse for a man, husband and father, and he's rightly locked in the cage he belongs in (and will hopefully die in). Thank God the precious little girl he fathered is out of his clutches, and safe in the loving care of her mother's family.
7
-
7
-
7
-
That so-called body language 'expert' made a total fool of herself with her "Wendi is innocent - her palms were facing up", BS! That's ridiculous.
In fact Wendi's over the top sobbing looks horribly fake and rehearsed, and in the context of her soured relationship with the victim, her ex-husband (with whom she was fighting a vicious custody battle over their kids), it simply makes no sense.
That's how you'd respond to the murder of your much-loved, current husband, not your hated and despised ex!
Also that 'expert' suggests Wendi would know nothing about body language, to fake moves indicating innocence. But as a lawyer, I would suggest she likely knew about the various indicators for guilt and innocence, and in the run up to Dan's murder researched and practised the right body language for that very moment, when a cop told her of his death. Wendi knows the legal system, and that she was on video throughout that police interview.
It's perfectly obvious Wendi Adelson was putting on the performance of her life in that police interview room. But she is not the great actress her mother Donna told her she is. Far from it. Her wide eyed innocent act in court doesn't convince me either!
She's a narcissistic abuser so ruthlessly self-serving, she would not share her children with their father, and was fully on board with him being violently and permanently removed from their lives. And she was OK with her closest family members taking the rap for that crime, a murder which only benefited her. Wendi's a lousy human being and mother, who belongs in prison for the rest of her days.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
True - Al Stauch was having an affair with a married female work colleague called Linda at the time of Gannon's murder. He was heading off on work weekends to see his lover - leaving his evil wife Letecia sole charge of his vulnerable children, Gannon and his younger sister Laina (who was incorrectly identified in this lame video as Letecia's teen biological daughter Harley Hunt).
If Al Stauch had only prioritised his kids' health and happiness over his sex life, he would have recognised Letecia was abusive and hated his little boy, and kicked her out of the marital home. Instead he backed Letecia over his children in any conflicts, and allowed her to punish them however she saw fit. The candle incident in which Gannon was burned, but she failed to get him medical attention and cared only about the damaged carpet, shows exactly how toxic and dangerous she was. When she told Al what had happened over the phone, he agreed to her proposal that she confiscate Gannons 'Switch' game (which he was obsessed with), as a punishment. That's the kind of spineless, 'anything for a quiet life' father Al Stauch was!
Al didn't know Letecia was capable of murder, but he sure knew she was abusive to his kids, with a particular dislike and intolerance of his son. Hell, Gannon's schoolfriends' parents knew Letecia loathed him, so his dad had to know! And that alone was big grounds for divorce.
After 5 years, it was clear his marriage to Letecia had failed (hence his affair). He was indifferent to his wife, and that enraged her - and she took out that rage and frustration on poor Gannon.
Why the hell didn't he start divorce proceedings? They didn't even have any kids together, and Letecia's one child by a previous relationship, Harley Hunt, was 17 and almost an adult. Divorce would have been quick and easy - there were no shared kids or custody/child maintenance payments. If Al had only faced facts and ended the toxic marriage, Gannon would be alive today.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Agreed. I'm struggling to understand why more attorneys aren't as good as he is at communicating a clear and compelling narrative of events. That is central to any attorney's skill-set, yet so few lawyers can hold a court's attention as he did. They typically waffled, hesitate, include irrelevant detail and omit the stuff that speaks to a jury on a human level of a defendant's guilt or innocence. There was none of that from William Brown. His speech was spot on and delivered with calm, measured authority.
The prosecutor had everyone transfixed throughout his hour-long opening statement. By the end of it the accused Chandler Halderson's balls must have shrunk to the size of frozen peas, and his defence lawyers must have wanted to throw their files on the floor and run! Great job Mr Brown, nail and jail that cruel, lazy, entitled piece of parent-murdering excrement!
If someone I love is murdered, I 100% want that guy prosecuting them. Halderson is done for. I hope he likes bad food, boys and crapping in a bucket - 'cos that's what his life will be after Mr Brown is through with him.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Exactly right, great point. Not only was her fake crying very over the top, it simply didn't make sense she would react like that about an ex-husband she hated, and was fighting a vicious custody battle with! That's how distraught you'd be if your current, much-loved husband died - not your despised ex!
Her overly-dramatic sobbing is plainly all for show - she's an attorney, who understands the legal system and knew that video footage of her in the police interrogation room being told of Dan's shooting would be viewed and analysed endlessly for her reaction. I doubt she's any stranger to body language either, and she no doubt knew the moves/gestures that indicate 'innocence'. Ridiculous that so-called 'expert' believes she's not guilty, just because she threw her palms up!
As others have mentioned in the comments, Wendi knew Dan had custody of their two children that day. Surely an innocent woman with no clue about the murder plot would have been panic-stricken about her little boys' safety. The first thing out of her mouth to police would be; 'Are my kids OK?'
But curiously, Wendi never mentioned them. It's like she knew Dan had dropped the boys safe at school, and was shot later, when he arrived home, alone in his car...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@MachoWrestling101 The killers you are talking about are psychopaths, who by their very definition are incapable of love in the true sense. These men (overwhelmingly the dangerous psychopaths who become killers are male), should be studied by experts while they languish in jails for decades at the taxpayers' expense. Study these freaks like lab rats!
Psychologists could learn so much more about them, to identify red flags that would forewarn potential victims - eg the nature vs nurture balance, their history and psyche, precise M.O. etc.
Brain scans of psychopaths reveal very different results to scans of non-psychopaths. In psychopaths, there are dramatically weak pathways to the areas controlling normal human emotions like love, empathy, guilt, remorse and even fear. These people often have physical differences to the rest of us, they really are 'wired differently'!
Who knows the exact nature of these warped men's marriages before they were imprisoned for murder. But those marriages would not feature love in any real sense.
Just because a psychopath is loyal to someone doesn't mean they love them. These people look upon other people only in terms of what they give them. When the person is meeting their needs, they are loyal to them. When they cease to meet their needs, they are capable of rejecting them in the cruellest of ways, even murder, because they have no emotional investment in them, or anyone else - never did, they just aren't capable of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking a psychopath's understanding of 'love' is the same as yours or mine. It's very different. In all likelihood, Russell Williams could see his wife mowed down by a truck and killed in front of his eyes, and struggle to shed a single tear. Yet he will tell you he 'loves' her till the day he dies. He doesn't know the meaning of the word.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
JeanClaude Clemenceau How bizarre that you keep making obscure and fatuous contemporary references, when the discussion centres on a video about the 1930s and '40s.
You obviously have some kind of agenda, to keep commenting here. But we'll never know what it is, as your posts are so poorly written as to be incomprehensible.
I realise English isn't your first language but that's really no excuse for the nonsensical, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual bollocks you keep posting.
Stop wasting everybody's time, and do something useful with your life. Go pat a dog, get a haircut, plan a vacation (it's a long shot, but they do say travel broadens the mind), cook a meal for friends... Assuming you have any.
To call your contributions here horse shit, is an insult to excrement. Au revoir!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
George Michael was right about one thing - his music will live on. But I do think it's hilarious he's indignant that journalists reported him having sex with strangers in public. Did he really think he could do that and it not get headlines?
And let's not forget, George had never come out as gay, when he was having those high risk sexual encounters with random men in public toilets. So there's the issue of his hypocrisy too - George never came out, he was outed by the media, because he got himself arrested. At the time the public believed he was straight - which made it a far bigger news story.
It's actually very concerning that he worked so hard, for so long, to appear straight - it suggests he never had any intention of coming out as gay, and had he not been caught cruising would simply have continued to play the heterosexual star. Which in the modern world, which is accepting of gay people (especially celebs), is bizarre.
If he had only gone public on his homosexuality years earlier, he could have been a positive role model for so many gay people. The fact he instead firmly hid in the closet, suggests he was ashamed of being gay - hardly a great advocate for the gay community! He also gave the media the power to 'out' him - hypocrisy is meat and drink to newspapers, and George Michael was certainly guilty of that. He gave the media a gift! He must have been kicking himself that instead of coming out of his own accord and being in control of the story, he had been outed by the media due to his own behaviour and resulting arrest. That gave the scandal so much more power.
6
-
Oh she is magnificent! Entirely possible it's Simone's first baby-girl, Luca - what a tantalising thought! Whoever she/he is, there is certainly no lack of food in their life, thank God. She's a chunkster alright - Oh to get a blissful bear hug from that big, beautiful fur-covered, chocolate marshmallow. I wouldn't even care if she killed me, I would die happy!
I love how chilled and peaceful she is. The way she looks up at you, fully aware of your presence, and so relaxed. She knows you're her friend. Heart-melting!
These family trees are just so fascinating aren't they? And you get to be part of the family - at least, part of the maps each of them holds in their minds of nice places to go, and loving friends. What a privilege. Thank you for sharing! Much love from the UK. XXX
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@jeannejoseph2596 Diana didn't want to be Queen. She didn't want the marriage to Charles that being Queen entailed (she was sick to death of her husband - as she made clear with her rude, boorish conduct on their joint royal tours), and she certainly didn't want the tedious royal duties that came with that high status job!
As she said herself in her Oscar-worthy 'Panorama' interview, she wanted instead to be, quote: 'Queen of people's hearts' (VOMIT!) Meaning she wanted all of the glamour, glory and fun of being queen, without any of the boring bits.
Diana was spoiled, shallow, and unbelievably entitled.
Talking of entitled, Camilla is fully entitled to the Queen Consort role, because she is Prince Charles' wife. Diana is not only deceased, she was divorced from Charles, the heir to the throne, before she died. She wanted out! So even if she were alive, she'd have no claim to be Queen whatsoever. Kind of obvious really, I've no idea what you're 'snorting' about. I'm guessing you're American, so totally clueless about how British monarchy works.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Is anyone who resides in the real world remotely surprised by this police officer's vile, misogynistic insults about Karen Read? Sadly this is how many men talk about women, with other men - in both informal, and professional settings. This kind of casual misogyny and disrespect of females by males is a global epidemic - and it thrives and spreads like wildfire in all-male/male dominated environments.
Groups of men are, generally speaking, toxic, which is the innate nature of male-dominated organisations like law enforcement. God help any woman who becomes implicated in a criminal investigation, managed by mostly testosterone-fuelled male officers.
Women are, again generally speaking, a civilising influence on men in the workplace. Organisations like the police would be far better run with a 50/50, male/female split of employees. But that day is a long way off!
6
-
6
-
6
-
@dianayount2122 Interesting definition, but not a definitive one. I'm convinced there must have been many red flags in Chandler Halderson's behaviour, long before he became a murderer. He could well have got away with criminal behaviour as a teen - it seems clear he'd been getting away with an awful lot with his parents for an awfully long time, including umpteen pathological lies.
These red flags were likely misinterpreted, misunderstood and underestimated by those closest to him. Had he got professional psychiatric help young, it's possible his warped psyche could have been made less toxic/dangerous.
In my view it's no coincidence that recent, strikingly similar parental murders by twenty-something sons Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jr, feature strikingly similar stable, middle class childhoods.
Like Chandler, those sons presented as slightly 'off', possibly having at least autistic traits. And yet none of them was diagnosed with any kind of personality disorder before they killed. I suspect they all had parents in denial about their psychiatric issues, who did not get them help because they couldn't acknowledge or accept they had those issues.
Instead of biting the bullet and doing the tough thing for a parent - recognising your child isn't perfect and could have a significant anti-social personality disorder requiring expert treatment, they went overboard indulging their boys, giving them an easy ride, and telling them they were wonderful. That's how they unwittingly created adult men who were a dangerous combination of inadequate sociopath, and entitled narcissist.
At least the mothers in those three cases did a lot of indulging. Joel Guy's mom Lisa worked full time purely so her adult son wouldn't have to, handing him her entire salary so he could enjoy the lazy lifestyle of an eternal student to age 28!
In every case it was the father's belated intervention, confronting his immature, dependent son and threatening to bring the free ride to an end, that prompted both parents' murders.
In my view these 'man-child' murders of parents by spoiled sons are becoming such a regular occurrence, they deserve a criminal category all their own.
6
-
@randombeach9091 Thanks for your thoughtful and well presented post. I disagree with a lot of it, but you have a far more realistic and balanced view of Diana's flaws than most of her fans!
Diana was very experienced with the paparazzi by the age of 36. Remember, she'd had 16 years of that attention as Prince Charles' wife and should have remained calm in the face of it.
More to the point, at the time of her death she was a divorced, independent woman for a year. As such - and as mother of the future king - she should have protected herself by hiring her own team of bodyguards and driver to accompany her everywhere and keep her safe.
The paps didn't kill her. She died in a tragic and totally needless car accident because she entrusted her personal safety arrangements to the disreputable Al Fayed family (exploiting her for their own ends), and they provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver who was not even licensed to drive the Mercedes death car!
Diana compounded that serious error of judgement with another - failing to fasten her seat belt. Road crash investigators agreed, if she had only given her two, dependent children a thought and worn her seat belt, she'd have walked away from the crash with bruising and a broken arm. It is beyond shocking she didn't prioritise her role as a mother over a lover, and keep herself alive for her children.
6
-
@jchesney2535 It was an arranged marriage, sadly forced on Charles - arranged marriages were the norm for royals in 1981. Thankfully William was luckier than his poor dad, and was allowed to choose his own bride from outside the aristocracy, and a woman with a previous boyfriend or two was not a problem. He was also able to live with Catherine for several years before popping the question, really testing the relationship.
Diana was no 'lamb to the slaughter' as she claimed in the Andrew Morton book, she was all for the wedding and her rapid promotion from aristocrat's daughter to senior royal. She was thrilled the Prince of Wales was interested in her, and didn't put a foot wrong to get the ring on her finger. She later said she'd 'kept herself tidy' (ie a virgin), so as not to blow her chances of becoming Princess of Wales. Very calculating!
How could Diana have been in love with Charles before they married? By her own admission, they met only 13 times before they got engaged! She was in it for many obvious reasons, but love was not chief among them.
Diana emerged from St Paul's Cathedral as the new Princess of Wales, with a look of triumph. She continued her 'cat that got the cream' expression during the honeymoon press conference they gave from a field, telling reporters she "highly recommended" married life. 'Shy Di' was no more - Charles hardly got a word in!
It was already becoming clear Diana would not be the loyal, supportive wife backing her husband and letting him shine (as Catherine does so wonderfully for William), but instead saw Charles as a rival for the media limelight - and she was determined to win!
Diana couldn't get enough of global fame, and her own image. She was soon poring over the newspapers every morning for stories about herself, examining her photos in minute detail, and planning her next big order of obscenely expensive designer outfits (no high street clothes for Di - unlike her daughter-in-law Catherine, who often wears Zara, Top Shop and other affordable brands).
The union was as much a business arrangement for Diana as it was for Charles. He needed a wife, companion and mother for his children, that's well documented. But people forget Diana was desperate to get her mitts on the glamour and grandeur of becoming a Princess and future Queen. She had left her expensive private education without even a single 'O' level to her name and had no career goals beyond the usual past times of dim aristocrats' daughters - caring for other people's children au pairing and as a kindergarten assistant, interspersed with a cordon bleu cookery course and a chalet maid season spent making beds at an exclusive ski resort. Diana's only aim in life was to marry well - and she hit the jackpot with Prince Charles!
She got all those glittering prizes and what's more she held onto them after the divorce, thanks to the royal family's generous settlement. She got a £17 million lump sum, a huge and opulent Kensington Palace apartment, a team of personal staff for life, first class travel around the world, a VIP lifestyle of private planes and luxurious yachts, and of course, two fine sons.
The marriage to Charles didn't last long, which is hardly surprising when their age gap was the least of their many incompatibilities! It was only 4 years old when they both sought solace with other people - him with Camilla the love of his life now his wife, Diana with a cast of dozens of casual lovers - many of them married men. Her chequered relationship history suggests she'd never find the settled, long-term relationship that Charles did. Alas Diana was too vain, narcissistic and demanding to be a good wife to anyone!
Diana's gripe about losing HRH - as happens to anyone who divorces out of the royal family - was ridiculously petty. She sobbed in front of her child William about it, prompting him to promise to give it back to her when he became King. Poor little lad being emotionally leaned on like that by his unstable mother!
Why was Diana so bothered about people curtsying to her anyway? Some humble, down-to-earth 'People's Princess' she was!
Once she'd got shot of Charles in 1996 (he bored her to tears, as she made patently obvious with her hostile body language on their later joint public appearances), Diana's wonderful future as a divorced princess was set out before her. She'd managed to offload the boring business of charity work and royal duties, while retaining the Princess of Wales title and all its VIP perks and privileges that meant so much to her.
As one of the wealthiest and certainly the most photographed women in the world, she was powerful. As mother to the future king, her position inside the prestigious institution of the royal family, was assured.
The arranged marriage to Charles had fulfilled its purpose for her, and given her the amazing, superstar lifestyle she dreamed of from a teenager. How unbelievably stupid of her to throw that golden life away by entrusting her safety to the shady Al Fayed family, then omitting to fasten her seat belt!
If she'd only stopped to think of her two dependent kids when she was having fun with the coke-addict playboy, and buckled up, experts agreed she'd have walked away from the cash with a broken arm and bruising. And two little boys would not have suffered the tragedy and trauma of losing their mother aged just 12 and 15.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The way Jessie 'Smug-Git' Smollett has exploited his colour every which way to his own benefit is utterly shameful!
This wealthy, entitled creep has set the cause of black people back by decades - I hope every person of colour with any power or influence roundly rejects him from now on, and he is made the pariah he deserves to be!
The man is a dirty disgrace. HOW DARE HE continue to lie and lie and lie again that he didn't do it, when the evidence against him is overwhelming??? He has no shame, no morals and NO DIGNITY.
Whatever his expensive lawyers manage to pull for him, the final say will be in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, where creepy Jessie Smug-Git is a total JOKE! His acting career is OVER as is his VIP celebrity status and any respect he once had.
What a total a$$hole to put that NOOSE around his own neck, knowing how that image hurts people who know real black people horrifically lynched and murdered by racist monsters using exactly that method?
He cynically exploited racist murders just to get himself bigger fame and prestige, thinking he deserves to be a Denzel Washington or a Samuel L Jackson (you know - a black STAR with TALENT, lol!) Smollett has only succeeded in making himself an infamous pr1ck, and shown the world in court exactly how lousy an actor he is!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The mantra 'trans women are women' is a total joke. Because as every woman knows full well, this misogynist minority madness has only come so far because MEN were driving it!
Not only is Lia Williams, a male born person (otherwise known as a man), taking female athletes' places, medals and prestige, you can bet Lia Williams is also using the female, not the male changing rooms. This is another of Lia Williams'abuses of women.
Like most trans women, Lia Williams is male bodied with fully functioning penis and testicles, and no intention of having surgery to lose them. Lia Williams is also heterosexual, ie sexually attracted to women, and is no doubt using female facilities and getting changed alongside naked and half dresses women. Yet Lia Williams is being allowed to use female only changing rooms (single sex spaces are enshrined in British law to protect the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls).
Yet if anyone challenged Lia Williams' right to walk naked around a female changing room, waggling 'her' penis about, they would likely be thrown out, branded transphobic, and charged with a hate crime.
The public is still blissfully unaware that 90% of trans women are fully male bodied. Which begs the question - if these individuals are happy with their male bodies, therefore don't suffer from gender dysphoria (trapped in the wrong body as the saying goes), then how exactly are they 'transgender'? The truth is they aren't transgender at all, nor are they 'trans women'. They are transvestites, ie men who enjoy presenting in traditional female attire but are perfectly happy to be male bodied.
Eddie Izzard used to proudly declare in his stand up routine he was an 'action transvestite'. In recent years he stopped using the word transvestite. He now identifies as transgender - as do other bogus males. Transgender is a meaningless term now, because so many, mostly men, have claimed it for the advantages it gets them. It's fashionable, instantly wins them 'woke points', victim status, and gets them advantages like access to femae only spaces (some for sinister ends), and the right to thrash women in their sports, when they've no chance of winning any medals against other men!
#MenAreNotWomen 'TransRightsAreMensRights #DicksOutOfWomensSpaces
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Police should have taken Brian Laundrie into custody as soon as Gabby was declared a missing person - if they had, he'd be behind bars now where he belongs. He came home from that road trip in Gabby's van alone, hid behind his parents and an attorney and refused to answer any questions about her whereabouts, despite her family's desperate pleas.
Brian Laundrie was the sole person of interest in her disappearance, police should not have given him the chance to leave his parents' house and go on the run! That's not just my view, even senior police like Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd believes his colleagues dropped the ball.
The Keystone Cops messed up every step of the way - firstly by failing to arrest Laundrie for domestic abuse on the roadside, after not one but TWO 911 witness reports of him hitting her, (Sheriff Judd said there were ample grounds to arrest him right then for domestic abuse), then by failing to take him into custody or even put him under round the clock surveillance when Gabby was missing, suspected murdered.
The dirty Laundries totally ran rings around law enforcement, and now Brian's killed himself he's totally cheated justice! If I were Gabby's family I'd be lived at police.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Skitdora2010 There was no 'bigotry' in that person's comment it was perfectly logical and reasonable - it's YOU who needs to get off your high horse! Seems you're another who doesn't understand the power of a primarily circumstantial case. Kudos to police for working hard over 8 years to deliver justice for a woman who was murdered by her abusive husband. Detectives provided enough evidence against James Propokovitch to show an intelligent jury that he and he alone was the reason for his wife's sudden, suspicious disappearance.
A less intelligent jury seeks a ton of forensic evidence, because they lack the critical thinking skills to work out the truth from a ton of circumstantial evidence. Thankfully this group of people was smart enough to do the work! There was no other reasonable explanation for Victoria Propokovitch to have totally vanished in those suspicious circumstances - none. The defence assertion that this physically weak lady who couldn't walk far and didn't drive somehow committed suicide and disposed of her own, fully clothed body (never located in 8 years, despite extensive professional searches), was ridiculous! She was more likely to have been abducted by little green men from Mars.
Propokovitz had motive, means and opportunity, police even know what he did with his wife's corpse, and why having placed it (minus dentures) into powerful chemicals, he was so cocky that he'd got away with murder!
Detectives even presented evidence of his extra marital affair, which went straight to motive - why else would he have lied under oath and persuaded his girlfriend to commit perjury with him, regarding their relationship? Perjury is a serious criminal offence, with serious consequences, if they had nothing to hide they'd have just told the truth. They conspired together to lie to authorities because they were covering up the far more serious crime of murder. Propokovitch is a gambling addict - he knew better than most how high the stakes were!
This was a textbook domestic homicide, sadly seen all too often. The guilty verdict sends a powerful message to other abusers they cannot assume they'll walk free just by hiding their victim's body, and nor will police give up on justice for a murder victim and their family because years have passed.
6
-
@sharongrigg5336 PoS did NOT delete his vile comment it's still there. Dumb victim-blaming/misogynist trolling of the most cowardly kind.
Naomi was barely an adult, just 18, when this evil predator targeted, kidnapped, assaulted and murdered her. She had her whole life, with all it's beautiful possibilities, stolen from her in the most brutal, vicious way - victimised by a monster, on her way to do her job.
Naomi was clearly deeply loved, and I hope her family and friends, though forever devastated by her loss, will forever treasure their sacred memories of a beautiful soul on the cusp of womanhood. Godspeed sweet Naomi. XXX
6
-
6
-
6
-
@lsmith9249 You're confused about Butler and Wilson jewellery - I'm guessing you're not British?
It's incorrect to say B&W jewellery 'was not aimed at the public'. It was and is! Launched in 1969, B&W became one of the world's leading brands of costume jewellery by selling to the public. They would hardly have made their millions selling only to celebrities!
It is very much a high street, not a designer brand. However it has cleverly marketed itself using celebrity models, and over the years many famous faces have chosen to wear Butler and Wilson costume pieces, rather than pricey fine jewellery, to high profile red carpet events. This has given B&W the illusion of being a very expensive and exclusive designer name.
Along with Princess Diana, singers Madonna, Lady Gaga, Rhianna and Christina Aguilera, model Jerry Hall, actresses Faye Dunaway, Helen Mirren and Catherine Deneuve - plus Diana's daughter-in-law the Duchess of Cambridge - are among famous faces rocking B&W jewellery. The celebrity endorsements are quite a tribute when you consider these people can afford to wear real, not fake, diamonds! But don't be confused, the celebrity endorsements do not mean celebrity prices. I've been buying goodies from Butler and Wilson for nearly 30 years, and alas I'm no millionaire!
For many years Butler and Wilson had two London stores, its flagship Fulham Road branch (frequently visited by Princess Di in the 'eighties), and South Molten Street, Mayfair. It also had outlets at prestigious stores like Harrods. Sadly the Mayfair shop closed four years ago, but the company fortunes are boosted by its 26 year association with the QVC shopping channel.
Your original post said of Diana's B&W bling: "that costume jewellery cost hundreds and was made by top designers as were her clothes". You assumed her Butler and Wilson jewellery was a 'top designer' label, as exclusive as the couture clothes she wore. In reality, there's no comparison. Butler and Wilson jewellery is an affordable high street brand, worn by millions of ordinary women. Diana's clothes were made by top designers like Catherine Walker, Chanel and Versace - costing many thousands, they certainly aren't accessible to the general public!
Yes, Diana's aquamarine ring (which Harry later gave to Meghan as a wedding gift) is stunning. She had it specially commissioned by Aspreys as a post-divorce gift to herself, to take the place of the sapphire and diamond engagement ring that was so familiar to the public. I was never a fan of her engagement ring, chosen from the Garrards catalogue . She could, presumably, have chosen an existing ring from the royal vaults - and there must have been some amazing rings in there! Any member of the public with £28,000 to spare could have bought the exact same ring as Diana. Funny to think there are people out there who own that ring!
Charles' second wife Camilla did much better. He gave her an amazing, emerald-cut diamond engagement ring that had belonged to his grandmother the Queen Mother. It's absolutely stunning, and unlike Diana's rather pedestrian, 'portrait' style, sapphire ring, is a classic style that never dates.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheLongobard You're absolutely right. An excellent, measured and intelligent post. Charles had ONE affair with a woman he loved and went on to marry. Diana had umpteen meaningless extra marital affairs with unsuitable married men. There were many more than 'three people in the marriage', as she famously told Martin Bashir - she miscounted badly, as she forgot to mention all her own casual lovers!
Charles didn't break her heart as she pretended, for public sympathy and victim status. She was bored witless of him, as she made only too clear on their awkward, joint public appearances from the mid-'eighties onwards, when she refused to even speak to him in front of dignitaries!
Diana was horribly promiscuous while still married, and a ruthless home-wrecker to boot. The princess broke up at least one marriage - Will and Julia Carling's - and tried to end others, including her married lover Oliver Hoare's.
Before her untimely death, she was making serious PR mistakes like her stalking campaign of 300+ malicious phone calls to Mr and Mrs Hoare. Diana was livid he refused to obey her orders to leave his wife, but instead dumped her. As a woman scorned, she was unhinged, and hell bent on revenge.
Diana would regularly park up outside the Hoare's marital home at 3am and ring his landline from her mobile phone. She watched for the lights to come on inside the house, and for Oliver or Diane Hoare to answer. When she heard one or other of them speak, she hung up. She would even instruct her staff to call the Hoare's home number and hang up, not letting them in on the reason for her request!
But Oliver Hoare cleverly called her bluff. He knew she had to be behind the malicious calls, so came clean to his wife about the affair, begging her forgiveness and explaining Diana had gone nuclear because he ended it. They agreed to stay together, presented a united front, and reported the Princess to the Metropolitan Police. That's how the whole tawdry tale (and Diana's deranged behaviour), was leaked to the press.
I wrote many stories on it myself as a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties. The more I learned about Diana's harassment of the Hoares, the worse the story reflected on her. Diana actually denied making the phone calls, when two plain clothes detectives called on her at Kensington Palace to warn her off. Her denials were ridiculous - as the officers explained with some embarrassment, the calls had all been traced to her cellphones, her private apartments and also, astonishingly, to some local payphones she'd sneaked out to use after dark disguised in headscarf and dark glasses!
But Diana went even further in her denials to police. She actually blamed her innocent, eldest son William for stalking the Hoares by phone, claiming he did it as a 'prank'. The police knew that couldn't possibly be true - the calls had been made at all times of the day and night, and William was only 12 years old at the time, with absolutely no motive to do such a thing! The detectives were shocked Diana would throw her own child under the bus, to get herself off the hook. Unsurprisingly, that brazen ruse failed miserably, and the detectives told her politely but firmly to get her house in order.
Diana stopped all contact with the Hoares immediately after that police visit, terrified the truth would get into the public domain, about her nasty harassment. And inevitably it did, with a police source selling the bombshell story of Diana's doomed affair and harassment campaign against Oliver Hoare. She repeated her earlier denial (though didn't name her son William, only mentioned 'a boy'), when Martin Bashir asked her about the episode during her infamous 'Panorama' interview. Bashir could not avoid the Oliver Hoare issue, because it was by then such a massive media story. Needless to say her affair with Hoare was never even alluded to, and the only affair she admitted to was the far less controversial one with James Hewitt
Diana's true, ruthlessly self-serving and vindictive character was emerging in her mid-thirties. People were beginning to see 'Shy Di' was all an act. She married Charles for position, status and wealth, and the union had served her very well. The princess was a hypocrite, crucifying Charles and Camilla with the Andrew Morton book and the 'Panorama' interview, when she had been pursuing multiple affairs with unsuitable men for many years.
Had Diana lived, the internet age would no doubt have fully exposed the dark aspects of her conduct and personality. And with her credibility she would also have lost many fans when she aged and lost her looks - the Diana fans are just as shallow and fickle as she was!
But because she died young and beautiful, before her true nature was fully revealed, grown adults still believe the lies of a long-dead, promiscuous and hugely manipulative princess. Sad!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@juanitarichards1074 I think you're right, the fact all the windows were shut at the house casts serious doubt on his story about Shanann. I think he's snide and got a kick out of saying she stank like a skunk - if you recall he also embellished and claimed the children had noticed a bad smell from their mother's body in the back of the truck. He's despicable.
Thanks - it's yet more evidence, were it needed, that Chris Watts is a totally self serving, immoral slimeball, to whom lies come much more readily than the truth.
When you are honest and decent by inclination, it's very, very difficult to get your head round a killer as warped as Chris Watts - and his creepy family too, come to that.
This is why I regularly encounter people who've swallowed his garbage about taking the children to Cervi 319 alive, unquestioningly. It's not their fault - they aren't psychopaths, so struggle to compute that these freaks exist and appear as unremarkable and ordinary as Chris Watts! If only they had horns and a tail, then poor Shanann and everyone else who's fallen victim to one would have a chance to escape them unscathed.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@shaheedharun445 This goes way beyond anger management! The guy is a psychopath, and psychopaths are incapable of love. They learn to fake it to thrive in normal society, and get what they want from people. But they simply don't have the same emotional responses as non psychopaths, therefore can't feel things like love, empathy, compassion, guilt or remorse.
Brain scans reveal that a psychopaths brain is physically different to a non-psychopaths, with markedly weaker electrical pathways to the areas of the brain that control those emotions. Psychologists' latest thinking is that the really dangerous psychopaths like Ronnie O' Neal, are created by a combination of nature and nurture. Chances are, if his brain were scanned it would be classic psychopath with those weakened pathways. And if you looked into his childhood, bingo - you'd likely find some over indulgence explaining his narcissism and possibly emotional abuse.
Trust me, this man's only regret is that he didn't stab his son a few more times and kill him, so he couldn't give evidence against him and confirm that he, not the kids mother, attacked them. He made up a pack of lies that his girlfriend killed their daughter and stabbed their son, and that he only killed her 'in self defence'. She was fleeing from him to the neighbours to get help, and he chased her and beat her to death with a rifle on their front doorstep - he then set fire to the family home to destroy evidence. How fuckwit thinks he'll persuade a jury that's self defence, God only knows!
6
-
If you can't see that Ronnie faked that touching show of gratitude to get brownie points with the jury, then you are very naive! That guy doesn't give a toss about his son - he stabbed him so brutally in his abdomen, when emergency services arrived his intestines were hanging out.
He murdered his disabled, 9 year old daughter by repeatedly striking her face, head and neck with an axe. The firefighter who carried her lifeless body out of the house (trying not to slip on her blood, which covered the floor,) wept as he recalled her face was totally unrecognisable.
O' Neal chased his terrified partner from the house where she'd been hiding in a closet, shooting her. She ran to a neighbour for help, and his gun jammed. So he viciously beat her to death on that neighbour's doorstep. He then set fire to the family home to destroy evidence of his crimes.
If he had even an ounce of decency he would own his crimes and take the consequences. But he's trying to blame his murdered girlfriend, for the attacks on the children, so he can lose the stigma of child killer and have his murder charge reduced in seriousness. How despicable is that?
Worse, he's putting his already traumatised, bereaved son through the additional trauma of reliving the whole horrific ordeal. That guy is lower than a snake's asshole. I'd like to hit Ronnie full in the face. Or better still, high five the bastard with a chainsaw. And that would be a better death than he gave his poor girlfriend and daughter, and attempted to give his 8 year old son.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Once his friend Ted had died, poor Gary would not want to remain in that shelter with his decomposing corpse. He really had no option (bar removing the body, which I doubt he had the stomach for), but to leave - and inadequately dressed in those harsh sub-zero conditions, that was a certain death sentence.
I suspect Joseph Schons, who had two criminal convictions for violence, got into some kind of road rage confrontation with the boys which spooked them into fleeing their car in terror and running into the mountains. Such an incident would not be out of character for the volatile, older Schons, and could also explain what had brought on his heart attack.
There were some suspicious elements to the accounts he gave police and others, which suggested he had not told the whole story. He could well have covered up the central role he played in the boys fleeing and ultimately dying, as a direct result of his aggression.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Gerald Snyder Ronnie O' Neal Jr was 8 when he witnessed his 9-year-old disabled sister murdered by his abusive father in a bloody axe attack. He saw his terrified mother flee for her life as an enraged Ronnie Sr pursued and shot her, before beating her to death with the rifle on a neighbour's doorstep.
That Ronnie Jr survived that horrific family annihilation is nothing short of miraculous. He suffered multiple savage stab wounds from his dad, which left his intestines hanging out - and severe burns, when he set fire to the family home. The psychological and emotional damage to him remains to be seen. When police arrested O' Neal he was covered in his victims' blood, reeked of accelerant, and had barely a mark on him to support his ridiculous claim of killing his girlfriend 'in self defence'.
As any child psychologist of note will attest, a childhood trauma like that often stays with an individual vividly for life - and Ronnie Jr was asked to recount those terrible events just 3 years later.
Absolutely no coaching was required! But it was only too predictable that the defendant, whose long and ugly history of domestic abuse is well documented, would seek to exploit his child's tender age to claim he was 'coached' to tell lies against him.
In fact the greatest risk to the now 11-year-old boy, was that the tense, courtroom encounter with his abusive parent and would-be killer would intimidate him into silence. Not surprisingly, he was cowed by seeing his father again, even with the distance afforded by 'Zoom'.
But when O' Neal brazenly asked his little boy: "How did I hurt you?", and the child replied calmly and clearly: "You stabbed me", it was a damning, 'slam-dunk' moment for the prosecution. With just one, devastating sentence, the sole survivor of the family annihilation proved he really was the prosecution's star witness. And from that point on, O' Neal's laughable 'defence' was dead in the water.
I trust that courageous little boy will receive the ongoing professional psychotherapy he undoubtedly needs, to help him come to terms with the murders of his mother and sister, and his own near death at the hands of his evil father.
6
-
6
-
Lately we are hearing hints that all is not well within the Adelson family - cracks have appeared in the relationship between Wendi and her parents and brother, as she distances herself from them, terrified of following Charlie and Donna to prison.
Imagine how angry Charlie must feel at his little sister, the spoiled family princess he will now die behind bars for, all because he was good enough to 'eliminate her problem', at their mother's urging?
Ditto Donna, furious that her only daughter, who she stuck her neck out for, plotting her hated ex husband's murder, now barely visits or talks to her. I bet Donna and husband Harvey hardly see their grandsons either, because Wendi is so terrified of visiting them or being seen to be close with them - and then being judged guilty by association.
Is it possible Charlie and Donna could be so angry at taking the fall for Wendi, they decide to take her down with them - either now or at a later date? After all, the eldest son Rob Adelson is fully estranged from the family and may give evidence for the state at his mother's imminent murder trial. So this family has a history of explosive fall outs - and of turning on each other! The plot thickens...
6
-
6
-
@looking4things669 Agreed, Sheriff Grady Judd actually represents Polk County, Florida, but was appalled at his colleagues' bungling of the Brian Laundrie case, as revealed on that damning bodycam footage. When reporters asked for his opinion, true to form he didn't hold back and let them have it! Good for him - he is too principled to cover for colleagues when they mess-up with such tragic consequences for a young woman.
Sheriff Judd is a fine, upstanding law enforcement officer, with enough experience and wisdom to recognise the MO of a manipulative abuser like Brian Laundrie in nanoseconds. As he made clear, he would not be taken in by Laundrie's 'nice guy act', as his dumb colleagues were. You would not have seen that guy fist-bumping the creep!
Sheriff Grady said he would have arrested Brian Laundrie on the roadside and taken him into custody on suspicion of domestic abuse - after two independent 911 witness reports of him hitting Gabby, there were ample grounds to do just that. People do not dial 911 for no damn reason - and they certainly would not have called police to report a slight blonde woman slapping a man, as Laundrie's supporters are ludicrously claiming!
I believe this case could have ended very differently, if police had not missed a golden opportunity to confront a cowardly woman abusing loser with his totally unacceptable crimes against Gabby Petito. Had Brian Laundrie been taken into custody in handcuffs, as he should have been, Gabby would have had to tell her parents how his abuse was escalating on the road trip. I think that would likely have meant third party involvement (ie her family staging an intervention to get her home), the end of the van life project - and Gabby's ultimate survival.
If police were properly trained in the realities of domestic abuse they would know victims defend their abuser - that's to be expected. And that's why, when the victim won't confront the abuser (for all kinds of reasons that seem valid to them at the time), law enforcement MUST do just that. Far too many women are dying horrific premature deaths at the hands of abusers like Brian Laundrie.
Incidentally, Sheriff Judd went even further in criticising his fellow police officers. He said had he been in charge of this case, there's no way Brian Laundrie would have had the opportunity to leave his parents' house and go on the run, after Gabby Petito was reported missing! He argued as soon as Laundrie returned home in Gabby's van without her, police should have taken him into custody. Most people would agree 100%.
Once Laundrie is dragged from his auntie's spare room by the scruff of his scrawny neck (or wherever the loser is hiding), the Keystone Cops have some serious questions to answer about their bungling of this entire case!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@SkinnyRob You talk about emotion as if it automatically correlates to a lack of logic or judgement. That is a false assumption. Without emotion, man is nothing, and laws mean nothing. There is emotion behind every single great human achievement since time began my friend! It's a fundamental mistake to despise emotion. Emotion is the life blood of human civilisation and human advancement.
There is a big question mark over this man's mental health, and that's one aspect of public concern over his being allowed to represent himself - with all the privileges that affords him.
Human beings usually prioritise the safety and well being of children above every other consideration, and that is strongly reflected in the laws of every civilised society. That convention has sadly fallen through the cracks in this case, due to the priority the law gives to the rights of the accused and the legal presumption of innocence.
While that presumption of innocence is a crucial cornerstone of every decent judicial system, many people feel that should not come at the detriment of children. Ronnie O' Neal's child has paid a heavy price for his father's presumption of innocence. I think the law should be slightly amended in this area, to satisfy both the defendant's rights and the rights of children not to be brought into direct contact with an adult charged with harming them.
In my view O' Neal's assisting defence attorney could have put his questions to the child. My objection - and many others' objection - is that the child was forced by the existing system to interact directly with the accused. Who knows what additional psychological harm that could do to an 11-year-old, who is just starting to heal 3 years after his father murdered his mother and sister in front of him, and attempted to stab him to death. This is about as extreme a case of domestic violence as you'll find.
Child psychologists in the UK have confirmed re-living a crime like that in court can be just as disturbing to a young mind as experiencing it was. And what more powerful and distressing way to take a child back to that event in his/her mind, than to make them speak with the murderer - even over Zoom - and hear his voice. As adults, we may struggle to empathise with that experience. But it's an experience that child will likely carry with them for the rest of their days, along with the crime itself.
Last year the Scottish Parliament passed new legislation specifically to protect children from courtroom encounters like this one. It means that any child witness or victim in a serious crime case, will now give pre-recorded video evidence ahead of the trial, which will be played to the jury. The defendant's questions will be put to the child by a lawyer, during that pre-recorded evidence.
This change in the law will not in my view compromise any defendant's rights, but will spare children the unnecessary trauma of a direct interaction with the defendant.
The law of any country cannot be set in stone and unchanging. The law must be an organic thing, subject to amendment to reflect the ever changing values and morality of every society. If it were not subject to change, America would still have slavery!
I hope we will see an amendment in the US law, to prevent any other child from the additional, courtroom injustice this child has undoubtedly suffered.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
If only that were true. After the Duke's death, Wallis' own health began to fail and she was ripe for exploitation by French lawyer Suzanne Blum (Huge Vickers wrote a book about this - the increasingly frail and confused Wallis was kept sedated and housebound, while Blum robbed her blind).
Without family of her own, and having cultivated no real friends, Wallis was very vulnerable without the Duke's protection. Her husband really should have foreseen this and made plans with her for a new life, once she was widowed.
Lord Louis Mountbatten tried to help Wallis, writing to her and visiting before and after the Duke's death. He had looked at her finances, and worked out if she gave up the rented villa, she could enjoy a lavish lifestyle as a permanent resident of a suite at a top New York hotel.
Wallis could have had a comfortable widowhood as the toast of the Big Apple, where her fame and royal status would have been lapped up by the New York establishment. I can just see her as a regular at Studio 54 in the 'seventies, arriving on the arm of Andy Warhol or David Bowie! And the hotel lifestyle would surely have suited her, with her every need catered to with just a phone call.
But it was not to be. Once dementia - and crucially, Blum - got a grip, letters and callers were intercepted and stopped. Mountbatten was soon frozen out, told, like everyone else who tried to contact Wallis, she was too ill to see him.
Her last years as an emaciated and bed-bound prisoner in the increasingly shabby and neglected French villa, tended to by paid nurses who cared nothing for her, were bleak. The once powerful, rich and feted Duchess became a tiny, powerless, pitiful shadow of her former self. In the final analysis, her King let her down terribly.
6
-
Grow up! Diana didn't 'greet you', you were one person in a huge crowd who turned out to get a look at royalty!
The only reason anyone was interested in Diana, was her marriage to Prince Charles. She was never gracious enough to acknowledge it, but without the royal family she'd have been nothing, just another dim aristocrat's daughter with no qualifications, and no career ambitions beyond marrying a rich man.
And she sure hit the jackpot with Prince Charles! No wonder she got her hooks into him. She sure didn't marry him for love - she only met him a handful of times before accepting his proposal!
Diana got a generous divorce settlement from him too and would have continued to enjoy her immense privilege, if she hadn't stupidly thrown it all away cavorting with a coke-addicted playboy who provided a drunk driver, then failing to fasten her seat belt. A 36-year-old mother of two, behaving like an irresponsible teenager - what a lousy mother she was to her little boys! Shameful, awful, empty-headed narcissist.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Allen contacted the authorities and admitted he was 'Bridge Guy' (there at the crime scene, on the bridge, at the relevant time, wearing the exact same clothes), within days of the 2017 murders. The witnesses present only ever saw one male suspect. Who else do you think it could be???
Richard Allen is the Delphi killer. Unfortunately police messed up big time, they should have arrested and charged him within two weeks of the murders when he first came forward, not five years later. And if they had, we wouldn't be having this conversation now - everyone would accept he's the killer.
Unfortunately all the police mistakes under the bumbling, inexperienced Supt Doug Carter, have allowed conspiracy theories to thrive. And obviously Allen's defence team will exploit those police errors to the max, to get their guy off. But the evidence of his guilt is compelling. I sure hope the jury doesn't have any gullible people on it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I don't care about the house being left standing as an historic building, if it becomes a respectful monument to those who died. But it's recent history as a grisly crime scene should not be exploited like this!
The money-grubbing ghouls who now own it, TOM WILLIAMS & BARBARA HOLMES, dress it up like a tourist attraction with sick, 'jokes' notices about buried bodies, and even a store mannequin dressed in grey wig and glasses to represent the serial killer. I'm only surprised they haven't laid seven, full-size, plastic skeletons in the front yard, to represent the tragic murder victims. It is sick and totally unacceptable.
These murders didn't happen 100 years ago, or more. They were recent enough for the victims' grieving loved ones to be alive, and even to have memories of visiting them at the death house. How do they feel, seeing their personal bereavement treated like a big joke? The victims and their loved-ones have been walked all over and horribly disrespected by this callous couple. It's sickening it has been allowed!
6
-
6
-
Yep, divorce would lose Lori and Chad their breadwinner spouses (both Tammy Daybell and Charles Vallow worked hard to pay all the bills and ensure neither Chad nor Lori had to work), plus half the marital property and assets.
But murdering them would not only wipe out the 50/50 division of marital assets in a divorce settlement and have each of them inherit the lot, they stood to get very wealthy indeed from each spouse's substantial life insurance policy.
Lori knew she was the sole, named beneficiary of Charles' $1 million insurance payout ('was' being the crucial word, as unbeknown to her he had secretly switched the recipient to his sister Kay Woodcock, so she wouldn't get a penny). And Chad kept adding to the premium on wife Tammy's policy in the months before her murder, meaning he received a staggering $430,000, which he collected within days of her death (he had an imminent beach wedding to pay for, after all).
They killed Lori's children JJ and Tylee to enjoy a hedonistic, child-free marriage, and to keep receiving monthly benefits cash for both kids. I guess with JJ's father Charles murdered, and Tylee's dad Joseph also conveniently deceased, they thought no one would notice the children's permanent absence.
I believe there was also an element of revenge on JJ's grandma Kay Woodcock, who had received the $1 million Lori was sure would be hers. Helped by brother Alex, she had killed Charles to get her hands on that cash, so in her warped mind she had earned it! Murdering Kay's beloved grandson JJ, rather than simply allowing her to take custody of him, was payback for the million dollars. But it seems Lori never banked on Kay and husband Larry contacting police when JJ's phone and FaceTime calls abruptly stopped, and they could no longer get hold of her.
How sad that no one initially noticed Tylee's absence or reported it. It was only through JJ's reported disappearance that police realised his 16 year old sister was also missing. I guess in time her brother Colby would have raised the alarm (he was suspicious that texts purporting to have been sent by her, did not use her typical writing style). It is chilling to contemplate how lonely and vulnerable both Tylee and JJ were, in the last sad weeks of their lives.
Tylee couldn't rely on her increasingly hostile and absent mother Lori, who was totally wrapped up in her married lover Chad Daybell (who unsurprisingly, Tylee loathed). She had not been able to maintain any friendships with kids her own age, thanks to her mother making her happiness a very low priority and constantly uprooting her from homes and schools. Her father Joseph died in mysterious circumstances in April 2018, and just over a year later her Uncle Alex murdered her loving stepfather Charles, who was her last potential protector.
JJ too was very isolated after his dad Charles' murder. Just 2 months after losing him forever, Lori had his big sister Tylee murdered. JJ's two closest relatives were taken from him without warning or explanation. Then a strange man called Chad Daybell, appeared out of nowhere as a new 'father figure' - one who hated and disciplined him. After learning JJ's grandma Kay received Charles' $1 million life insurance payout, money she had assumed would be hers, a vengeful Lori stopped JJ's contact with her and his grandpa Larry.
The two weeks between Tylee's murder and JJ's, must have been Hell for the little boy. Lori had long since stopped giving him the autism drugs that helped regulate his moods. And in yet another act of maternal betrayal, she got rid of his faithful service dog, Bailey, the Golden Doodle his dad Charles had got him as a best friend. Bailey immediately loved JJ and helped him to sleep through the night. Incredibly Lori tried to sell him to make herself a fast $2,500 dollars.
A worker from the charity that had originally provided Bailey, spotted the advertisement and recognised Lori's fulsome descriptions of the wonderful service dog. She was forced to surrender him back to the charity, and he is now the beloved dog of another autistic boy. Bailey's loss must have been yet another terrible blow for JJ. No wonder he was 'acting out', as the babysitter said in her evidence today. Thanks to his evil mother, Uncle Alex and Chad Daybell, JJ's whole world collapsed around him in the last weeks of his short life.
A few days before he was murdered, Lori belatedly told him his dad Charles was dead. Why tell him at all, when her plans to kill him too, were so close? The little boy was so devastated, he refused to believe it. His school teachers recalled he was inconsolable at the loss of his daddy. Charles was a wonderful father. Lori clearly hadn't given a moment's thought to the affect murdering Charles would have on his vulnerable little boy. But why would she? The child she had raised as her son from a baby, and who loved her as his mother, was clearly totally expendable in her eyes.
A mother who would sacrifice her children for a man and money, is no mother at all. Yes Lori was influenced by the evil, manipulative Chad Daybell, and he fully deserves the death/life sentence that's coming to him - ditto Alex Cox, who through death, cheated justice. But Lori was the mother of two of her victims. It's hard to imagine a more heinous, despicable betrayal.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sirtedricwalker2979 Great post, agreed, Wendi's eagerly awaited murder trial will be dynamite. You nailed it - she isn't half as smart as she thinks she is, no question she was jealous of her miles more accomplished and well respected ex-husband. He ran rings around her in their legal battles, and she just couldn't bear losing. Nor could her poisonous family.
Her intellectual inadequacies will be fully exposed when prosecutors finally go to town on her. Charlie and Donna's trials are just the warm up act - Wendi's murder trial is the main event and please God it will be televised, it's gonna be must-see TV!
After ten years, her wide-eyed, innocent 'who, me?' act is getting old - and so is she, far too old for the simpering, damsel in distress act. Wendi isn't half as hot as she thinks she is either! When she stands trial for conspiracy to murder, her brother and mother will both be behind bars, already convicted. The jury will struggle to find Wendy and her wide-eyes remotely credible, IMO
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
JeanClaude Clemenceau The discussion was triggered by the video, hence the context is Fascism and anti-Semitism under Hitler. Have you heard of Hitler? Funny little chap with a silly moustache, pursued world domination in the 1930s and 40s and murdered millions of innocent men, women and children in the process. Hitler lacked a full set of testicles and a full set of marbles - he preached the genetic superiority of a good looking, tall, blond, pale-skinned, blue-eyed Aryan race, when he himself was a short and dumpy, swarthy complexioned, unathletic man, with dark hair and squinty eyes.
Funnily enough I have thought critically about Fascism, very critically. It's hard to do anything else if you are a person of sound mind and compassionate spirit, who has visited Auschwitz and reflected on the horrors human beings inflicted on their fellow human beings there. Murder on an industrial scale, in the name of indefensible Fascist dogma.
Ordinary German citizens allowed these horrors to be unleashed on their neighbours, not thousands of years ago, but in my parents' lifetime. So that is the Fascism you hear of - and yes, you bet it's bad.
Some people spout nonsense about WW2 today, from crazy Holocaust deniers, to buffoons who praise the 'stylish' Nazi uniform. I wonder where you fall on the denial spectrum? Those who fail to recognise the mistakes of history, are destined to repeat them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Goodness me, 130 - she is very elderly! I don't mean to be morbid, but when she no longer comes for her supper, will you go looking for her? I like to think she will just drift off into a blissful sleep in her burrow, with a full belly and happy memories of the lovely times she has shared with you. She has had such a happy and secure life and lots of love and care, thanks to you - and as sad as her passing will be, you can console yourself with that thought, and also all the wonderful videos you have to remember her by. Funny to think how Rascal has enriched the lives of people around the world who have enjoyed watching her on your You Tube channel - yet she has no idea about her international fame! Whenever she does pop off, she has had a long life, well lived and you will feel justly proud of that and carry her safe in your heart always. I know I'm not the only Raccoon Whisperer fan who gets very excited when I see you have posted a new Rascal video! Have a great day, love to you and your furry family. X
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I find it astonishing that people are still romanticising the relationship of Edward and Wallis when it is now seen in in its real context. Fact is, he didn't want to be King - too much like hard work! As his own father correctly predicted, he would be a disaster in the role and not last 12 months. Wallis Simpson provided him with a handy get out to throw the hated job at his poor reluctant stammering brother. Some want to see it differently and view this as the romance of romances - nonsense! Quite apart from the fact this couple were Nazi supporters who made an unauthorised trip to Germany to enjoy Hitler's hospitality, it is now known Edward wanted Hitler to win the war and did his utmost behind the scenes to sabotage his own country, spilling secrets to the enemy. Hitler had promised to install him and Wallis as King and Queen of England on his victory, so Edward was quite willing to sell his own country down the river and into Nazi hands to get that status for himself and his wife! He was a traitor. His treason was covered up by the royal family, for they feared if his treachery in WW2 was ever revealed to the British public it would spell the end of the monarchy. The Duke and Duchess lived pointless, spoiled, hedonistic lives, partying, shopping, golfing, staying in the world's top hotels - and living together in isolated exile in that French chateau, where the servants had to curtsy to Wallis and address her as 'Your Royal Highness' when it was not her due. I have heard stories of the Duchess humiliating her husband in front of dinner party guests - she once lost an earring and ordered him to crawl around the floor like a dog to find it. He would tremble before her like a chastened child, and bleat to his guests that Wallis was being beastly to him, saying he would go to bed and cry himself to sleep. It was a sado masochistic relationship between the two of them. He enjoyed being dominated and she, a born social climber from the wrong side of the tracks, got the ultimate thrill of insulting and berating royalty. A pair of spoiled, vacuous Nazi traitors, who did nothing useful with their lives - just indulged themselves. But they did ultimately get what they deserved - each other!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ThePrincessnady1 Thank you, I was waiting for exactly that predictable comment - and it took 45 minutes to arrive!
You missed the point. If gun ownership worked, every female would carry one, and thousands of stalkers, killers, rapists etc, just like Gareth Pursehouse, would have been shot dead and taken out of society by their victim.
How great that would be. But sadly it just does not happen. Even if Amie had carried a gun, she was taken by surprise inside her home and overpowered by a 6ft 4ins maniac twice her weight and strength. Chances are he would either have disarmed her, or turned the weapon on her.
She had bought pepper spray to defend herself - no idea if she was carrying it when attacked, but if so she didn't use it. Alone, she had no chance against that monster.
I wish guns kept good people alive, and annihilated the bad ones. But this and countless other murders prove they simply don't. Year after year, guns prove useless against killers like Gareth Purseglove.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@BlazeCasey Yes, many reliable sources say Diana was deeply in love with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan when she died. They split just weeks before that final, fateful holiday. Diana finished with him because she was frustrated he would not go public with their romance after 2 years together, and would not entertain her talk of marriage. He was a private man, dedicated to his work, who feared living life in the media spotlight as her husband.
Diana was so keen to marry Hasnat Khan, she twice visited his family in Pakistan without his prior knowledge, during trips there with Jemima and Imran Khan. She thought she could charm them into supporting the match, but his family stood firm in their wish that he find a Pakistani Muslim bride.
Diana's thoughts were of Khan throughout the holiday - she used Dodi as a rebound distraction ,and to make Khan jealous back home. She was on the phone to her Fleet Street contacts throughout the vacation, arranging for them to get photos of her with her 'new love' onto the front pages. The evidence suggests she was hoping for a reconciliation with Khan on her return to London. Tragically, she would not return to London alive.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I watched the entire series (which has been painfully stretched out to 8 episodes) on the BBC iplayer. It's laboured, over-hyped, underpowered garbage. The timeline constantly jumps around - captioned 'Three Months Earlier', 'Three Years Later', 'Two months earlier' etc etc. It requires a lot of viewer concentration, without delivering sufficient reward! Where are the moments of high drama and excitement? It's underpowered throughout.
The actor who played the dark lead role looked the part thanks to clever styling (and is much better looking than the real Charles Sobhraj) , but lacked the charisma to convince as a legendary psychopath and serial killer. Jenna Coleman as his girlfriend phoned-in the same understated performance she gave as Queen Victoria and every role she's ever played! The actor who played the Dutch diplomat pursuing the killer was dreadful. He went from blank-faced and bland, to blank-faced and enraged at the blink of an eye, and was unconvincing in both modes! This was intended to be a gripping cat-and-mouse tale, but fell flat due to the forgettable nature of both goodie and baddie.
The most impressive aspect was the recreation of the 1970s Far East tourist trail, but that alone isn't enough to fascinate. This series was at best a four-parter, it lacks the power and wow factor to justify all those episodes. Disappointing and instantly forgettable, the universally lukewarm reviews for 'The Serpant' really say it all.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@moniquewatkins9952 What have I lied about? All my statements about events in the Wales' marriage and estrangement are factually correct, and the information I've shared is already in the public domain.
The breakdown of Charles and Diana's relationship was 100% mutual. Charles was forced into an arranged marriage, which pretty much dictated his choice of bride. Not surprisingly, arranged marriages frequently fail, as did theirs. Prince Charles did not break Diana's heart, as she claimed in self-serving, self pitying propaganda like the Andrew Morton book and her manipulative and spiteful BBC 'Panorama' interview.
Diana fell out of love with Charles every bit as much as he did with her. She was sleeping with her police protection officer Barry Mannakee in 1985, ie the year after Prince Harry's birth. Mannakee was merely the first in a long line of the princess' extra marital lovers, several of whom, like him, were married men. So in fact Diana was a mistress many more times than Camilla was!
When the couple drifted apart Charles returned to his old flame and soul mate, but Diana embarked on many meaningless sexual affairs. Her lovers' names are mostly in the public domain, but one you may not know about is the British actor Nigel Havers who was smuggled to secret, late night assignations at Kensington Palace in the boot of a car.
Diana was not heartbroken over her marriage breakdown, nor was she the wronged spouse as she pretended. Prince Charles bored her to tears, as she made abundantly clear to everyone on their joint public appearances from the late 'eighties onward. But the marriage had served its purpose for her, and she emerged from it a senior royal, wealthy and world famous, with the kind top VIP status money can't buy!
Playing the victim was Diana's PR offensive to win public sympathy. Seems you swallowed it wholesale - and still believe it, decades after she was exposed as a narcissist and a fantasist.
5
-
5
-
@helenmclean2409 Great post, spot on! Yes, I well remember Diana's spiteful cull of Charles' staff (I was a national newspaper journalist who frequently reported on the so-called 'War of the Waleses').
It's hilarious how wilfully her fans misunderstand who she was, or why her marriage failed. Prince Charles has his faults, but Diana was too damaged to be a good wife to anyone!
The Princess of Wales was fundamentally immature, with a classic narcissist's persecution complex. That's why she was forever lashing out - and falling out - with her family and friends. When she died, she was not on speaking terms with her mother Frances Shand Kydd, or her brother Charles, as well as many former friends she'd unreasonably taken offence at.
Diana was not the sweet, easy going soul her fans assume, far from it. She was mercurial in her moods, and self pity was her default setting. If she had you in her sights as the cause of her misery (even if you had nothing whatsoever to do with it), she was scarily vengeful, as friends including Sir Elton John discovered.
It was especially hurtful for her mother Frances, that Diana cut her dead after an argument. After her divorce, Frances lived alone in the remote Scottish island of Seil. Hearing news of her youngest daughter's sudden, violent death, and knowing their rift would never be healed, was devastating for her. She locked herself away, heart broken at the loss of her youngest daughter, and consoled herself with drink.
Diana was brainwashed by her father Johnny Spencer into believing her mother had wantonly and selfishly abandoned her and her three siblings for her lover. This twisted version of events warped Diana's view of women and marriage for life - she did not trust either.
The truth was very different. Johnny was not the 'darling daddy' Diana believed, but had been a horribly abusive husband to her mother Frances, who he married when she was just 18. His rages sent her into the arms of Peter Shand Kydd, her only escape. Johnny was livid that she left him, and got revenge by poisoning the children against her.
Frances fought valiantly for custody of her four beloved babies, but Johnny was too powerful a foe and she lost the case (in a shocking betrayal, her own mother testified against her in Johnny's favour, believing the children to be better off living at the ancestral home).
Diana, her two sisters and brother, were raised by a series of nannies and au pairs, with scant input from their self centred father. He gas-lit them to believe their mother was the villain of the piece, and had rejected them, choosing her lover above them.
It was a cruel fiction which saved his face but forever damaged Frances' relationship with her son and daughters. The effect on Diana, just six when her mother left, was extreme and lifelong, and sadly compromised her own behaviour as a wife and mother.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Lynne011000 How do you know Prince Charles couldn't tell Diana he loved her? Such nonsense.
Diana herself admitted the first few years of the marriage were happy, and that they were in love. You could see the chemistry between them in photos and video, and Charles loving, protective body language toward her on their joint public appearances. In a rare show of wisdom, Diana admitted the marriage was happy, because she realised it was important her children knew they were conceived in love.
When the marriage fell apart Diana jumped into a series of affairs with different, unsuitable men (many of them married), and Charles returned to his old flame. There is evidence Diana strayed first, so her finger pointing at Charles and Camilla was devious, dishonest and breathtakingly hypocritical!
As a tabloid journalist in the 'nineties who reported on the 'War of the Waleses' as it was then dubbed, I interviewed many people close to both parties - some intimately close. There was of course fault on Charles' side too, I never claimed he was perfect! But Diana was not the blameless innocent she played to the media - while enjoying multiple secret affairs in the shadows.
5
-
5
-
@Atumn-cgc Thanks, it's good to know there are some smart people around who saw through Diana's innocent, 'wronged wife' act.
She certainly had some brass balls on her to point the finger at Charles and Camilla, while she was enjoying multiple casual sexual hook ups - some with other women's husbands!
Diana was playing the victim, pretending she gave a damn what her husband got up to, when the truth is she was far too busy committing adultery herself to care who or what he did!
Diana worked hard to keep her grubby sexual exploits out of the papers, even having her lovers driven to her by her butler in the boot of her car. But a couple of them inevitably reached journalists' ears - the way she stalked Oliver Hoare night and day with over 300 malicious phone calls because he wouldn't leave his wife for her, and her shameless seducing of England rugby star Will Carling when he'd only just got married, showed exactly who she was.
I believe had she lived Diana would have been found out by the public. The increased scrutiny of the internet age would have exposed her true, vindictive, self-serving character. And if she'd lived, grown older and started losing her looks, that too would have prompted her fans to abandon her in droves. She's still popular today because she died forever young and beautiful (her fans are as shallow as she was), and before her malicious streak became obvious.
Diana threw her life away that night when she trusted the sleazy Al Fayeds, and failed to wear her seat belt. But ironically, in dying at 36 she achieved a PR coup for herself. Had she been around over the last 24 years, there's no question in my mind she'd have become very unpopular indeed, falling out with her sons and their wives, badmouthing her ex husband, and dating umpteen unsuitable men. Her petty fights with family and her promiscuity showed she had a lot in common with Princess Margaret, who massively fell out of public favour when she aged.
That said, it would have been fascinating to see the many face lifts and other cosmetic procedures Diana would have had, desperate to stay young and attractive.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@María Auxiliadora It's very sad you've been taken in by the supremely narcissistic and manipulative Diana. I'm no fan of Prince Charles, but Diana publicly crucified him for ONE affair (with the love of his life), when she herself was having literally dozens of casual, sexual flings with different men, many of them married! She had no right to point the finger at him as though she was a faithful wife, she certainly was not! She was a brazen hypocrite.
Diana hated other women and got a big thrill out of seducing their husbands. Her favourite trick was slyly slipping her private phone number to a married man at a social gathering, when his wife was standing mere feet away. For her to bat her eyelashes at the TV cameras and call herself "The Queen of Hearts" was utterly vomit-making. Ask Julia Carling what she thinks of Diana, the woman who broke up her marriage to England rugby player Will Carling by throwing herself at him at the gym. Diana was a shameless slapper.
She may have been a virgin on her wedding day, but she more than made up for it with a long queue of lovers before she and Charles split!
I hope you can understand this, despite your poor command of English. Your naivety about Diana shows you would be vulnerable to being deceived by a ruthless, toxic narcissist in real life.
Diana was not the only one, there are many more narcissists out there, and they target and exploit gullible individuals like you.
Please be careful out there!
5
-
5
-
5
-
Fantastic booking! James Dreyfus is a hero, and history will judge him as such - and very soon.
Gender/pronouns/trans/woke extremism garbage is indeed a temporary trend. It's built on the sand of outrageous lies, and therefore cannot endure (no mammal ever changed sex, or ever will). And as James eloquently points out, it's horribly dictatorial and indeed violent - another reason it won't survive.
Kelly Jay Keen's #LetWomenSpeak tour last year proved New Zealanders cannot currently hold legal public meetings to defend women's rights, without risking serious assault and worse by groups of violent, TRA males. When well over 90 per cent of trans identified men are fully intact, with no wish to have surgery to lose their functioning male genitals, one has to ask - how are they 'transgender'? Today, gender dysmorphia is no longer a prerequisite for a trans identity!
That a toxic minority of gender-extremists have sought/fought to tarnish this man's image and even end his successful media career for speaking truth to their lies and bigotry, is a total bloody outrage. The sane, decent majority owe JD a debt of gratitude for courageously using his public platform to defend women, girls and gay people against this dangerous insanity. The deafening silence from other public figures who should speak out but don't - Stephen Fry among them - is deeply disappointing,. They will rue the day and regret their spinelessness.
James Dreyfus' statements are blatantly factual, his analysis spot on. The King is stark, bollock naked - and one day, not too far from now, most public figures and politicians will be claiming they always spoke against misogynist, homophobic trans cult. But in the mass media, internet age, there are simply too many receipts out there . They will rightly be exposed for their years of gutless, inexcusable silence while they sat back and allowed James Dreyfus, JK Rowling, Kellie Jay Keen are the other legends to speak up - and take the consequences.
Incidentally, why does PRIDE have a whole month dedicated to it in the UK? I can think of no other ''vulnerable' group afforded this privilege (women's rights, anyone?) I seriously doubt PRIDE would have half the support it enjoys among major organisations today if it were still merely about gay people!
I was dismayed recently to see rainbow-hued 'PRIDE' bunting handing behind the prescriptions counter in my local branch of Boots. When I dared to question it, the female staff stared at me agog, like I'd just announced I was a white supremacist! The world really has gone (temporarily) mad.
5
-
Actually Baldwin absolutely DID come forward and 'act devastated' because I don't doubt he was devastated. He didn't deliberately set out to kill that woman! Whatever he is, he's not a monster. How would you feel if you were unintentionally responsible for another human being's death? And what's more, a likeable, popular human being you were friends with? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
But obviously Alec Baldwin is a controversial/unpopular figure for some, because of his politics and 'take no prisoners' attitude.
The question here is not about intent, but negligence and recklessness. I think it's pretty rich of Alec Baldwin to suggest he's only being held accountable because he is wealthy. HE pulled the trigger, and HE was a producer on the movie, so at least partly responsible for the almighty F-up which put a loaded gun into his hand.
There are rumours of cost-cutting on the film, which put its cast and crew under unacceptable pressures and possibly played a critical role in the tragedy. For the sake of the young woman who lost her life, and for ALL movie sets in which a death like this should never be possible, there must be a full and frank investigation and the person/people responsible held to account.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Easily - he had a knife, savage intent and the advantage of surprise. The students were at their most vulnerable, at home, undressed and horizontal in bed (possibly asleep). The killer was all-powerful, the victims utterly defenceless.
Two men would have been heard walking around in the dark, and alerted one or more of the residents to raise the alarm. One young, fit man got into the house silently, launched a swift, blitz attack and killed the 4 very quickly, before exiting into the night as fast as he arrived.
If he was someone the victims/a victim knew well, eg an ex boyfriend, he would have been arrested and charged by now. Sadly 6 weeks on, this has all the hallmarks of a 'thrill kill' by a stranger with no prior connection to the victims. And stranger killings are notoriously the hardest to solve.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I worked out in episode one the dodgy pharmacist would murder the female junkie client! No way would he kill her hubby, Mr Hepworth the sadistic PE teacher - he's way too good a villain in this new series, to be dispensable.
I further predict Mr Hepworth will wind up in the prison system, wrongly charged with his wife's murder - and that's where he will encounter the series' arch villain Tommy, Sergeant Catherine's nemesis. The two baddies will join forces to torture Catherine further, as she approaches her imminent retirement from the police force, and tries to keep her grandson on side, and stop her family imploding.
There's a reason Mr Hepworth (improbably) persuaded Ryan to confide family secrets in him about his criminal father Tommy, and Catherine's ongoing battle with him. Ryan unwittingly handed his vile teacher power over Catherine, which he will undoubtedly use when he meets Tommy in jail.
And of course Hepworth's manipulative 'bonding' moment with Ryan, confiding in the 16-year-old that his marriage was unhappy, will be a nail in his coffin when she's found murdered with a rolling pin in the family kitchen.
I wouldn't be surprised if further down the road Tommy murders Mr Hepworth in prison. It would serve two purposes - drama and a reminder of exactly how dangerous Tommy is, and justice for Mr Hepworth whose crimes against Catherine and Ryan will by that point have got viewers really riled against him.
Series 3 of 'Happy Valley' is better than ever - and as always, Sarah Lancashire is dynamite as the protagonist - compelling, magnetic and totally believable.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@carolarico3451 Yes, it's sadly all too obvious the victim-blamers are commenting from a position of breathtaking ignorance, of both domestic abuse and the law!
One poster's suggestion that independent 911 witness reports can't be trusted, and could be somehow suspect or biased against the man (in this case there were two totally independent reports made to police of Brian assaulting Gabby), shows exactly how clueless some of these comments are! I mean SO ridiculously stupid, they don't warrant serious consideration.
Police pulled the van over because of those recent 911 reports of Brian's violence to his girlfriend. They did not meet the couple 'cold', with no clue that they were dealing with an allegedly abusive male. Far from it, thanks to those 911 calls, they'd been fully briefed about the likely dynamic between the pair, from two witnesses with no axe to grind. Yet at no point did the officers confront Brian about the recent, serious assault allegations against him, least of all question or challenge him about them. Why not?
The police officers have absolutely no excuse for deciding that Gabby, not Brian, was the problem partner. As professionals they should know that domestic abuse victims are overwhelmingly female, and perpetrators overwhelmingly male. Victims of domestic homicide are almost exclusively female. While it's well documented men can also be abuse victims, the abuse of males is not likely to be life-threatening, as it is for females. Oranges and apples! Therefore it was Gabby the female, not Brian the male, who was at risk of serious harm from what was quite obviously an abusive relationship. But the police totally failed to recognise this fact, prioritise Gabby as the vulnerable party, and act accordingly to support her.
There's no question cops called the relationship wrong, and as a result handled it wrong. Two weeks after the footage, the woman is dead from homicide, and the man is on the run from police. That's powerful evidence of just how badly law enforcement got it wrong!
Cops made a bad situation worse, by misidentifying the victim as the perpetrator. The latest bodycam video released from the camera/viewpoint of a different officer, shows police discussing the case together after the couple have left. Shockingly, the policeman who took the lead throughout the traffic stop, told his colleagues he '...could have put Gabby in jail', but decided not to because they were clearly 'a young couple in love'. His wildly inaccurate conclusions would be laughable, if their implications weren't so serious and ultimately tragic for Gabby. Whatever spin people try to put on the police bodycam footage, that is lousy detective work!
The officers actions only further isolated and compromised Gabby, making her more not less vulnerable to reconciling with her abuser Brian the next morning - totally on his terms. And after police had pretty much endorsed Brian's abuse of her, and he'd been repeatedly told by police: "Don't worry, you aren't in any trouble", he no doubt felt even more empowered and entitled to escalate his abuse. Her death soon afterwards, indicates he escalated it to murder.
In due course, Gabby Petito's homicide warrants a proper independent public enquiry into police mishandling of the case. Another very troubling aspect prompting widespread criticism and questions, is that Brian Laundrie was able to leave his parents' house and go underground, while his girlfriend was missing.
There also clearly needs to be an urgent, nationwide review and shake up of law enforcement's training on domestic abuse. Do police even get specialist training, in this critically important area of policing? If they do, it is inadequate in the extreme, requiring a radical overhaul.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Tylee was a smart girl, becoming a young woman. She saw right through that big fat fake Chad Daybell - unlike Lori, she wasn't taken in by his pseudo-prophet garbage. I'll bet she told her stupid, deluded mother exactly what she thought of him. And surprise, surprise, soon after, Chad branded her 'Dark' and a 'Zombie'. Chad Daybell is a narcissist who demands to be placed on a pedestal, he would not tolerate Tylee's disrespect.
Tylee's position was already vulnerable once Chad Daybell was on the scene, because she had seen and heard too much and had all the dirt on her mother's and his crimes. She saw what really happened to her stepfather Charles Vallow - he walked into that house unarmed and unsuspecting, to take son JJ to breakfast, and he was ambushed and shot dead by her Uncle Alex. It was murder - by a convicted felon who had done prison time for assaulting his sister's previous husband Joseph Ryan. The baseball bat/self defence story her mom and uncle coached her to tell police, was pure fiction.
Poor Tylee likely witnessed the whole murder. Charles had loved her like a daughter, and remained supportive of her after her mother's adulterous affair and toxic, deluded conduct went off the chart. Charles had purchased Tylee's jeep for her - the same jeep Alex used in the first attempted shooting murder of Tammy Daybell, and the failed attempt on Brandon Boudreaux's life, after both Charles and Tylee's violent deaths.
Charles was Tylee's last surviving protector, after her father Joseph Ryan's suspicious death just over a year earlier. With Charles dead, Tylee was pretty much alone, and desperately vulnerable. I think she knew it.
She had no one to turn to. Most girls of 16 can rely on their mom for support. Tylee could not - Lori only had eyes and ears for Chad Daybell. Tylee tried speaking to her grandpa in the last weeks of her life, but her pleas for a private talk went unheeded. I think she was frightened of the energy in her home - and she was right to be. Because the same vile energy that killed her stepdad Charles (and I suspect her father Joseph in 2018), would soon destroy her and JJ. Sweet Tylee must have been the loneliest girl in the world.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This is my favourite time of year, and these videos showing Jay preparing for the snow, ice and sub zero temperatures to come, are a real treat. Jay - you are such a grafter, I never fail to be inspired by your positive, 'can do' attitude. You make significant improvements to your homestead on every visit, single handed.
I find it so much more interesting to watch a non-expert do this kind of work than a professional. It's so relatable, as a non-expert myself, to see this smart, open minded and ingenious guy tackle problems and solve them - even if it's sometimes by a process of trial and error. And as you are learning the best way to do these practical, and sometimes very challenging jobs, viewers like myself are learning along with you. I confess I wish you have a burly pal with you lending a hand though, it's a lot of work for one person!
Thanks so much for sharing the journey. I'm kinda hoping you and lovely Crystal and your sweet dog might spend a memorable Christmas at the cabin this year - or at least make a festive yuletide video or two, in the run up to Christmas. It's the perfect setting for Santa, a cosy fire, multi coloured lights, a bauble-laden fir tree, and delicious, hearty festive food - and you have your own Christmas light show in the sky for free, thanks to Aurora Borealis!
Keep up the superb work, respect to you from England. XXX
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sharoncollins-chiasson9803 You couldn't see Diana's responses were practised and rehearsed in the BBC 'Panorama' interview? Really? She is obviously reciting pre-arranged responses! Amazing this manipulative narcissist is still fooling some people, decades after her death.
Diana was not 19 all her life, you can't keep excusing her behaviour that way. She was in her thirties when she did that interview, and colluded on the Andrew Morton book, which was a self-pity party and hatchet job on her then husband. Diana had many extra marital affairs to Charles one, yet she slyly kept these out of the papers for a long time, so she could act the wronged wife and crucify Charles and Camilla. What a sneaky hypocrite!
If Diana was such a 'hands on' parent why did she send her sons to boarding school? She didn't have to, they could have been day schooled. She wanted them away from home to carry on her affairs and not be inconvenienced by the drudgery of motherhood.
If Diana had been any sort of mother she would not have secretly arranged the 'Panorama' interview in which she slagged off their father, and admitted to her own affair with James Hewitt. William was just 13 and at school when he watched that interview. He was mortified and embarrassed by his mother's sensational revelations, as any child would be. Diana was so selfish and egotistical, she didn't care about hurting her own children, just so long as she hurt Charles. That is the total opposite of a good mother!
What was Diana so angry about anyway? She got what she wanted - she was hell bent on marrying the future King and she achieved it, along with all the glamour, fame and VIP status that came with the role. Her marriage into the royal family made her a global superstar, without it she'd have been just another pretty, dim Sloane.
Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage and they don't usually work out. That's life, it''s not the end of the world and it certainly wasn't the tragedy for Diana that she pretended it was, simply to win public sympathy. She was as fed up with Charles as he was with her - she made it very obvious she was done with him on their foreign tours and public appearances, she took great delight in looking bored in his company and showing hostile body language.
Diana wanted out of the relationship too - but not the marriage, because she loved all the privileges she enjoyed as wife to the Prince of Wales. So it was ironic that she herself brought about the divorce by giving that dynamite 'Panorama' interview. After seeing it, the Queen ordered Charles and Diana to divorce. It was out of the question to continue with the sham marriage after Diana had so publicly stuck several knives into her husband, the most vicious of which was her opinion he would make a lousy king. But Diana was so stupid, she never saw this coming, and was shocked to find herself suddenly plunged into divorce proceedings and the loss of the beloved HRH title that meant so very much to her (so much for Diana being the humble, down to earth 'people's princess'!)
Nonetheless she emerged from her divorce in an enviable position - marriage to Prince Charles had given her two fine sons, £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace apartment, and top VIP status for life. She would also have had a top team of ex Scotland Yard bodyguards and drivers for life, had she accepted the Queen's generous offer. Instead she childishly refused it, and didn't even have the wisdom to employ a security team herself with her multi million pound divorce settlement. That's how she came to stupidly put her safety in the hands of the shady Al Fayed family - and wound up dead.
Diana was the architect of her own doom, an immature narcissist who never took responsibility for her choices but always sought to find someone else to blame. Despite her phenomenally privileged position, Diana remained bristling with self pity and an overweening persecution complex to the end - something her spoiled son Harry has sadly inherited from her.
5
-
@lisabradford8180 Many of Diana's outfits have dated badly - the pie crust collars, the too-short skirts, the pointy court shoes, the tan hosiery - I could go on.
And that over-highlighted, over-layered and over-lacquered, high maintenance hairdo that so many female public figures mimicked in the 'nineties, from Anthea Turner to Gloria Hunniford! (thanks to 'stylist to the stars' Nicky Clarke) was ghastly! Thankfully no woman does that to her hair now, or ever will again. It was so full of gel, spray and assorted styling products, didn't move in a force 10 gale!
As for the electric blue eyeliner she applied with a trowel - let's not even go there.
Diana was lucky enough to meet the late Princess Grace of Monaco on one of her first ever public appearances with Prince Charles. Princess Grace was well named - before she became an Oscar-winning actress she was a model, she had bags of natural style.
Grace Kelly looks amazingly contemporary in movies like 'To Catch a Thief', 'Dial M for Murder' and 'Rear Window', all made in the mid 'fifties. Photos of Diana taken 30 years later show a look that has dated badly by comparison. If you have innate style, as Princess Grace did, you instinctively pick the clothes, accessories, hairstyle and make up that are timeless. It's a shame Princess Grace's judgement and taste didn't rub off on the young Diana. Princess Grace dealt with the paparazzi a good deal better than Diana did too, always greeting them with a dignified smile, and never getting into pointless (and dangerous) 'cat and mouse' chases with them. Princess Grace was a class act.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sandrakissack1332 My sources are the people who knew Charles and Diana personally, some of whom intimately, who spoke to me as a national newspaper journalist. Your sources are the soppy, made for TV movies about Charles and Di you've watched in your dressing gown and slippers, and accepted as the gospel truth! You are literally quoting from them (and Diana's largely fictional and exaggerated, self-pitying Andrew Morton book), verbatim. It's embarrassing!
You're a deluded middle aged woman, who still wants to believe Diana was a perfect, virginal princess trapped in the tower. In reality she was a narcissistic, self-serving woman who married for position, status and wealth, and walked away from her divorce with all three - in abundance. Marrying Charles and becoming a senior royal was the making of her. Without him she'd have been just another brainless aristocrat's daughter without a single qualification, hoping to marry a wealthy toff like her father.
Thanks to her marriage, Diana was set to enjoy life as the most spoiled and privileged divorcee on the planet. But just a year later she threw away the glittering lifestyle Prince Charles gave her, because she chose bad company, and failed her children by failing to fasten her seat belt.
Sad, menopausal fan-girls like you can't handle the truth. Why are you so emotionally invested in a celebrity you admit you never even met? Are you bitter and twisted that your husband cheated on and divorced you? Move on darling and try to be happy, life is short!
5
-
I'm angry at Maddie's vile, neglectful mother who enabled her rape and murder, and the system that failed to get a heinously abused child out of a highly dysfunctional and dangerous home.
There will always be vile, perverted paedophiles like Stefan Sterns around, hiding in plain sight looking for opportunities to abuse vulnerable children - its up to parents, primarily, but also other relatives, teachers, doctors, counsellors etc, to be gatekeepers protecting minors from such men. Maddie's maternal grandmother hated Stefan Sterns - why wasn't she able to save her from him?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@janetbillham5473 Agreed, Prince Charles was a victim of his arranged marriage to the manipulative Diana - and 24 years after her death, he still is!
When their relationship failed after just 5 years (not because of adultery on either side, but incompatibility), she was so bitter and twisted that she launched a vicious campaign of character assassination against him that is still believed by her most deluded and devoted fans today!
Diana was a very damaged individual who simply couldn't forgive her husband for being happy with another woman, when she herself neither wanted him, nor could achieve a happy relationship of her own with another man. It's sadly predictable she died in the company of a playboy coke addict, more unsuitable than any of her previous lovers!
Had she lived, the princess would likely be single today - bitter and twisted that Charles and Camilla enjoy a happy marriage, and in addition furious that her two sons' younger more beautiful wives are taking all the publicity, flattery and attention away from her!
Diana would not have coped well with ageing. Her image was everything to her and I believe she'd have spent a lot of time and money, and seen many cosmetic surgeons, desperate to continue looking good.
Chances are, she'd have over done that cosmetic surgery, like so many beautiful women before her, and ruined her natural good looks,
5
-
Vinnie Politan's intro - Yes it was likely Alex Cox attempting to kill Tammy Daybell that day on her driveway, with a gun. But what VP failed to add, is he was allegedly making that attempt on Tammy's life, in cahoots with Tammy's husband - THE ACCUSED, CHAD DAYBELL.
That is crucial information, and crucial context in this specific murder trial, in which the defendant is victim Tammy's husband Chad Daybell.
It never ceases to amaze me how bad hard news reporters like Vinnie Politan (and other so called journalists), are, at reporting precise and accurate facts in true crime cases like this one. More to the point, many are entirely incapable of presenting facts in their proper, relevant context - the obvious context here being Alex working with Chad.
As a British, NCTJ qualified national newspaper journalist and TV producer I say - Up your game and get your damn act together Vinnie & Co!
The Lori Vallow/Chad Daybell murders are a complex murder case, involving at least FOUR homicide victims, and at least three defendants (one of them, Alex Cox, deceased). So accuracy, context and intelligent, insightful analysis by the broadcast/print professionals reporting it, is absolutely crucial.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Thank you for taking the time to write such a powerful and authentic account of this infamous domestic abuse case - and your very personal perspective and insights on the subject.
I'm so sorry to hear of your childhood suffering, due to your abusive father. As you demonstrate, being an abuse survivor can give you highly developed empathy and a radar for the silent suffering and vulnerabilities of others, which I have no doubt you possess in spades. That's why you have called this situation so accurately, and correctly identified that the real domestic abuse victim is not Amber Heard but Johnny Depp.
I believe anyone who has had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of narcissistic abuse, is likely to recognise it in Amber Heard's independently reported abusive (and in her general) behaviour.
Victimhood is a favourite assumed identity of covert narcissists. Covert narcs are the most dangerous variety of narcissist IMO, as they can be very plausible and exploit a false victim status to great effect in order to wield power over others. They are control freaks who seek to possess their intimate partner, and resent sharing them with others.
For the narcissistic Amber Heard, marrying superstar Johnny Depp was a trophy. But as a narcissist at the extreme end of the spectrum, she would/could not adapt to the limitations his VIP status inevitably put on her exclusive access to him. An obvious example of this was her rage that her physical and emotional abuses were frequently witnessed (and thwarted), by the intervention one of his security staff.
According to psychologists, a classic tactic of narcissistic abusers is to isolate the victim from their family and friends to maximum their personal control - something Heard couldn't achieve with Depp whose status required a large number of staff pretty much 24-7. Thankfully these staff afforded him some protection from her assaults, helped him to physically escape her when she was kicking off at him, and would ultimately be invaluable witnesses to his abuse by her.
As you probably know, Depp grew up with a mother who was physically and emotionally abusive to him and his 3 siblings (as the youngest, he undoubtedly suffered her wrath the most). His coping mechanism was to flee when he sensed his mother's rage building - he said her kids all knew to 'get out of the way' before something came flying at you - a fist, a kick or a flying telephone.
They were copying their father's example, as he too tried to get away whenever their mom physically assaulted him, never retaliating (Depp said he twice witnessed his dad punch a wall in frustration, breaking his hand on one occasion). This is exactly the strategy Depp used with Amber Heard, taking evasive action as her anger built - typically locking himself in the bathroom, sleeping in one of his neighbouring apartments, or if they were travelling, escaping to another hotel room that had been booked especially for that purpose.
Clearly this is not the default reaction to conflict of an abuser, but a victim. We've heard on the audio tapes that SHE secretly recorded, how verbally aggressive, belligerent and insulting she was with him at such times, knowing exactly how to inflict the worst emotional pain by calling him a lousy father to his kids, or a quote:"Fat, washed up actor". Her professional jealousy of Depp's success was frequently obvious in her verbal tirades. Again this is a narcissistic abuser's usual M.O., designed to erode the victim's confidence and self esteem, and heighten their own status.
I believe Johnny Depp's traumatic, insecure childhood helped to make him a fantastic actor, as it equipped him with heightened empathy - the hallmark of the greatest stars, as empathy lets them access the authentic emotions and reactions of the characters they play. Unfortunately however, childhood abuse has many more negative repercussions for its adult survivors, one of which can be their subconscious attraction to abusers in romantic relationships. People may not know why they go through life with a series of broken relationships behind them. They are repeating old, familiar habits - namely doomed relationships with 'bad news' people like their abusive parent/parents!
I hope when Depp has won this trial he will take some time out to see a great psychotherapist and work through the reasons he chose Amber Heard and even agreed to marry her after experiencing several serious incidents of abuse by her. At 58 he does not have a successful romantic track record behind him. As he approaches his 'golden years', it would be sad if that pattern of volatile, failed relationships were to continue.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Liz-id7hd Diana messed with several married men, most of whom she was not in love with, one of whom she stalked when he refused to leave his wife & dumped her, and one of whom's marriage she gleefully broke up for cheap sexual thrills.
Diana pursued England rugby star Will Carling (and newlywed), without a moment's thought for his wife Julia. And she cared nothing for him, he was a celebrity notch on her bedpost, and someone to boast about with her girlfriends. She was a dirty disgrace!
So if you want to condemn adulterers, and scheming, immoral females who chase other women's husbands, look no further than Diana, Queen of Tarts. She saw a wedding ring on a man's hand as an aphrodisiac, she was utterly ruthless!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@andreagilbert3273 Diana acted like a girl, I'll grant you - she was incredibly childish, vain and self obsessed. But she was not a girl - she was a 36 year old, divorced mother of two. If she had only remembered that, behaved like the adult she was and fastened her seat belt, she'd have survived the crash with a broken arm and spared two little boys the trauma and tragedy of her violent death.
Had Charles died in similar circumstances with a casual lover he'd only just met, and Diana had to pick up the pieces for William and Harry as their only surviving parent, you would condemn Charles as an terrible father, and laud Diana as a hero for being mum and dad to their boys!
Yet because it's Diana who died the squalid death with a coke addicted playboy, and Charles who was left to support the two bereaved little boys, you don't criticise any aspect of her risky behaviour or poor choices that night.
You soppy Diana fans are even dimmer and more deluded than she was!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@EnglishNorthern The 'This Morning' brand is forever tainted by this scandal - it's not just about Phillip Schofield, the rot went right the way to the very top, with the biggest execs aiding and abetting his affair with a teenager. Sickening!
I think Holly's making a big mistake going back to the show. If she had any sense, she'd take the moral high ground, and make a big announcement she's leaving 'This Morning', due to the shabby way Phillip and ITV bosses have behaved, lied to her, etc.
If she did that, she'd be putting her money where her mouth is, and she might persuade the public she is a woman of integrity after all. But right now she's not looking good and viewers no longer like or trust her!
It's clear Holly is still lying about the scandal (as if she didn't know about a 5 year workplace affair, happening right in front of her eyes), with her ridiculous hollow claims of ignorance, and her ruthless determination to hang onto her job at all costs.
I suspect she's wasting her time, and 'This Morning' won't survive the fall out, How much better it would have looked for her, if she'd taken charge of the narrative and jumped before she was pushed. The 'This Morning' ship is sinking - and Holly refused a life raft!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ljb8157 Your multiple, victim-blaming posts are utterly ludicrous, and say more about you than anyone involved in this horrific domestic murder. Gabby Petito lies dead on a slab, her death declared a homicide, and Brian Laundrie is on the run from police. How much more evidence do dumb misogynists like you need that she was the victim, and he was the perpetrator?
The scratches seen on Brian's face in the police bodycam are typically observed on men who have recently murdered women. They indicate Gabby had recently defended herself against a violent assault by him, and that scenario is confirmed by the independent witness who called 911 that morning to report him 'slapping and hitting' her on the street. His scratches are a chilling foreshadowing of her murder two weeks later.
Brian's facial markings are an indication of his violence and abuse, and to suggest Gabby should be blamed for defending herself against her soon-to-be killer (or even arrested, as some cretin stated), is some warped and weird misogyny.
You talk about 'the whole story', as if there's another side to this - it's clear you are seeking to justify Brian Laundrie's actions in abusing and finally killing his girlfriend. I've got news for you - there is none. No man has the right to put his hands on a woman, least of all kill her. Your posts represent the tragic Incels who are drawn to this case, because they regard nerdy, inadequate Brian Laundrie as some kind of hero. I'm beyond bored of your trolling. Is 'Hunt' your name, or just rhyming slang?! You are dismissed, Hunt.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dianaprince3176 I'm not American and as my posts make clear, I understand US defendants' right to represent themselves and cross examine witnesses - even minors, as in this case.
I thought my point was clear, but as you didn't understand it I'm happy to explain it for you again:
I don't believe that right for defendants in serious crimes like murder/rape to directly question witnesses, should extend to children. YouTube comments on the case suggest many people are outraged on this little boy's behalf. I hope this murder trial prompts sufficient public anger to start a national debate about child witnesses, that leads to greater legal protections for them.
In my view the US justice system is weighted too far in favour of the defendant, to the detriment of its most vulnerable victims, minors. Ronnie O' Neal should not have been able to directly quiz his 11-year-old son and victim, about the ordeal he and his murdered mother and sister suffered at his hands. Additional psychological harm could be done to that child, in having to once again face his father and would-be murderer (even over Zoom), and revisit that life-changing horror.
This is about as bad as domestic violence cases get. Ronnie O' Neal killed his 9 year old disabled daughter with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck, witnessed by his then 8 year old son. He chased his fleeing girlfriend with a rifle, shooting at her as she ran to a neighbour's house for help. When the gun jammed, he beat the mother of his children to death on the front doorstep, the impacts breaking the rifle into pieces. He then returned home and stabbed his son so viciously, when emergency services arrived his intestines were hanging out. The boy also suffered burns when O' Neal set fire to the house.
No justice system is perfect but as a journalist I can vouch child witnesses/victims are better protected and prioritised in British courts. Last year the Scottish Parliament passed the 'Vulnerable Witnesses Act'. It ruled in the most serious crimes, young people under 18 do not appear in court live, either in person or remotely, as this little boy did. Instead, minors pre-record their evidence in advance of the trial, and it is played to the jury. The new law, modelled on the Scandinavian legal system, means children don't have to face the accused in court or be cross examined. Psychologists recognise that giving evidence in court re-traumatises a child and can be almost as distressing as the crime itself.
The laws of a country are not set in stone, and nor should they be. They should be organic and evolve with the changing culture and values, to reflect modern morality. Most people watching this alleged domestic killer quiz his son will feel revulsion. That gut instinct kicks in when a situation just isn't right - and in many people's eyes, doing this to a child is very wrong. The drama that played out in that courtroom this week reflected very badly on American justice. It can and should do much better than that!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Mo-pm2oi Excellent post! The tragic homicide of Gabby Petito, and the escalating domestic abuse leading up to it captured on police bodycam, shows there is a widespread reluctance on the part of men to confront other men over their abuse. Police were totally ineffectual in their interactions with a man recently reported in two 911 calls, for violence to a woman. Why? This has to change!
Above all this tragic case shows far better training in domestic abuse is needed for law enforcement officers across the US. I believe with proper training and education in the typical MO of abusers (and the predictable reactions of their victims), those cops would have handled Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito VERY differently.
That cowardly punk Laundrie needed to be confronted over his offending - and as Sheriff Grady Judd pointed out, after TWO independent 911 reports of him hitting Gabby, there was ample reason to arrest him at the roadside and take him into custody for domestic abuse. Instead those police did an old pals act with him, telling him he 'wasn't in any trouble (why the hell not?), fist bumping him, and driving him to a cosy hotel for the night. Why didn't they suck his dick while they were about it?!
In befriending Brian, those dumb police in effect endorsed his abuse of Gabby, making him feel empowered and entitled to not only continue his abuse when they were reunited next morning, but to escalate it to her murder two weeks later.
Had police treated Brian Laundrie like the law breaking domestic abuser he is and taken him into custody, Gabby would have had to tell her parents about his escalating abuse. That would likely have triggered a third party intervention by her family (decent people who love her very much and were unaware of Brian's abuse), the end of the van life project - and Gabby's safe return home. Police could have saved her life that day, had they only handled this in the right way and not been so damn concerned to let a male abuser off the hook.
Decent men like Sheriff Judd and Derek Van Shaik can call out the abuse of scumbags like Brian Laundrie - but a worrying percentage of males will not, and fall over themselves in these comments to make excuses for a scumbag who strangled a 22-year-old woman to death. That is every bit as troubling as the murder itself!
5
-
5
-
Vonnie wasn't very loving to her innocent, 4 year old grandson, when her teenage son John exposed his genitals to him. She refused to believe the little boy, siding instead with her pervert son, the defendant Donald's half brother. Nice grandma!
It seems Donald's crimes were not without considerable provocation. Why did Vonnie totally cut her eldest son out of her will, leaving everything to his half brothers? It's not like Donald was wealthy - he rented a run down place and drove an old car, while his half brothers each had over three hundred thousand dollars in their bank accounts when they died. It was nasty favouritism on their mother's part, she obviously preferred Richard and John, and likely always did. Is it any wonder Donald turned out so unlovable - he was unloved by his own mother!
I feel very sorry for the defendant's son Donald Jnr - though thankfully he will now receive his grandmother's money, which seems like poetic justice to me - and the two dogs owned by the victims and the defendant. They have lost their special humans and their homes - and poor Bear had to live in that house for days knowing his family lay dead all around him. Thank God another family member took him in and is devoted to him. I hope the defendant's boxer dog has also found a loving home, her world was turned upside down by this crime.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@carolinacarolina7793 Living on the breadline, struggling to feed your children is pain. Getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer in the family, is pain. Being in an abusive marriage, where you fear for your life every day but cannot leave due to money, is pain.
Losing an HRH title in accordance with age-old royal protocol, meaning other people are no longer obliged to curtsey to you, is NOT pain!
You are as ridiculous and deluded as Diana herself. A woman so ridiculous, she dared crucify her husband for his one love affair after their marriage was effectively over, while she enjoyed multiple meaningless, illicit sexual romps (many of them with other women's husbands).
A woman so ridiculous, she shamelessly played the victim after walking away from her marriage with unimaginable wealth, international fame and top, VIP status.
A woman so unbelievably ridiculous, she threw away her fabulous, pampered and privileged life because she was too damned self-involved to think of her two little boys and fasten her seatbelt when she was running round Paris with an Arab playboy! Diana failed in every parent's first duty - to stay alive to raise your children to adulthood.
Next to the Queen, Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world. She had almost unlimited opportunities to make a difference to humanity during her life. She could have started her own charity, been a spokesperson for a cause she felt passionately about, or started a much-needed chain of hostels for domestic abuse victims and their children. The possibilities were endless. But she did not use her power and high profile for anything profound or enduring.
Diana's legacy is her sons (who lost her when they were just 12 and 15), and not much else. Her other achievements? An auction of her dresses for charity, which wasn't her idea it was William's. An anti landmines photo opportunity - again, not instigated by her, but handed to her on a plate by Sir Richard Attenborough. Oh, and lots of pretty photos of her accepting bouquets from children, in ghastly shoulder-pad-and-court-shoes outfits that already look horribly dated just 30 years on.
Alas Diana's supposed 'style-icon' status, like her bogus humanitarian schtick, has not stood the test of time!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
All will be revealed at trial and it will no doubt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a compelling combination of forensic and circumstantial evidence. That the prosecution are sure the boys were murdered way back in September, three months before they were reported missing, is in itself damning. It shows there is no proof of life for Cincere and Classic, beyond September 2020 - no photos of them, no sightings of them by friends, family, neighbours, no attendance at playschools or even on local CCTV etc etc.
Police will have trawled hours and hours of CCTV and found a point at which the West family outings no longer feature their two youngest adopted children. That alone is a big clue to the date of the murders!
The allegation they were murdered in September shows they died when the Wests were living at their previous Bakersfield address NOT the house from which Trezell West claimed they both wandered out of a gate as he was collecting firewood (a likely story!) Forensic experts will have examined that previous Bakersfield address in detail, and likely found evidence of violence/foul play, eg trace amounts of the childrens' blood after a clean up by their killers. No doubt the house move itself - which prosecutors believe occurred after the murders - was an attempt to escape justice.
The trial will also feature evidence from the older four children living in the West family home. The indictment document is in the public domain, and it tells some of the story. It alleges the Wests ordered the older children to participate in acts of violence against the two, now (allegedly) deceased youngest children. It also alleges the Wests threatened witnesses not to give evidence against them - very likely, those four children.
If Trezell and Jacqueline West are innocent, they should be confident and welcoming this trial, when they can prove it - not standing in court in matching grey pyjamas looking like terrified rabbits caught in the headlights! Let them have their 'day in court' and give evidence in their own defence, if they can prove the kids went missing from their yard - or were ever living at that new address - they have no problem!
5
-
You've only heard of Diana because Prince Charles married her and gave her a wonderful life of unimaginable privilege and prestige as a senior royal. Without Prince Charles, Diana would have been just another spoiled aristocrat's daughter with no qualifications, living off daddy's money until she married a rich blue blood.
But Diana lacked the dignity and humility to give her husband credit for that, or anything else - the vindictive narcissist wouldn't even acknowledge he was a good father! She was vindictive as hell, battling him in the media with her spiteful, sly (and 99% fictitious) Andrew Morton book, and the disastrous BBC 'Panorama' interview which backfired and revealed exactly how self-serving and scheming she was.
Diana publicly attacked the father of her children and the institution that bankrolled them - talk about bite the hand that feeds you (and your sons!) And her hypocritical histrionics hurt William and Harry terribly. A good parent does not attack the other parent to their child unnecessarily, as she did - your children share 50% of their DNA with both of you, it's very wrong to crucify your ex to them just because you split.
Diana was not the innocent, 'wronged wife' she portrayed to the media, far from it. She was sleeping with umpteen unsuitable men behind her husband's back while he had only one love, Camilla, who he went on to marry. In reality there were many more than 'three people in the marriage', but Diana 'forgot' to mention all her own secret lovers to interviewer Martin Bashir!
Diana was a serial adulterer and home wrecker, with a nasty habit of chasing and bedding other women's husbands! Ask Julia Carling, Susan Mannakee or Diane Hoare what they think of Diana, the Queen of Tarts. She had a damn nerve crucifying Charles when she was sleeping with any man with a pulse - and preferably, a wedding ring. Talk about a lying, scheming hypocrite, Diana took the prize for adultery!
5
-
5
-
5
-
This was a superb, fresh and insightful analysis of this well-trod crime Derek - Bravo! As a British journalist who has studied this case inside out, it takes a lot to impress me!
I trust you'll be applying the same, razor sharp powers of deduction (and bullshit detection) on Chris Watts' supposed 'confession' regarding the children. I don't believe for a nanosecond he took Bella and Cece from the house alive. He had no earthly reason to delay the children's murders, least of all to kill them at a far riskier, outdoor works location.
Chris Watts' latest tale to visiting detectives in February 2019 was inspired by the so-called 'shadows theory' pushed by clickbait YouTubers, which his family tipped him off about. The Watts family monitor social media true crime gossip and update CW on the latest theories about him. He liked the 'shadows theory', the far-fetched idea that a live child's shadow can be seen on the driveway footage, and decided to endorse it a full six months after his murder convictions. He was bored in his cell and wanted attention and headlines. He even went one better that the clickbait YouTubers, claiming he took not one but BOTH children to Cervi 319 alive. As if! The clickbait gossips couldn't find a second 'child's shadow' or any evidence to support his claim.
In all probability Chris Watts killed the children first, and confirming the 'shadows theory' was a way for him to distract people from this ugly truth. There were many indications Bella and Cece were suffocated to death in their beds, not least the fact cadaver dogs alerted to this in both rooms. In his 111 minute, late night phone chat with his mistress, he mentioned laundering the girls' bedsheets which, he told her, "Stank". Why would he be laundering their bedding so late and why would it smell bad - did Bella (who suffered a violent struggle and didn't wear a nappy), defecate as her father killed her?
Shanann told a friend CW sounded 'annoyed' when she called that evening to tell him about her 3 hour flight delay. He likely WAS annoyed because he had already killed the children, so couldn't postpone the murders to another night when he had more time. As you identified in this video, he was in a hurry to get the crime done and dump the bodies at Cervi before sun up, so that was his sole focus.
There simply wasn't time for all the claims he made about having sex with his wife, sleeping, fighting with her, 'killing' the children twice (because an early attempt to suffocate them supposedly failed), etc, etc. I believe Sunday night/Monday morning was only about carrying out his long-plotted family murder, and arriving at work unruffled and smiling, like nothing happened. He was a man on a mission - that why he wouldn't have let two traumatised little girls run riot outside his house and wake neighbours, as he was loading their pregnant mother's corpse into his truck. The driveway video shows him loading dead, not live victims into his truck.
Thanks for pointing out the cruel, arrogant nonsense of his claim Shanann did not fight for her or her babies' lives as he strangled her. As her father Frank pointed out, she adored her children and would have fought Chris Watts "like a tiger" had she known his murderous intentions towards them. It's obvious there isn't a mark on him because he pinned down her arms with his strong legs - Shanann had long nails but clearly didn't have a chance to use them!
I'm convinced like most cowardly family annihilators, he killed all three victims inside the house behind 4 walls, where they couldn't summon help and he wouldn't be witnessed and unmasked as a killer. The February 2019 audio is littered with clues he's inventing the story about taking the children to Cervi 319 alive, and killing them there.
He tells several specific tall tales and embellishments designed to distract from or explain away the evidence of what really happened. For example he says both girls were quiet and slept on the journey to Cervi 319 - but is that likely? He told cops whenever he fetched them from kindergarten they would cry for their mom all the way home. Chris Watts knew that route to Cervi very well and that it featured many road cameras positioned at the various traffic lights - if both girls were dead, saying they were asleep would explain why they could not be seen on any images taken en route.
Then there's his dumb story about covering Shanann's face and feet with two black plastic refuse sacks in the back of the truck, so Bella and Cece wouldn't be upset at seeing their dead mother. He was about to kill them both - why would he care about their feelings? That story was an obvious ruse to explain away the two black refuse sacks police recovered floating around the Cervi oil fields after the murders, which had contained the girls' corpses and were a smoking gun they had left the house dead, not alive.
I'm curious to find out how many red flags YOU identified that he's making up this version of the children's murders as he goes along!
He stammers and gets muddled when he lies - he also gets snappy with detectives and is evasive when they try to press him on details that don't make sense or require further clarification. He says he both strangled and smothered the children. He recycles elements of his first, partial confession, when he stole Agent Tammy Lee's story that Shanann had killed the children. Back then he told cops his wife had strangled both girls and that in a rage: "I did to Shanann what she just did to the girls". This almost exact same sentence comes up again when he describes murdering Cece in front of Bella. He claims Bella asked him: "Are you going to do to me what you just did to Cece?" Sound familiar? That's not even a phrase that would come from the lips of a 4 year old!
CW also states he will never forget Bella's last words to him, which he tells us were: "Daddy - No!" Then a few moments later he quotes her last words as "No - Daddy!" So which was it, Chris? You said you'd never forget, but it seems you already did!
In practical terms it would be very hard to get sufficient traction to suffocate two tiny, wriggly 3 and 4 year olds as they sat upright on a vehicle's bench seat, using a child's fleece blanket. Bella's post mortem injuries to her mouth - torn frenulum and repeated bites to her tongue - are consistent with heavy downward pressure from a strong, bare hand, while she lay horizontal on a bed, not an upright, seated attack with a soft blanket.
Looking forward to the second part of this video with high hopes!
5
-
She never loved Ryan, she doesn't know the meaning of the word. She laughed as she described shooting him in the head SIX times, destroying his handsome face. He was a good looking lawyer, a trophy boyfriend and she was desperate to marry him. He made it clear he wanted out of the relationship and tried to finish with her countless times. But she's a controlling narcissist with an out of control ego, and would not take no for an answer.
She stalked him on Facebook, posing as him, she blocked attractive women, called and text him constantly, and repeatedly arrived on his doorstep unannounced and uninvited. Ryan was too nice to this evil skank, he didn't take his apartment keys from her or change his locks, as he should have done.
He sadly left himself vulnerable to this nut job, never realising she would kill him before she'd let him fall in love with a decent woman. It was the date he had lined up that night with a beauty queen that made her decide to murder him. She found out about it because she was stalking him on Facebook. She would not allow that date to happen - it was the classic controlling, abusers 'If I can't have you, no one will'. We usually see this from male abusers, but this horrific case reminds us women can be dangerous narcissists too. Shayna Huber is in a locked cage where she belongs. She will always be a risk to the public - it is to be devoutly hoped she never deceives anyone again with her supposed pretty face and gets out of jail. She is highly warped and dangerous and always will be!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nicoleloves9483 He totally did it alone. He had his parents' big house all to himself to 'deal with' their bodies (he repeatedly told his girlfriend not to come over/limited her time there, so he could finish what he euphemistically called 'his chores').
But like so many killers, he was over confident. Detectives and the forensic crime labs they use can pick up the tiniest speck of blood proving he location of the murder scene and the killer's connection to it. Who else could have killed and dismembered them in their own home but the son who lived with them? It's frankly ludicrous this 24 year old man is denying it. But he has nothing to lose, and no doubt enjoys all the attention he's getting at his double murder trial.
He's secretly proud of what he did to his parents. There's no remorse or emotion from him when photos are shown in court of his parents' body parts. He shot them in the back then chopped them up - because they were about to uncover his many lies about himself and his life. He's not a man, but a man-child. He didn't want to grow up, leave home, earn his own money or be a man, as his elder brother had. He's an evil, entitled, cowardly freak, and the sooner he's locked up with bigger psychopaths, the better!
Chandler Halderson killed the two people in the world who loved him deeply, and would have supported him no matter what. Who gives a damn about him now they're gone, and he killed them both so cruelly? He has a very lonely life ahead of him.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Phillip Schofield's father Brian died from a long-standing heart condition 15 years ago, in 2008.
It's a blessing that he didn't live to see BOTH of his sons publicly exposed as sex predators, targeting, grooming and sexually abusing young boys.
One son, Timothy, is a convicted paedophile/sexual abuser, recently jailed for 12 years for vile crimes against a teenage boy. Seven years older Phillip has been similarly drawn to young boys - he first met Matthew McGreevy when he was a little boy of just TEN.
There are undoubtedly additional dark revelations to come for Phillip Schofield. The chances Matthew McGreevy is the only such abuse/adultery he committed in a near-30 year marriage and an even longer media career which gave him privileged access to star-struck minors, are slim!
I believe we may soon learn, piece by piece, he is another serial child abuser like Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter and other paedophile TV stars before him, who for decades were hiding in plain sight on national television.
Schofield Senior has been spared the dreadful ordeal that his poor widow Pat (Phillip and Timothy's now 85-year-old mother), plus his wife Stephanie and two adult daughters, are suffering. It is a hurt & humiliation they will continue to endure by association with Schofield, indefinitely.
One of Phillip Schofield's daughters was trying to follow in his footsteps as a TV presenter. That may be impossible for her now. The name Schofield no longer opens doors, but in future will more likely get them slammed in her face. That is unfair - she's obviously innocent in her father's sex scandal. But there's a big difference between the terms 'famous' and 'infamous'.
No TV show will want to be associated with the Schofield name again, and that inevitably includes his family/relatives. He is damaged goods. His daughter would be wise to re-think her career plans - or at the very least, drop her surname!
Phillip Schofield had an appointment at his very expensive lawyers' offices today. He's enraged at Eamonn Holmes' criticisms of him earlier this week on Twitter and GMB News, and it's rumoured, he sought legal advice on the possibility of suing him. Laughable!
What does he imagine Eamonn said this week, that he could possibly sue him for? He called him a liar - by his own admission, he is! Indeed he's a serial and compulsive liar, seeking to deceive his ITV bosses and colleagues, his wife and kids, even he claims (though it's another lie), his own agent, who supposedly knew nothing of his affair with Matthew McGreevy.
If his agent knew nothing of that affair, why did he broker the exclusive, fake 'coming out' story for him with The Sun newspaper? Of course his agent knew about the affair - it was the one and only reason for that farcical, coming-out, non-story spilled on the 'This Morning' sofa and exclusively in The Sun. Yep - Schofield's lying again to protect his former agent but more to the point, to prevent them from suing him over the major role they played in the cover-up - he just can't stop lying!
Schofield's anger at Eamonn for exposing him, only confirms his description as 'Chief narcissist' is accurate. A narcissist is enraged when their web of manipulation and lies is finally exposed, and they get publicly called out on their shabby behaviour! The jig's up Phil - if he seriously thinks he can sue anyone, he needs to consider suing himself - 'cos he is the guilty one right down the line!
On top of additional sexual secrets (IMO we haven't heard even half of his activities with young boys), there could follow allegations of criminality mirroring his convicted paedophile brother Timothy. In fact there could be multiple different scandals ahead. I believe Schofield's immoral and totally lacking in integrity. Who knows what misdemeanours he's capable of?
When the world constantly defers to a malignant narcissist - as it has to Phillip Schofield for many decades - that narcissist becomes dangerously entitled, arrogant and toxic. He or she can actually wind up believing they are so special the rules don't apply to them, and they are even above the law. I suspect there may also be financial or even drug scandals looming.
Extraordinary how Phillip Schofield went from hero to zero, seemingly overnight - but in fact the scandal's been brewing for at least eight years. And if he first met McGreevy when he was just 10 years old, it's been a LOT longer!
How the hell did such a mediocre man and 'talent' wield so much power, that top TV execs ran around like headless chickens FOR YEARS, protecting him and his grubby 'secret' from entering the public domain?
Schofield went from a top ITV name paid obscene amounts for reading an autocue, and mixing with VIPs & royalty (the embarrassing way he sucked up to King Charles showed he was hoping for a knighthood), to a pariah who is pretty much universally despised. Many people who've worked with him, myself included, are thrilled to see his LONG overdue comeuppance. And there's a LOT more still to come!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What was Prince Charles' mistake - marrying Diana? He was forced into an arranged marriage, the last generation of royalty that injustice happened to. Thankfully the next heir to the throne, his son William, was allowed to marry whoever he wanted.
Diana entered into the marriage with enthusiasm - she had set her sights on becoming Princess of Wales and enjoying the fame, wealth and glamour that came with it. And she certainly did, she loved the media spotlight and frequently colluded with journalists and photographers direct, to make the front pages.
However, Diana was just as unhappy with Charles as vice versa. You only have to see footage of Charles and Diana's joint appearances in the late 'eighties when she was openly stand offish, bordering on hostile, to see she was over her husband. But she pretended to the public she was heartbroken at the failure of the marriage. What rot!
Funny how she crucified Charles for his one affair with Camilla (who he loved and ended up marrying), when she herself was having umpteen meaningless, extra marital affairs - many with other women's husbands. Diana had no right to attack Camilla, when she herself was a mistress many times over, dropping her drawers at the drop of a hat. She was a heinous home-wrecker - ask Susan Mannakee, Julia Carling and Diane Hoare (just three of the wives whose husbands Diana slept with), what they think of the Queen of Tarts. Diana's manipulation, self pity and hypocrisy were sickening!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Camilla was mistress to one man, after their unhappy marriages had both broken down. Diana was mistress to umpteen different men while married to Charles - and she had a very nasty habit of pursuing and seducing other women's husbands!
Ask some of the women whose husbands Diana slept with what they think of 'The Queen of Tarts'. She broke up at least one marriage - Will Carling's - and tried to split many more, including Oliver Hoare's, who she stalked with over 300 malicious phone calls when he dumped her.
Anyone who judges Diana a better woman than Camilla because she was more photogenic, says far more about themselves than they do either woman! How incredibly shallow.
Diana was a vain, vomiting clothes horse, obsessed with her own image. Every morning she'd pore over the newspapers looking for her own photos. Men don't find that sexy - it's a big turn-off to most., No wonder she couldn't meet a man who wanted to marry her!
Camilla is a warm, big-hearted and genuinely caring woman who is the loving and loyal wife to Charles that Diana never was. She would never have failed to wear her seat belt, and left her children motherless as the self-obsessed, hedonistic Diana did.
Queen Camilla will be a wonderful ambassador for the UK and fully deserves the vote of confidence Queen Elizabeth has placed in her. She is a far better woman, wife and mother than Diana ever was, and will be a far more caring and dignified Queen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Susan Hendricks' reporting of the Delphi murder case has always been lightweight, lacking in both hard facts and journalistic insight. Her court reporting of Richard Allen's murder trial, is sadly no better.
She reminds us - just because you released a book on a crime, doesn't mean you are any kind of expert on it!
Her inappropriate smiling when discussing this infamous double child murder, is also disappointing. You get the feeling she paid a lot for those teeth, and is determined to get her money's worth.
For proper journalism, methodical, unbiased and fact-based, go to former TV reporter Lauren Matthias, of the excellent YouTube channel @HiddenTrueCrime. Matthias' tireless, in-depth reporting from the Delphi murder trial is the gold standard.
4
-
@finallythere100 Diana showed the most love towards other women's husbands! Ask the wives of Will Carling, Barry Mannakee and Oliver Hoare what they think of the Queen of Tarts - I doubt they'll be quite as complimentary about the woman who seduced their husbands, as you've been!
Diana was a mistress many more times than Camilla.She may have been a virgin on her wedding day, but she soon made up for it with all her extra marital affairs while married to Charles! She wasn't heartbroken over her marriage split - she only pretended to be, to win public sympathy. She was having way too much fun with all her secret lovers smuggled into her Kensington Palace apartment, to care what Charles did at his country house Highgrove in Gloucestershire!
Diana was utterly shameless - and a total hypocrite, pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla on TV, when she was hiding so many dirty secrets of her many affairs with married men. Ghastly, manipulative, two-faced woman, with the morals of an alley cat!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There's no question the Queen Mother had great charm, and style too. History paints her arch enemy Wallis, the Duchess of Windsor, as the epitome of style. But in reality the dowager queen was far more stylish, in the true spirit of the word.
Style is not about being pencil thin, or wearing the latest designer clothes. Nor indeed, is it about working hard to be considered stylish. Perish the thought! Elizabeth had great style because it was entirely her own, the result of developing her own, unique image over many years and knowing who she was. Above all, her style came from true inner confidence and self-esteem.
Unlike Wallis who found herself alone, friendless and vulnerable to exploitation by her own staff after her husband's death, Elizabeth bloomed in widowhood. She was always fascinated by people, and cultivated a fascinating little black book of amusing friends who flocked to her regular lunch and dinner parties. Many glamorous and fascinating, celebrated names of the day featured, among them Cecil Beaton, Sir Noel Coward and Sir John Mills.
Like everything else she did, the Queen Mother entertained lavishly and with high style.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Diana did try to wreck a few homes, you're right, and she succeeded with Will and Julia Carling among other married couples she threw her knickers at.
She got so obsessed with married Oliver Hoare (an old pal of her husband Charles), that when he broke up with her she started stalking him, making literally hundreds of silent nuisance calls to his home from Kensington Palace and various local pay phones she visited after dark. Diana was nuts!
Oliver Hoare decided to call her bluff, and confessed the affair to his wife Diane. She forgave him, they stuck together, and reported Diana's malicious phone calls to the police. Two plan clothes police officers had to visit Diana at Kensington Palace and tell her to leave the Hoares alone. She stupidly denied she had made any calls - then the officers told her the calls had been traced to her private line at KP, as well as to local pay phones.
Diana then did an horrendous thing to get herself off the hook - she blamed the silent phone calls on her totally innocent 13 year old son William! It clearly could not have been him making the literally hundreds of calls late at night. He had no reason to, but regardless, he was away at boarding school at the time!
Childish, petulant Diana simply would not own up to her bad behaviour, so scapegoated her eldest son. What a wonderful mother, blaming her own child for her crimes!
Diana never would have achieved a happy, settled marriage with any man, she was way too narcissistic and self-obsessed.
4
-
4
-
As a TV insider I know this man speaks TRUTH! ITV is taking the public for fools - There was a major and determined cover up lasting years, and ITV execs and HOLLY WILLOUGHBY are up to their necks in it! They must be held fully accountable for knowingly and actively protecting predator, bully and hypocrite PHILLIP SCHOFIELD!
Holly Willoughby needs to leave the This Morning sofa next - she blatantly LIED just like Schofield when she claimed not to know about this abusive sexual affair - she took the lead role in Schofield's farcical 'coming out' on 'This Morning' - which was actually a smokescreen to hide the looming sex scandal. Of course she knew!
FANTASTIC INTERVIEW - BRAVO EAMONN! This man and his fellow presenter and wife RUTH LANGSFORD are a class act. As a freelance TV producer who has worked for just about every channel and production company over 20 years, I can vouch Eamonn and Ruth are lovely, decent people, who are well liked and respected, and kind to everyone on their TV production teams - from the lowliest runner, upwards. That Ruth is still in touch with and supportive to the young man at the centre of this scandal - who was so horribly exploited - reflects the big-hearted lady she is.
At the BBC for many years Eamonn would host a Christmas quiz night for staff - he did it for free, and he was an absolute joy, making the evening great fun - everyone loved him. Phillip Schofield would never have put himself out like that for mere TV production staff, not without a big fat fee anyway! I have also worked with PHILLIP SCHOFIELD - a more self-serving, snooty egotistical and MEDIOCRE autocue reader you will never meet!
Schofield's affair with Matthew McGreevy has been an open secret for years - and we STILL haven't heard the true, full story! Schofield only 'came out' in 2020 because the young man, his ex-lover, was trying to sell his story to The Sun newspaper. The Sun did what they often do - they pulled a fast one on him (brokered by VICTORIA NEWTON), getting the full story from McGreevy, then approaching the star in question, Phillip Schofield, and basically blackmailing him that they had all the sleazy facts from the horse's mouth. Newton offered to sit on McGreevy's expose, in exchange for an exclusive, and sympathetic version direct from Schofield, hence his sudden, baffling decision to go public about being gay.
Schofield's own agent brokered that 'coming out' deal with The Sun and 'This Morning', and ITV were of course fully on board with it, as was Holly Willoughby. It was a cynical stunt to protect ITV's 'golden boy' Phillip Schofield - a proven liar and sexual predator, who is widely disliked both by TV professionals and viewers! Why was Schofield worthy of all this privileged, kid glove handling? He was never a national treasure - Far from it, he isn't even liked, as everyone who has had the misfortune to work with him will confirm!
Narcissists and liars protect their own - Top ITV executives Emma Gormley, 'Dame Easyjet', the aptly named Kevin Lygo and creepy Martin Frizzell are up to their necks in this dirty mess, as is Holly Willoughby. They are all STILL lying about Phillip Schofield - but this time not to protect him, but themselves! The public is sick of being taken for fools, and TV production staff are sick of a bullying culture that creates monsters like Phil and Holly.
There is MUCH more to emerge still - Matthew McGreavy was not 15 when Schofield first met him - he was just TEN YEARS OLD. There's a photo to prove it. Schofield paid a celebrity visit to the children's theatre group up north McGreavy attended and the two are in a group photo (sex predators frequently champion children's causes/charities). That's why Schofield made a point of saying the relationship 'was not illegal' in an early statement. This was a clear case of a predator grooming a child, and abusing his power over a star struck, wannabe TV presenter!
And how did Schofiled first know him? He and his wife Stephanie were friends of Matthew's parents - this is an abuse of trust in every possible way.
No wonder Schofield desperately tried to distance himself from his perverted brother Timothy, who was recently jailed for grooming and sexually abusing young boys - they are two of a kind! Bring on the full, unvarnished TRUTH and let's see the rest of the liars at ITV finally get their comeuppance. There needs to be a domino effect with ITV execs and Holly Willoughby out the door next. THANK YOU Eamonn for doing the right thing and courageously speaking for so many who have been bullied and silenced for years by these toxic, power-crazed bullies. You are a STAR in every sense of the word!
4
-
@vasanthathangavelu695 Who is this 'us' you speak of? Not me, nor anyone I know, holds the late Princess Diana dear!
Most people are sensible, level-headed folk who never met the dead princess, and do not presume she was the blameless, saintly creature that you do, when there is so much evidence she was nothing of the kind!
On the contrary, Vasantha Thangavelu, most people do not share your false and sentimental delusions that you knew who Diana was, or indeed have any real and personal memories of her!
When Diana died, she had rejected many old friends due to real or imagined slights, leaving them devastated, and had not spoken to her own mother and brother for many months.
Diana was a spiteful, petty creature, who fully believed in going to bed on an argument - and in going to bed with other women's husbands too!
I wonder what kind of memories Julia Carling has of the self-obsessed, hook-nosed woman who ended her marriage to rugby player Will Carling before it was even 2 years old? Don't forget, Diana was a home wrecker!
4
-
Utter nonsense, Queen Elizabeth ll, as Britain's longest reigning monarch, is unsurpassed in respect or popularity by any other monarch or royal figure.
Diana doesn't even come close to HM the Queen as a popular and respected historical figure.
Princess Diana was only in that marriage to Prince Charles for the fabulous wealth, privilege and global fame life as a senior royal got her. She was sleeping with a long parade of men just 5 years in, with no intention of being a supportive wife to her husband, or of becoming Queen. That might have involved some work and commitment, things Diana wasn't keen on, but the Queen more than proved her dedication to over almost 70 years of service.
The original poster confuses mere good looks/a glamorous image, with character. Diana was photogenic and died young, which is why shallow people still fawn over her 24 years after she got herself killed with a playboy lover in a dumb car crash.
History - and intelligent people - judge public figures on rather more than a pretty face! Diana was a narcissistic airhead - her only legacy is her two sons.
4
-
@vasanthathangavelu695 But Diana didn't want Charles! She was bored to tears of him and sleeping with other men a mere 4 years into the marriage! She only used the fact he returned to his former love Camilla to get public sympathy. Diana shamelessly manipulated the media to present herself as a victim, when she was nothing of the kind.
You might as well believe in fairy tales, if you believe Diana's self-pitying BS! Watch videos of Charles and Diana's joint public appearances and especially their foreign tours from the late 'eighties. She doesn't disguise her hostility towards him. Is that a woman heartbroken and in love with her 'cheating' husband? No - it's a woman who couldn't care less what he's doing with Camilla, 'cos she's too busy juggling her own umpteen secret lovers. Many of them I might add, married men.
Diana regarded other women's husbands as an aphrodisiac, and a man who wore a wedding ring a challenge. She was a mistress many more times than Camilla, she was shameless about chasing married guys. She was a damn hypocrite pointing the finger at Camilla and saying "There were three people in the marriage", when she knew there were actually umpteen people crowding it out, and they were all her casual shags!
Diana's only legacy is two children - and the youngest Harry has turned out to be a spoiled, self pitying entitled brat like her! She achieved no lasting project while alive, despite having huge power to do good. She could easily have started a charity, opened a hospital in the third world, or launched any number of amazing projects to help needy people for decades to come. She had enough influence to enlist the help, support and donations of the world's most powerful people.
But to be fair to her though, she probably didn't have the time or energy after servicing the needs of all her illicit boyfriends! Frankly she was so promiscuous, it's a wonder she didn't walk bandy.
Camilla is a very impressive woman, and has already out-performed Diana with her wonderful work supporting women, as an advocate for domestic abuse victims. Domestic violence is a woefully under publicised and scarily common crime. In the UK alone, two women every week are killed by a partner or ex partner.
More must be done to alert women to the red flags indicating a partner could become a dangerous abuser. And more support is needed for women to escape such men. Too many have to stay in an abusive home, and a high risk situation, because they have nowhere to escape to and no resources to support themselves.
Which begs the question - if Charles was such a terrible husband, why was Diana so reluctant to divorce him? Don't you think it strange she was in no hurry to sever ties with this man she kept moaning had ruined her life? I know the answer to that - I'm curious to know if you do!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@linda_smilesrfree2744 You think William's mother-in-law decided he would marry her daughter Catherine, and that he had no say in the matter? What ignorant, offensive, misogynist claptrap! You read too many tabloids!
In fact there were many women far more 'suitable', enthusiastically lining up to marry the future King William. And their titled parents - well known to the royal family - were making their availability clear!
But William didn't go for those blue blooded aristocrats' daughters. He chose Catherine, who came from money (earned not inherited), but not from the world of privilege, titles and the British landed gentry. Perhaps he'd learned that lesson from his father's disastrous choice of bride.
Why wouldn't William have chosen Catherine? She is an exceptional and impressive woman - highly intelligent, practical, attractive and crucially, a supportive partner. William was far luckier than his poor father, who thanks to an archaic system was forced into an arranged marriage to the ghastly, vain, self-serving Diana, who was never the supportive wife he needed and deserved! Diana was too fundamentally narcissistic and self-obsessed to be a good wife to anyone.
Unlike Charles, William was able to not only choose his bride but get to know her over years, before committing to marriage. That way both she and he were confident the union would work when they walked down the aisle.
In contrast, Charles and Diana had met just 13 times before their engagement was announced! If Charles had known he was marrying a major league narcissist in it for the VIP status and fame, he'd have run for the hills!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@audreypickering577 Camilla and Prince Charles both endured unhappy marriages to adulterers.
Camilla's ex husband Andrew Parker Bowles was a renowned womaniser, and Princess Diana wantonly threw herself at a long procession of unsuitable men, some of them also married like her (eg Barry Mannakee, Will Carling and Oliver Hoare). She was far from the innocent, wronged wife she portrayed herself to the media!
If you want to point the finger at an adulterer and home-wrecker, it's Diana you should be looking at, not her former husband or Camilla. Their ONE affair with each other resulted in their happy marriage. Diana in contrast, broke up at least one marriage (Will Carling's), and tried to end more (Oliver Hoare's), for the cheap thrill of sexual kicks and shallow relationships that went nowhere near any kind of commitment!
Diana's 1995 BBC 'Panorama' interview was an exercise in breathtaking duplicity and hypocrisy. While she crucified Charles and Camilla in that bombshell, global TV interview, she was slyly hiding her own, multiple sexual liaisons. When Diana said there were 'three people in the marriage', she massively underestimated the true number, by omitting all her own extra marital affairs!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@devong7124 You are very perceptive - as a mother Diana behaved thoughtlessly and irresponsibly, flaunting her many affairs in front of her small children. And she was certainly no virginal 19 year old then, she was a woman of the world and had no such excuse!
She shamelessly introduced those innocent boys to many of her lovers, even the most casual of them - James Hewitt, James Gilbey and Will Carling were among the men she slyly told her sons were her 'friends'. I'm reliably informed there were many others.
Harry was younger, and so unaware of a lot of it. He was lucky to escape Diana's bad parenting relatively unscathed, though obviously her totally needless death in a car crash blighted his childhood and twenties. As the eldest and the more sensitive child who she frequently leaned on, poor Prince William got the brunt of her self indulgent and at times unwittingly cruel behaviour. The much repeated tale of him hearing her cry as the marriage deteriorated and handing her tissues, is a case in point. A good parent has empathy, cries secretly in the shower not where her kids can see or hear, and does not lean on her children for emotional support or burden them like that.
Nor does a good parent badmouth the other parent to their child/children, as Diana frequently slagged off Charles to their boys. The other parents belongs to that child, and provided 50% of their DNA. They love them, and that bond is sacred. Diana's criticism of their father to them was shocking hypocrisy when she was conducting so many affairs - as William and Harry realised when they became adults!
This is exactly why Prince William supports charities for mental health. He knows he was raised by a needy narcissist, whose bad parenting meant he needed intensive and ongoing psychotherapy to make sense of it and recover. Harry was luckier as the youngest child, as his manipulative mother didn't involve him in her personal life so much.
But perhaps in the long term, William was the lucky one. Because his suffering as a child at his mother's hands has made him the better man. It has given him great empathy for the suffering of others, and an authentic understanding of narcissistic personality disorder. And in Catherine he has chosen a wife as different from his mother in character as it's possible to be! Catherine is emotionally mature, stable, and a capable and loyal wife and mother - roles Diana was fundamentally unsuited to.
Harry's conduct has revealed him to be very like his damaged, self-centred mother. Sadly narcissists can breed narcissists! And they can marry them too - Harry wed a woman who shows signs of all Diana's same, egotistical vices and emotional instability. As a result, the future surely looks brighter for William, than it does for Harry.
Thanks for the nice things you said about my posts. I was given the opportunity to write a book on Charles and Diana 20 years ago, but declined. It's a very overcrowded market, and not one I felt inclined to join as I'm not sufficiently invested in anyone involved. I comment here from time to time because I'm tired of reading Diana's brazen, self-serving lies of 30 years ago re-heated and served up as gospel truth by her deluded fans!
Good chatting with someone who knows the difference between reality and propaganda! Wishing you health and happiness in 2022.
4
-
4
-
Utterly sickening when you consider the specific context and timing of this phone call. Letecia Stauch had murdered husband Al's much-loved 11-year-old child Gannon two weeks earlier, stabbing him 18 times, fracturing his skull with a heavy object, and shooting him three times with a firearm, the final bullet shattering his jaw and spine. That evil PoS made absolutely sure Gannon was dead!
She then shoved his brutalised corpse into a suitcase and dumped it out in the February snow. Incredibly while he was missing, she visited his remains several times (unseen by idiot police, who should have been tailing her). Finally she took the body on a morbid,10 hour road trip across country, and hurled it off a freeway bridge. She gave sweet, innocent Gannon the most violent and squalid death possible.
To hear her weeping and wailing for herself, as she tells Al Stauch a pack of lies, witters on about 'Immunity', and shows she cares only about saving her own neck, is totally enraging!
This woman put far too much elaborate planning and forethought into that poor child's murder and the subsequent cover-up, for her to successfully plead 'Insanity'! It's crystal clear she knew right from wrong when she killed Gannon - because she poured so much effort into getting away with the crime, before, during and after. She's not mad - just BAD to the bone.
4
-
4
-
@AliceWilson-w9m Richard Allen approached the authorities soon after the murders in February 2017 and pretty much confessed to being 'Bridge Guy', ie the man recorded following the girls across the bridge on Liberty German's Smartphone video. There's no question it's him - he said so himself!
Allen stated he was at the trails/crime scene at the exact same time as the incident, confirmed he crossed the bridge, and even said he was wearing the same clothes seen on the man in the video. He was obviously panicked that video of him, as well as witness sightings, would identify him, and decided to 'get in front' of the story by putting himself forward as a witness, not the killer, and acting innocent.
The chances of Allen being at the trails at the time of the murders, wearing the same outfit, as the suspect, and being recorded following the victims across the bridge (it's clearly him) - and NOT being the killer - are close to zero.
I don't believe you have your facts right. Hopefully more reliable and detailed information about the case than is currently being peddled online, will emerge at trial.
Sadly the bungled police investigation - and its crazy over-emphasis on secrecy - has inevitably allowed all kinds of misinformation and even elaborate conspiracy theories to fill the information void. It has also understandably weakened public faith that the guilty man has been charged.
I'm confident had an experienced and competent team of detectives been running the show from the start, Richard Allen would have been arrested and charged within two weeks of the murders. If he had, there would be far less opportunity for the armchair detectives, naysayers and conspiracy theorists to make merry with the case.
Senior police responsible for the severely flawed murder investigation, chiefly Supt Doug Carter, should be held fully accountable for their mistakes when the trial is concluded. Thanks to them, a highly dangerous man has walked free for five years. But the additional and prolonged suffering their incompetence has caused Libby and Abby's loved ones, is unforgivable.
4
-
@theresaburdett1054 You just posted three equally crazy and gullible rants about Princess Diana, a dead celebrity you didn't know personally and never even met. Why are you so obsessed? Your fan worship is weird and frankly creepy!
If anyone 'screwed around' it wasn't Charles, it was Diana - with MANY lovers, some of them married!
She deliberately pursued and bedded married men for the hell of it, without a thought for their wives. Often the poor wife was in the same room, at the same social gathering, when Diana slipped her husband her private phone number. Seducing married men was a nasty kink of hers. Ask Julia Carling what she thinks of the 'Queen of Tarts' - Diana broke up her marriage to Will Carling, just 2 years after they wed!
Charles' affair was with one woman only, and it was a love match as he went on to marry her.
Diana had a nerve slyly setting up the 'Panorama' interview to bat her lashes and act the innocent wronged wife, when she knew damn fine there were many more than 'three people in the marriage' - her long queue of casual lovers made it VERY crowded!
Not all of her affairs/one night stands have been reported by the media. She was even more promiscuous than the many lovers whose names are in the public domain suggest. Diana really put it about!
Diana was 19 when she eagerly jumped into an arranged marriage to the future king that would make her a high ranking Princess and future Queen of England, world famous and super rich, with the highest possible VIP status.
That's why she set her cap at Charles, she was determinedly to win all the glittering prizes that came with becoming Princess of Wales. If you believe it was 'love' you need to stick to reading Mills & Boon romances - reality is clearly far beyond your understanding!
4
-
@theresaburdett1054 To be jealous of an obnoxious, vain, egotistical woman who now lies rotting in a black dress in a lead-lined coffin, would be almost as ridiculous as hero-worshipping the air-headed slapper as you do, as a saintly Mother Teresa figure!
Almost as ridiculous - but not quite.
The biggest irony of your loyalty to Diana, is that she wouldn't have cared a toss about you, unless you were of use to her in some way. Rich enough to show her a good time, tragic enough to give her a photo opportunity - or married to a man attractive enough for her to take to bed behind your back.
Diana hated women. William and Harry dodged a bullet if they did but know it - their neurotic mother would have loathed their wives for being young and beautiful, while she struggled with losing her looks and the limelight. Her sons would have been constantly pulled in two directions in a tug of love between their wives and the controlling, desperately insecure Diana.
I so wish Diana had lived. Dead at 36, idiots like you continue to idolise her purely because she's forever photogenic. You're just as shallow as she was!
Had she lived, her true poisonous, manipulative character would have become obvious, along with the lines, jowls and grey hair. She'd have inevitably faded into obscurity, as her sex appeal diminished. In the absence of intellect, wit or wisdom, her looks were the biggest thing she had to offer.
Bitter and twisted that the media no longer fawned over her but instead closely followed her son's wives, Diana would have had more and more disastrous cosmetic surgery, in a doomed battle to fight the ravages of time. She'd have become a pitiful figure like the equally self-absorbed Princess Margaret before her, unable to make a second marriage work, and living on her past glories.
How I wish Diana had lived, it would have been great fun to see the sad old bag she'd have undoubtedly become!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Doug Carter was complacent from the start. His inexperience in homicide cases, meant he just assumed someone would recognise 'bridge guy' from the one still image he put out (why didn't he release the whole 40 second video from day one for pity's sake???)
When no one came forward he STILL sat on Libby's video of the killer for two whole years! Unbelievable! This TV interviewer should have asked him why he withheld that video from the public. There was no good reason whatsoever for holding it back. If it had only been shown when people's memories were fresh, someone could have remembered what he was wearing that day, his schedule or some other detail that linked him to the murders, and called police with his name.
That 14 year old girl was scared out of her mind, her inner alarm bells ringing, telling her that man was dangerous. But still she had the courage and presence of mind to video him. Libby gave law enforcement the best ever piece of evidence they could have hoped for - moving footage and audio if the killer. And they failed to share it with the public far and wide from the get-go, as they should have.
As a senior police officer once told me, when I was a national newspaper reporter: "Police don't solve crimes - the public do". How right he was. It's a truth totally lost on Doug Carter! If I were the victims' loved ones, on the five year anniversary I'd be demanding Carter and team be sidelined and replaced with FBI officers experienced in handling homicides. Abby and Libby deserve justice - and ALL women and girls are in danger while that maniac remains at large,
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Lifeletnothingholdudown So now you're letting Diana off the hook for her home-wrecking because her marriage failed? Oh please! Grow up - many people have failed marriages, it isn't an excuse to chase other women's husbands and sleep around, as she did. Diana was a grown woman, and a mother of two young children, she had no business acting like a teenager.
The divorce wasn't the great tragedy Diana pretended, to get public sympathy. Lots of people divorce - and she came out of it with £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace home and servants, and VIP status for life. A privileged life she stupidly threw away at 36 by running around Paris with a playboy coke-addict!
It simply isn't true to claim Diana was heartbroken over the failure of her marriage. She was totally bored of her husband, as she made painfully clear on their joint public appearances! She didn't care what Charles did or with whom, while they were leading separate lives - him at rural Highgrove, Gloucestershire, and her in glamorous London. She was having far too much fun! But she was determined to crucify him and Camilla for the 'sin' of loving each other - while she was throwing her knickers at men left, right and centre. Diana was a scheming hypocrite!
It's not even as though Charles was some terrible womaniser - he wasn't. He was just a senior royal forced into an arranged marriage to a 'suitable' girl - who turned out to be most unsuitable! Then he got blamed for it because Diana kept running to the media with her false stories of a supposedly wronged, innocent wife. What a joke! She was lucky the internet was not around, while she was bedding a cast of thousands - she would never have been able to sneak around as she did, and get away with her promiscuity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes he does - I have worked with Eamonn and also Phillip Schofield, and like everyone else who has personal experience of the two men I can confirm they are chalk and cheese. Production staff love Eamonn - ask anyone who has had direct dealings with him, he's a thoroughly decent, warm and down to earth guy, who has time for everyone on the team.
At the BBC, Eamonn would host a fun, Christmas 'pub quiz' event for production staff from cameramen to researchers, at TV Centre. He was fantastic, high energy, ad libbing and joking throughout, and he did it for free, out of the kindness of his heart, just because he was asked to. That's the kind of guy he is. Thanks to him it was a fun event many people enjoyed and looked forward to. I cannot imagine Phillip Schofield ever doing the same for lowly production staff - at least, not without a big fat fee!
Schofield is the polar opposite of Eamonn. Many people are glad to see Schofield finally get his comeuppance. He's totally up himself, a narcissist who thinks he's far too important to bother with 'the little people' ie the producers, researchers etc who work hard to make him look good.
As the saying goes, be careful how you treat people on the way up - because you might meet them again on the way down. Phillip Schofield is now reaping what he sowed!
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EckerKyle You nailed it when you used the word 'Interpret'. Unfortunately (as some of these comments demonstrate), not every jury is mentally equipped to accurately interpret a criminal case which features more circumstantial than forensic evidence.
I've seen comments here stating that murder trials should not be held if there is no body - as if the victim's corpse is the only possible way to prove a/ they are dead and b/ they were killed by the defendant! That shows worrying ignorance. If murder could only be proved by the victim's body, every killer would do their best to hide or destroy it for a guaranteed free pass from prosecution!
As it is, killers like Propokovitz and Patrick Frazee already assume they'll escape justice by wiping out their victim's corpse. Thankfully both men were wrong, and their evil crime was revealed by a mass of other, multi-layered evidence. And ironically, as I said earlier, the killer who makes huge efforts to get rid of the victim, may wind up drawing attention to himself and his role in their death!
Fact is, evidence takes many forms other than physical/forensic proof. A lot is expected from a jury - they must analyse the meaning and significance of a mass of facts. The truth does not come signposted - the jury must work hard to find it. A group of smart people with common sense and critical thinking skills, should between them be able to work out the most credible version of events presented in court, and accurately judge guilt or innocence accordingly.
Respect to this jury for taking their time, asking the questions they needed to ask, and reaching what I believe was undoubtedly the right, guilty verdict.
If James Propokovitz had got away with this murder, it would encourage other killers to have faith in the 'No body - No crime', myth. This case also sends a strong message out that police won't give up on justice, for domestic violence victims and their grieving families. Many years may pass before cops knock on the door - but they will come for those who thought they got away with killing an inconvenient spouse!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@3_up_moon Exactly right! Isn't it strange, how some people seek to project positive qualities like guilt and remorse onto a man who strangled his fiance to death, abandoned her body to rot in the elements, and drove himself home to his mommy & daddy in her van, stealing $1,000 of her cash en route?
Worse, he hid behind Mommy's skirts and an attorney, refused to share Gabby's fate with her desperate loved ones, and then ran away before searches located her strangled body.
Now we find he's killed himself because he was too gutless and egotistical to face the world's disgust and rage at his appalling crime against a woman he should have loved and protected. Dirty Laundrie never loved Gabby, he only ever cared about himself. Suicide was his final, selfish act, cheating Gabby and her family of justice, so he could dodge a death sentence and all the bigger psychopaths he'd have inevitably been 'bitch' to. He literally got away with murder - and his grotty parents escaped the shame of his high profile murder trial and many miserable years of visits to peanut-head in a maximum security prison.
However Chris and Roberta Laundrie should not escape justice for harbouring a killer son, aiding and abetting him and withholding evidence. Their callous disrespect for Gabby, a woman who had shared their home for the last two years, is shocking and should not go unpunished.
Their son had the dignity of dying by his own hand - in stark contrast, Gabby was terrorised and murdered by the man she loved and trusted, strangled to death in the most horrific betrayal imaginable. Brian's creepy parents deserve only contempt. After messing this case up every step of the way, police should belatedly do something to show support for abuse victims like Gabby, and prosecute the dirty Laundries to the full extent of the law.
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's an excellent point. Mr Jobe was very professional, patient and kind with Bart Halderson, a man he never met, but unwittingly crossed paths with just once, through that fateful telephone conversation. It must have been so shocking when he later learned from police the background and significance of that seemingly mundane phone call.
We can all be guilty of introspection, and not having time or patience for other people. But I agree, none of us knows the secret sorrows another human being carries on their back. In all our human encounters, however brief, we should strive to be kind. We may never meet that person again. Who knows, our interaction could happen on the last day of their, or our life, as was tragically the case here.
Rest easy now in blissful peace, Bart and Krista. You were deeply loved by a great many people, and you did your best.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Look how upset that poor lady is at the memory of Chandler Halderson, her daughter's boyfriend, arriving at the home of her and her partner unannounced and uninvited, and then brazenly getting into their swimming pool with them while her partner was topless.
But that disrespect was nothing compared to the appalling disrespect he had just paid them, without their knowledge. She now knows exactly why he was so anxious to wash himself off in their swimming pool - he had just offloaded the rotting torso of his murdered father Bart on their private land! I wonder how many sleepless nights those two women have suffered as a result of that disgusting creep's horrific crimes?
Chandler is an arrogant, spoiled, entitled narcissistic abuser and murderer of the worst possible kind. He had so many people fooled with his harmless 'nice guy' act. Even his thoroughly decent parents Bart and Krista, who loved and supported him from birth, and were rewarded with brutal murders at his hands!
That the adored and idolised Chandler not only killed his mother and father, but piled on the humiliation by dismembering and scattering their corpses so that various others would see their body parts and he shocked by them, is despicable!
Photos of Bart's headless, limbless corpse callously dumped on Dulce Mellender and Cresent L'sai's property can be easily found and viewed through Google. Poor Bart. He was a proud man - and that's what Chandler thought of him. We'll probably never got to the truth of why he hated his mom and dad so much. There's no reasonable or rational explanation for his crimes. But there must be more to this horror story than we know.
The only revealing things Chandler told police about his parents' homicides before he totally clammed up and pleaded 'Not Guilty', were that he didn't regret them. That's an interesting statement. What in his warped mind, had Bart and Krista done to deserve their cruel fates? The mind boggles.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joebaby1975 I agree. I believe Grant is a psychopath, and that if studies were made of his brain they would confirm that.
A psychopath has weak neurological pathways to the areas that control emotions like love, empathy, guilt and fear. This explains why psychopaths are able to kill people who love them, and why they have no guilt about it and do not even fear being caught.
I don't feel it was inevitable Grant would become a killer. Psychopaths, while born with physically different brains to non psychopaths, can become healthy, functioning and loving adults if they have a good childhood. By which I mean raised by loving parents (which happened here), and clear boundaries laid down and enforced (which clearly did not).
Grant was over-indulged by his parents (and by Cody, the brother he murdered, too). Which suggests his parents regarded him as vulnerable and deserving of special treatment as the youngest child, and the most physically weak of the family. Their view of Grant was obviously instilled in his siblings, who also over indulged him - Cody worked full time at a hospital to support Grant, who did not work after being fired from his pharmacist job for stealing. Cody also paid $15,000 for an internet addiction therapy course for Grant - which true to form, he absconded from after just 2 weeks.
So a child born with a psychopath's brain was overindulged, and raised without clear boundaries, and without facing consequences for bad behaviour. This was a recipe for disaster. Grant became a dangerously spoiled and entitled fantasist. Sending $200,000 to an attractive women while posing as a millionaire was a fantasy for him - he knew he would never meet her, that he was not a millionaire and that if she ever met him, she would decline his marriage proposal. He was buying a fantasy, with stolen money.
When his day of reckoning finally came, and his parents threw him out of their house and made him face some consequences, it was the first time that had ever happened to him. And he couldn't take it. He was by this time a dangerous, immature man-child - with access to a firearm. Grant pulled the trigger - but his family played a crucial role in creating their killer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
You do not know that the 19-year-old was 'pressured' by his father into doing the Titan trip! You are accepting wholesale a version of events given by his aunt alone (and widely reported by sensationalist mass media), which is totally contradicted by his mother and other family members.
In fact Suleman Dawood had contacted the Guinness World Records before the dive, to register his intention to complete a unique Rubiks Cube challenge aboard the Titan sub, close to the Titanic wreck. He was obsessed with Rubiks Cubes, and excited about this quirky challenge and his imminent creation of a new world record. That does not sound like a young man who was afraid, or doing the Titanic trip against his will just to please his father!
I feel Stockton Rush found the perfect passengers, by targeting multi millionaires. The super-rich not only have the disposable income available to bankroll his aquatic ego trip, they tend to possess an innate confidence that nothing terrible will happen to them. Money protects you from life's 'bumps in the road', and huge amounts of money can even convince you you're immortal.
Stockton Rush, a narcissist at the extreme end of the spectrum, was an accomplished snake oil salesman. His sales pitch to flog $250k apiece Titan tickets to the rich was slick and persuasive. He would tell them a deep dive to Titanic on his submersible was statistically lower risk than crossing the road. He also quoted the impressive safety record of submersible vehicles, in their 60 year history (a record achieved not by him with his dodgy carbon fibre coke can, but by all the professionals down the decades who observed the rules and maintained far higher standards than OceanGate, across the board).
So despite the multiple mentions of death in the waiver Titan passengers signed, I recognise why so many wealthy adventurers trusted OceanGate. After all, Stockton Rush put his money where his mouth is and was aboard the Titan on every Titanic dive. His presence alone would have reassured them of the sub's safety.
4
-
Because psychopaths like CW are parasites who exploit other people for their own selfish ends, then when they are done with them, dump them like trash - in Chris Watts' case, literally dump them like trash. Chris Watts was drawn to a strong woman like Shanann because he is weak and introverted - the guy can barely wipe his own ass! Her financial independence will have appealed to him too (always a hard worker, Shanann owned her own $400k home when she met him). He is a weak man, no drive or personality - that's why he hitched his wagon to the charismatic, capable Shanann, she made him look good and raised his status in society. Marriage to her suited him very well, until his eldest child was 4 and he got bored and wanted out. The killings were always likely/inevitable at some point but the timing was triggered by three things - his affair, his financial worries and most urgently, the new pregnancy. As a psychopath he never loved his wife or kids, only pretended to, to get what he wanted. When he no longer wanted them, they were totally expendable in his mind. He is the worst kind of psycho - a narcissistic one. He did not want the financial burden of the family, so divorce wasn't enough for him, murder was the perfect, logical solution to his problem, in his cold, psychopathic mind. Chilling to think that this time last year, Shanann thought she was a happily married woman with a bright future.
4
-
Yep, Jussie Smollett took the three things he cared about more than anything or anyone in the world - his public image, his career and his reputation - and flushed 'em down the toilet. And he is not emerging from that $hitty U-bend ever again!
All because he thought he was a black talent on a level with the biggest names in the business, like Samuel L Jackson, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. Not even close - as his utterly lousy acting in the role of innocent victim since he pulled that stunt proves!
Smollett was incredibly lucky to land a well-paid role in a niche, black-themed TV series (trading on his partial black heritage again). But he wasn't grateful for that - oh no. That taste of success only made him more entitled and greedy, and more convinced he deserved MORE money, fame and adulation.
What a total and utter TOOL. 🤣🤣🤣His career is OVER - and as the Judge told him, he did it all to himself! The court of public opinion is the one that really counts in cases like these involving public figures, and they've given him a life sentence.
He's finished as any kind of credible celebrity - and no real celebrity is going to want to work with him, or even be seen with him in public, ever again. If Smollett has the nerve to walk any red carpets in future, he'll find real stars backing away from him in droves, like he just farted!
4
-
@terririckert7069 Camilla was always a better woman than Diana. Camilla had one affair with Charles, the love of her life who she ended up happily married to. Diana had countless extra marital affairs - many with other women's husbands! And she would never have been happy with one man, as Camilla is. Diana is too narcissistic and needy for any mere man to have made her happy, that's why she slept around, with Dodi Al Fayed her final conquest.
Diana was promiscuous, Camilla was not.
Camilla is a genuine, down to earth, lovely woman who her stepsons William and Harry are very fond of. Diana was a vain, vacuous, mirror-obsessed, manipulative, devious husband-shagger, who hated other women.
She was also a lousy mother who died because she didn't give her two dependent sons a thought when she was having fun in Paris with a coke-addicted Arab playboy, and fasten her seat belt!
Poor William and Harry had to grow up knowing their mother didn't care enough about them to wear a damn seat belt. They must be very disappointed in her.
The only reason Diana fans worship her and attack Camilla, is that Diana was more photogenic. You are even more shallow than she was! A person's looks are not what make them a great person, look into their mind and heart and judge them there. Camilla is and always was the better woman.
4
-
Oh the hypocrisy of human beings - especially rich and famous ones. And the late Kirk Douglas was among the wealthiest and most celebrated. He was also a rapist, who in his 103 years on the planet escaped consequences (namely, ruin), after repeatedly raping 16-year-old starlet Natalie Wood in a brutal, prolonged assault in an LA hotel room, in the Summer of 1955. The legendary Hollywood actor and producer had lured her there on the pretext of an 'audition'.
Natalie emerged from the Chateau Marmont Hotel after several hours, bloodied, bruised and traumatised, and got into the waiting car of her mother (who'd set up the meeting, thinking powerful movie maker Douglas would help her career), and her 8-year-old sister Lana.
In the mid-Fifties there was no question of Natalie or her ambitious stage-mother, reporting Kirk Douglas to police. It would have led to nothing for Douglas, already an icon aged 38, married to second wife Anne Buydens for one year, in his personal and professional prime and at the height of his global stardom. But it would have meant certain ruin for the teenage Natalie Wood and the movie career she was working so hard to progress from child star to leading lady.
That vicious rape eventually reached public notice, due to the fame of the victim. We can only guess how many other, unknown starlets got the same 'Kirk Douglas treatment', at a bogus hotel 'audition'.
Michael Douglas knows full well what his father did to Natalie Wood. Rumours of the rape swirled for years, and resurfaced post Harvey Weinstein, over the 'Me Too' movement. Questions were asked openly, after 101-year-old Kirk joined daughter-in-law Catherine Zeta Jones at the 2018 'Golden Gobes', wheeled onstage to a standing ovation from Hollywood names including Sharon Stone, Steven Spielberg, Gary Oldman, Michelle Pfieffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Ewan McGregor. Those stars too will have heard the Natalie Wood story. When Douglas died in 2020, Natalie Wood's name trended alongside his.
No doubt Judi Dench knows too, but as we've already seen from her friendships with (and defence of) rapists Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein, she couldn't care less, as long as the powerful predators in question are kissing her ass. As for Graham Norton - he's one of the most un-principled, self-serving ass-kissers in the business. The privileged protect their own!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
British aristocrat, 36 year old, grown woman Constance Marten, who due to an accident of birth was born to wealth and privilege most can only dream of, knowingly and determinedly bore convicted rapist Mark Gordon FIVE children. She has no excuse - birth control is easily, readily available in the UK - and it's FREE!
Time and time again, Constance Marten gave birth, then sided with her vile rapist lover against her own, innocent, defenceless, flesh and blood babies. And repeatedly those poor infants had to be taken into care, for their own safety and well being.
We'll never know the depths of cruelty and depravity her surviving four babies endured at the hands of their twisted parents. But we do know their youngest child Victoria could not survive their horrific neglect, as they camped-out with her 'off grid' night after night, in freezing Winter conditions. On the run from authorities who could have saved their tiny newborn daughter's life, all Marten and Gordon cared about was keeping custody and control - whatever the tragic cost to her!
Just think about that mother's serial barbarity/child abuse for a moment. Constance Martin is no mother - she is a MONSTER. And for some reason she is being allowed to sit out these legal proceedings, which would rightly hold her accountable for Victoria's death.
Victoria, was simply too tiny, vulnerable and needy, to survive her mother's disgusting, warped priorities. Put simply, her mother who should without question have loved and prioritised Victoria above every other person on the planet, instead prioritised her baby girl's vicious, gutless, sex predator father.
That precious little girl died as a direct result of her narcissistic parents' gross negligence. Mother and Father went on the run with Victoria, sleeping in a cheap Argos tent, travelling in taxis costing hundreds of pounds, sleeping rough in the middle of the UK's freezing Winter with totally inadequate baby clothing, equipment or skills to keep that baby safe and alive. SHAME ON THEM!
This appalling crime proves so-called 'class', which has continues to underpin inequality in the UK today, means nothing whatsoever. Despite her supposed'blue blood', Constance Marten has no class whatsoever. THROW THE BOOK AT HER AND HER RAPIST LOVER!
4
-
4
-
The podcast launched by convicted multiple murderer Lori Daybell's Uncle Rex Connor and brother Adam Cox is called 'Silver Linings'. What a weird title.
How can the murders of two innocent, defenceless children, seven year old JJ and 16 year old Tylee (plus the killers' two, equally surplus to requirements spouses Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell), have any, quote 'silver lining'?
The Connor/Cox podcast, and its accompanying book, smacks of cynical profiteering off the heinous murders of innocent human beings. Where were they when their innocent relatives' lives were in danger???
If I were Rex or Adam, I would be far too distraught, and far too busy beating myself up that I'd failed to save the lives of my brother-in-law, and niece & nephew/great niece and nephew, to set up a damn podcast or write a book. Frankly, I would be attending professional psychotherapy sessions forevermore, and spending the rest of my life racked with guilt that I didn't lift a finger to stop the murderous campaign of violence of the evil, unholy trinity Lori, Alex and Chad.
If Lori's family had only supported Charles Vallow when he first told them she had threatened to kill him, many murders may have been prevented, including the depraved slaughter of two vulnerable children.
The hand wringing of these two men, as guests of any YouTube channel that will have them, is - Hmmm, let's just say belated, to put it kindly!
4
-
Marie Hackett At least the Laundries don't have to suffer the agony of knowing their child was brutally murdered - and by someone he loved, trusted and planned a life with - as Gabby was brutally murdered by their son Brian!
No one ever expected Chris and Roberta Laundrie to appear on TV and explain themselves. What has shocked so many is their callous disregard for Gabby Petito and her parents, and their refusal to respond to that devastated family's private questions sent by phone and text message.
As parents themselves, it was shocking they could so cruelly ignore Gabby's family, desperately worried about her safety. And let's not forget, Gabby had lived in the Laundrie home for the last two years - didn't they care about her?! Of course the reality is now all too clear - their son Brian had told them he killed Gabby, hence their decision to use the services of a lawyer and keep their collective mouths shut. They totally forgot about Gabby's tragedy, in their unseemly haste to protect their son from the consequences of his evil actions.
We can only guess at the end game Chris, Roberta and Brian decided on. Was the plan for him to escape justice for good with suicide? Could his parents have packed him off with enough drugs to do the deed? Frankly the Laundries have behaved so bizarrely, I can't put anything past them. Or was he just hiding out awhile, and got attacked by a crocodile? Whatever happened to him, I cannot mourn his passing. He murdered a much-loved young woman with her whole life ahead of her. May he rot in hell for all eternity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JP-xu7gh I totally agree. It's all ancient history, and at the end of the day it was a failed marriage, that is all - which let's face it many good things emerged from, including William and Harry!
It's sad the hardcore Diana fans cling to her warped version of events (she didn't want Charles, as she made clear to him, but didn't want him happy with Camilla). The reality was she was equally responsible for the failure of her marriage.
Diana had a damn nerve pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she was committing adultery with a string of men - some of them married! The Princess of Wales was a vindictive hypocrite. Like the classic narcissist she was, she presented herself as a victim, while living a life of unimaginable privilege - and now history repeats, as her youngest Harry is following in her spoiled, self-indulgent footsteps! It's a funny old world.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In 1993, Paul Denyer was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences with no parole. However he appealed and in 1994
won a sentence reduction to a non-parole period of 30 years only, allowing him to apply for parole from 2023. That is an outrage and a huge slap in the face to women and girls, who must be protected from violent deviants like him.
Denyer is only 52 years old as I type this in 2024, he remains a relatively young and strong man. But in fact it would not be safe to release him if he were 82, because sexually motivated serial killers like him remain a danger to females forevermore - they cannot be rehabilitated.
Killers in his category simply should not be eligible for parole, ever. The rights of citizens to be safe, should rank far above the supposed 'rights' of convicted murderers to regain their freedom. In 2004 Denyer began claiming he was a 'transgender woman', and calling himself Paula. He denied his earlier admission that he hated women, saying the real reason for the murders was his 'gender dysphoria', which made him envious and resentful of females. Utter garbage!
His prison requests for sex change surgery were refused - he has since reverted back to his name Paul. As one victim's family member said, it was a stunt.
It's totally wrong victims' loved ones suffer the stress of this freak's repeated parole applications. Throw away the key!
4
-
@gabriel39495 In fact there were not one but two two independent 911 witness reports of Brian slapping and hitting Gabby, and cops were aware of both. That's strong corroborating evidence of HIS abuse.
The ignorant assumptions about domestic abuse you're describing. are sadly all-too common among the general public. It's high time people were better educated, to recognise the red flags of abusers like Brian and escape them..
But police are professionals, dealing with these toxic relationships every day. It's frankly shocking that the bodycam footage revealed such huge inadequacies in their domestic abuse training. They should know better and do better, than to simply accept what the victim and abuser tell them at face value!
It was very predictable Gabby would cover for Brian. Victims frequently collude with and protect their abuser, not wanting to get him in trouble/arrested, officers should have expected that and viewed it with healthy scepticism. And Brian was bound to look after number one, like the extreme covert narcissist he is. That's the standard victim/abuser dynamic. Yet clearly cops didn't know that, weren't familiar with the standard behaviours, and totally believed both Gabby and Brian's acts!
No wonder Brian was grinning broadly at the end of the video. He had totally fooled those police officers with his meek, cooperative 'good guy' act, and manipulated their perceptions to such a degree thatthey actually thought his victim was the perpetrator. That was a disastrous and very basic mistake by law enforcement! This footage needs to be used in future to better train all police on domestic abuse cases - including the men in the video.
Police only made a bad situation worse. Had they handled this encounter very differently, correctly identified the victim and the perpetrator and treated them accordingly, Gabby might well be alive today. If I were her parents, I would be utterly enraged at those police officers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
1:27 Dodi Al Fayed 'looked after' Diana so well, he provided her with a drunk, drugged and reckless chauffeur who killed her! What utter rubbish the old bat talks. Diana wasn't in love with that Arab playboy, any more than he was in love with her. His father put him up to romancing Diana - scheming Mohammed Al Fayed wanted the reflected prestige of Diana's royal credentials. He was desperate for his son to bed and wed her - and Dodi (always under daddy's thumb), obliged, breaking off his engagement to American model Kelly Fisher. Dodi - very unchivalrously - dumped Fisher by phone, just 2 days before their wedding! Fisher was suing Dodi for breach of promise, when he was killed in that totally needless crash alongside Diana.
Diana was so dumb and vain, she was actually flattered by the Al Fayeds' attention, and never once saw they were using her for her royal pedigree and prestige. She actually believed their attention and flattery was all about her! But she was using Dodi too. During the holiday she was constantly on the phone to her Fleet Street pals to get photos of her and 'new love' Dodi onto the front pages.
She was actually in love with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, who had ended their relationship just weeks before, when he decided he could not marry Diana and live at the centre of her media-obsessed life. A down to earth and shy man, Khan was dismayed to hear Diana had visited his family without his knowledge, during a trip to Pakistan with Imran and Jemima Khan. She wanted to pressure him into marriage by charming his relatives, but it backfired on her. Khan was not a man to be manipulated. Nor would seeing tabloid photos of her with a new man have changed his mind, as she hoped. Her childish scheme to make Hasnat jealous by sleeping with Dodi Al Fayed was a waste of time - and it cost her her life.
On her divorce from Charles, the Queen offered Diana her own, top class, Scotland Yard security team of bodyguards and driver for life. The Queen felt Diana's status as mother of the future king justified that top level of protection. Had Diana accepted her former mother-in-law's generous offer, she would not have died in Paris a year later. But with typical petty peevishness, Diana refused the kind of world class protection money can't buy. She did not even hire her own personal security team, as her whopping £17 million divorce settlement from Charles would easily have funded.
And so she went on that final, fatal vacation without a single protection officer of her own. Diana was one of the most famous people in the world - and the grubby Al Fayeds had more bodyguards and staff! Diana stupidly handed her safety and security to the shady Mohammed Al Fayed, a man whose well-documented business dealing showed what an unscrupulous, unreliable individual he was. And she compounded that schoolgirl error by failing to wear her seat belt. Safety experts agreed, had Diana only remembered her sons and fastened her seat belt, as any responsible parent of dependent children would, she'd have survived the Parish crash with a broken arm and bruising. Diana was the architect of her own doom.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think his parents knew he was weird from a young age, but rather than face it and get him psychiatric help, they were in denial, told him he was special and treated him as such. He grew up believing it - and became dangerously entitled. If there is anyone alive who knows the realities of his childhood, I wouldn't be surprised if it featured some really disturbing behaviour that should have rung alarm bells, eg deliberate toileting 'mishaps' and cruelty to animals.
I think they threw money at the problem, believing they were protecting him by paying all his bills and keeping him at college all through his twenties. But that isn't good for any child, as it stops them maturing and learning the life skills we all need to get on with others and negotiate the adult world of work.
Obviously the Guys could not support him forever! When they belatedly stopped his funding, 10 years after they should have done, he was ill equipped to cope. They had removed his need to earn a living, so he'd never even had a part time job! it's doubtful he could envisage holding down a job and living independently - and it seems that must have been his parents view of him.
The violence he showed them before and after death showed huge rage. I think he wound up resenting all the support they gave him, which ultimately didn't help him to develop as a man, but kept him dependant on them. They didn't deserve to be murdered, but their poor parenting did play a part in moulding the monster he became. As the saying goes: 'No good deed goes unpunished'.
4
-
just 123 And do you have a collection of Princess Diana dolls too? The naivety of Diana fans never ceases to astonish! Diana fell out of love with Charles just as much as he did with her, and they both had affairs - Charles was with ONE woman, Diana's was with UMPTEEN men. That really says it all!
Diana pushed her luck by presenting herself to the public as a whiter-than-white Mother Theresa on the Panorama interview, and with the Andrew Morton book she slyly sanctioned. Her skulduggery backfired on her big time, when the Queen saw her Panorama hatchet job on Charles and ordered them to divorce. And then the truth began to emerge about Diana's many casual extra marital affairs. Turned out there weren't 'three people' in the marriage as Diana claimed, but a cast of hundreds - all of them HER lovers!
She may have been a virgin on her wedding day but sly Di more than made up for it after marrying Charles! Her big kink was pursuing other women's husbands, so she was a damned hypocrite acting the betrayed wife - she betrayed MANY wives, among them Mrs Barry Mannakee, Mrs Will Carling and Mrs Oliver Hoare. Ask those poor women what they think about the Queen of Tarts bedding their men!
If Charles was such a villain why didn't Diana want to divorce him? Because she loved the status of being his wife, and didn't want to give him his freedom to marry Camilla - despite the fact she didn't want him herself! It was spiteful, dog-in-a-manger stuff but the Queen wisely put paid to it and rightly retrieved the HRH title which Diana had trampled all over in her size 9s.
You are woefully ignorant about ancient traditions regarding the royal family's priceless gems. That necklace was only available to Diana while she was Charles' wife - this was alluded to in the documentary, when it stated Diana had to return any such jewellery on her divorce. The necklace was a royal treasure, like the tiaras, an irreplaceable item of historic significance that could never leave the royal family. It was not a personal gift between husband and wife like the gold charm bracelet.
Diana would have fully understood the rules regarding that necklace and all jewellery that came from the royal collection. She was born into the aristocracy with close links to the royal family going back many generations I suggest you educate yourself on royal history and traditions, you'll learn a lot and it's a fascinating subject.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lorrainetavares1308 But if Charles hadn't married Diana, she'd have missed out on all the glamour, fame, wealth and privilege she was so desperate to get her paws on - the only reasons she married Prince Charles!
She didn't marry him for love, she admitted she only met him 13 times before they were engaged. She hardly knew him. She emerged from St Paul's Cathedral after their wedding with a big smug grin, like the cat that got the cream. She knew she was set up for life! Just 4 years later she started sleeping around with a long list of different men, many of them other women's husbands. Diana was a shameless homewrecker. How she had the nerve to criticise Camilla for doing what she couldn't - loving Charles - when she herself broke up Will and Julia Carling's two year marriage and threatened many others' including Oliver Hoare's, I will never know. She was a stinking hypocrite! She worked very hard sneaking around and having lovers brought to her home in the boot of her car, to ensure she kept her grubby promiscuity and married lovers out of the headlines.
She was also mentally unstable, as proven by the fact she made over 300 malicious, anonymous phone calls to Hoare after he ended their 2 year affair, forcing him to report her to police. When detectives visited her at Kensington Palace to tell her to back off her ex lover and behave herself, she point blank denied she made the calls, and instead blamed them on her 13 year old son William! What a great mother eh - exploiting her own, innocent child to get herself out of trouble for her bad behaviour. Diana was a disgrace.
The reason the spiteful self serving airhead is dead now has absolutely nothing to do with Charles or Camilla, but is entirely down to her own stupid decisions. On her divorce, she refused the Queen's generous offer of her own team of Scotland Yard trained bodyguards and driver for life. That's the best protection in the world, which money alone can't buy, reserved only for top VIPs. The Queen felt Diana's status as mother of the future king, warranted that level of security.
But with typical bitterness and childishness, Diana stuck two fingers up at her former mother in law and declined it. Had she acted like a grown up mother of two, she'd have said thank you and kept herself safe when she travelled, for the sake of her children, if nothing else.
After refusing that protection, you might assume Diana would use some of the generous £17 million divorce settlement from Charles to hire her own security team. But inexplicably, she didn't. I guess she was so used to servants doing everything for her, she couldn't even take charge of her own safety arrangements and employ some top professionals!
That's how she wound up putting herself into the hands of the notoriously disreputable Al Fayed family, and trusting them with her life. True to form, those crooks provided her with a drunk, drugged, reckless driver, who was not even licensed to drive the Mercedes!
Of course the other fateful mistake Diana made was failing to wear her seat belt. A seat belt is what saved the sole survivor of the crash, bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones - he fastened it moments from impact, when he saw how crazily the so-called 'chauffeur' was speeding.
Experts agreed, had Diana only given her two, dependant children a thought when she was running around Paris with her coke addicted playboy lover, and fastened her seat belt, she'd have walked away from the wreckage with just bruising and a broken arm.
William and Harry must live with the knowledge their mother didn't prioritise them enough to take care of her own safety, and stay alive to raise them to adults. What a very disappointing woman she was. Thank goodness their surviving parent Prince Charles was there to pick up the pieces after their mother's stupid, totally avoidable death, and be the reliable, loving parent they needed.
4
-
4
-
Why can't we change the rules now? Just because a law was made many years ago, doesn't mean it's right or can't be amended to fit current morality. If your logic stood, we would still have slavery!
Most people would not think it acceptable that an 11 year old child can be quizzed by his would-be killer like this - even via Zoom. That man murdered his mother and sister, and tried to murder him.
The poor boy's spent the last 3 years grieving their loss, healing from his own physical and mental scars, and trying to find stability in his life. A family adopted him, but it didn't work out. He was then adopted by one of the detectives who worked his family's murder case. He's been to hell and back, but is finally in a good place, with good people who love him.
Then he gets the call from court, and is told he has to not only see his father and would-be killer again, but be questioned by him. And that monster who terrorised him and took away his family forever, gets to speak to him and say "It's nice to see you". That is not acceptable!
The defendant's questions could and should have been put to the child by a defense attorney NOT by him personally. Seems the law is all about the rights of the accused, and the victims get overlooked. We need to do more to protect victims of serious crimes - and especially child victims. America must do better than this!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@debbieflaherty1975 I think the answer to that is all too simple - she was conflicted about taking her own life to the very end. Suicide is frequently an impulsive action - even if the person has been considering it for years.
There's little doubt Atsumi went to Canada with a secret plan to end her life. But I feel she wasn't 100% sure she would do it, until she was taking her final steps to the location where her remains were found a year later.
Life can be very hard for sensitive people. We should remember this lady's story, next time we feel envious of someone. No doubt many people envied her in her lifetime - they saw an attractive, well-educated, charming successful doctor, and assumed everything was easy for her. In her 45 years on the planet she was, I am sure, the focus of much quiet resentment.
Yet those who felt jealous had no idea what her life was REALLY like. Atsumi seemed to me a fundamentally solitary soul. She withdrew from her family, suffered conflict with professional colleagues (we'll never know the reasons for that), and didn't find happiness in an intimate partnership or creating a family of her own. When self doubt, sadness and depression come calling, handling it all alone must have been very tough.
The final imagery of her spirit melding with the mystical Northern Lights she was so drawn to in her final weeks, was beautiful. Atsumi was clearly loved, and my heart goes out to those who will mourn her loss to the end of their days. I hope they find comfort in the knowledge her suffering is over, and her soul flies free and full of joy, in some other time and place.
4
-
4
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to let him out and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GoodMusicManiac999 I was a British national newspaper journalist in the 1990s, and know far more about the real Diana than her blinkered, clueless fans! She died on the eve of the internet age, just as her entirely fake, media-perpetuated image was about to be fully scrutinised and exposed.
Diana was riding a wave of public misunderstanding about her character, a flattering, false narrative cemented into people's minds by her ruthlessly manipulative Andrew Morton book and that vengeful 'Panorama' interview.
She was a breathtakingly self obsessed, spiteful narcissist, who had the huge good fortune to marry a man who gave her global fame and a life of unique privilege. It is a measure of how self-serving she was that she never once had the humility to acknowledge the great gifts her marriage gave her, but expended so much energy trying to destroy the royal family who gave not only her but also her children glittering futures.
It's hilarious you paint Diana as some sort of humble, woman of the people, when she was so greedy for the perks of her position, she cried and temper tantrum-ed over the loss of her HRH title! Anyone who divorces a member of the royal family loses HRH, why did she think she should be a special case? I don't recall the ex spouses of Princess Anne and Prince Andrew complaining because no one had to curtsy to them anymore!
I wish so Diana had lived, and hadn't got herself killed because she was having so much fun with a playboy she forgot she was a mum of two, and failed to fasten her seat belt. If she'd behaved more responsibly that night, she'd have walked away from the cash with no more than a broken arm and bruising. And as she got older and lost her looks, she'd have lost the loyalty of her fans, who are just as shallow as she was.
A middle aged Diana and her bad behaviour, would not have been so widely tolerated by the public. As she aged and saw her sons' younger, more beautiful wives getting the headlines and attention that were once hers, that spiteful, spoiled side would have emerged with a vengeance. William and Harry would have had many fall outs with their mercurial mother - Diana fell out with everyone sooner or later, because she was such an out-of-control narcissist.
The issue is not that Diana had many affairs, but that she acted the innocent, wronged wife, and led a media vendetta against her husband and his one mistress - when she was sleeping with umpteen men, many of them married! The duplicity and hypocrisy of that behaviour tells you all you need to know about the true character of the Princess of Wales. Ask Julia Carling, Susam Manakee, Diane Hoare or any of the other women whose husbands Diana shamelessly pursued and bedded, what they think of the 'Queen of Hearts'!
To compare Diana with Catherine Duchess of Cambridge, is comparing oranges with apples. They have nothing in common in either their backgrounds, their courtships and marriages, or their characters. Catherine is the better woman in every possible respect.
Charles was forced into an arranged marriage with a 'suitable' woman, and Diana was determined to be that woman. She told Andrew Morton she walked down the aisle 'like a lamb to the slaughter' but that was garbage, she was not a victim but the victor - her look as she emerged from St Paul's Cathedral a Princess, was of triumph. If she could have worn sneakers under her dress to get to that ring on her finger faster, she would have done!
As a journalist, I covered Diana's creepy stalking of married ex-lover Oliver Hoare for a national newspaper. The full story of her appalling, immoral behaviour has never been told publicly. I gave a fuller account of it elsewhere. It is utterly shocking. When confronted by police over her 300 + malicious phone calls to Hoare after he dumped her, Diana actually blamed her 13 year old son William for the calls, to get herself out of trouble.
Yes, you read that right, and my sources were impeccable. The detectives didn't believe Diana for a moment. Quite apart from the fact William was so young, had no reason to launch such a campaign against the Hoares, and that the calls had been made at all times of the day and night from Diana's private apartments, her mobile phones and from various local public call boxes, William was away at boarding school at Eton, in Windsor!
Diana was so desperate to maintain her 'golden girl' image with the public and cover up her own appalling behaviour, she threw her innocent, schoolboy son to the wolves and blamed him for the calls, without a moment's hesitation.
She was fundamentally selfish and unhinged. But because she died young and beautiful, before the internet could expose the reality of the woman behind the artfully constructed image, people like you still parrot her lies as though they were gospel truth.
4
-
4
-
@cjwilliams6668 Are you going to endlessly nit-pick over Supt Doug Carter's resume, or are you going to put on your big boy pants and engage with the discussion about his handling of the Delphi murders?
That's what the original post and this thread is about - the five year anniversary of the Delphi murders, the unprecedented volume of information held back by investigators, and a failed police investigation.
My point stands, Supt Doug Carter is NOT an experienced homicide detective. But even if he were, his own, plainly obvious personal deficiencies are the reason the public has no reason to have confidence in him. Do YOU have faith in him? If so, state your reasons? He hasn't identified a single person of interest in the Delphi murders in FIVE YEARS, much less a prime suspect. And his latest interviews on the five year anniversary betray the fact he's as clueless now as he was on day one!
Supt Carter's farcical performance at the 2019 media conference left no one (with critical thinking skills) in any doubt he was badly out of his depth. Getting emotional was inappropriate and unprofessional - that is for the victims' loved ones, NOT senior law enforcement!
Playing dumb mind games with the murderer was another red flag that showed he was enjoying the limelight rather too much. That nonsense about the murderer; "Hiding in plain sight", and even suggesting he was in the room at that very moment, were sensationalist garbage and pure invention (the killer was not present - there were around 40 people there at most, all of them journalists, law enforcement, other professionals plus victims' loved ones).
Why did Supt Carter address the killer direct? Did he really think he'd suddenly get a pang of conscience and give himself up?! Ridiculous and pointless. Sex killers have no conscience and do not confess to killing children - even while wearing cuffs and sitting in a police interrogation room!
What Carter should have done - as is plainly obvious to all but the most obtuse - is use victim Libby German's video of the child killer immediately, promoting that footage far and wide right after the murders. In tandem with that genuine video and audio of the killer, he should have appealed directly not to the killer, but to the people out there who recognised him. Because you can be certain at least one person could have correctly identified 'bridge guy', and put two and two together while his movements, behaviour, schedule and even outfit were fresh in their mind.
Instead Supt Carter foolishly withheld that video footage from the public for two years. By the time he finally showed it, its power to identify him had diminished hugely 24 months on. People are busy, they have 101 things to think about every day. That's why the window for catching killers is so short, really days but at most weeks after the homicide.
I am far from alone in my view - senior police officers are privately expressing doubts about the investigation Supt Doug Carter has run. And yes, as the man in charge, his investigative skills are critical to this case! That you stated Carter is not an 'investigator' shows how utterly clueless you are about his role and the expectations people rightly have of him.
Make no mistake, Supt Doug Carter has failed the child victims and their loved-ones, and ALL women and girls, who remain at risk while this killer is loose. Supt Carter must not be allowed another five years of failure - he needs to go, and be replaced by a brand new team of senior officers to bring new eyes and strategies to the Delphi murder RIGHT NOW.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ebogar42 There is never any excuse for men to murder women - you shouldn't post victim blaming shit like that. Brian Laundrie was a cowardly domestic abuser, who wasn't dealt with robustly by police as he should have been, so carried right on abusing her and soon escalated his abuse to her murder. Law enforcement need to use that bodycam footage of the Keystone Cops for training purposes, it shows how NOT to handle domestic abuse relationships!
Laundrie's a covert narcissist and did the classic abuser thing of getting Gabby miles away from her family and friends, living with him in his parents' home, so he could exert total control over her. He jumped at the 'Van Life' road trip, because he'd have her all to himself. He knew she was out of his league, and was terrified of his cute, smart girlfriend leaving him - and taking her money, van and electronics with her.
The usual trigger for abusive men like Laundrie to kill, is the woman leaving him, or talking about it. I'm certain that was ultimately the reason he murdered her. The incident at the Mexican restaurant on 27th August, when he argued over the $60 bill and returned FOUR times to yell at the female staff, was likely what led up to his final, fatal attack on Gabby. She went back in last of all, to apologise to the staff for his behaviour - he was acting like a big kid, the same way he would trail mud into the van with filthy feet, and leave it like a pig sty. I think Brian was finding the whole road trip stressful - a man-child who had never lived independently of his parents aged 23, would struggle to cope on an extended, cross country road trip, with no 'grown up' parents in the next room to help him.
Covert narcs can't handle losing an argument - and it's obvious he got nowhere with his temper tantrum in the restaurant. He must have finally left the Mexican place enraged, because he couldn't win. And if he found out Gabby had apologised to the staff for him, that would have left the loser feeling even more humiliated and enraged. It was his own damn fault for temper tantrum-ing in public - but nothing is ever a narcissist's fault, so of course he will have blamed Gabby.
Domestic abuse is about the abuser, not the victim. Gabby did nothing to justify that cowardly bully's abuse and murder, brutally taking her whole life from her, when it had only begun. Gabby was a big-hearted, smart, funny, lovable and much loved young woman, and will be greatly missed by a great many people. I doubt anyone but peanut head's weird parents will miss him. May he rot in hell.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@melmac685 Exactly! It was obvious Victoria meant "they won't find me IN TIME", ie in time to save her. Why would she say no one would find her body, or even think about her own corpse, or hiding it, after suicide?!
It makes no sense at all, but of course the defense was desperately clutching at straws. They had to try and explain how a cancer sufferer with a bad leg was able to not only leave her home at night when she could hardly walk and didn't drive, but also managed to not leave any footprints, kill herself some distance away, and totally 'vanish' her own, clothed body, without trace!
It's astonishing given the highly suspicious circumstances, that anyone believed Victoria's death had no third party involvement, and was not a domestic homicide. Who are these people? They're so gullible, they'd say a fox emerging from a hen house with a mouth full of feathers was a vegetarian!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Sunshine-n1n Your hysterical rant defies logic and reason (and incidentally, I'm not a 'dude'!) Assuming your issue isn't mental illness, you clearly have some personal axe to grind regarding the military, firearms or what you euphemistically call 'hook up sites'.
I've no idea, and I've no interest in discussing your personal life. My focus is Andrew Smith, a witness in a double homicide case who gave the murder weapon to the killer and was rude and disrespectful on the stand. Those are the relevant facts - please stick to them and argue with good manners, civility and class. This is a true crime forum, for respectful debate by grown ups!
The unfortunate victims in this case Bart and Krista Halderson were murdered with a firearm given to their killer son Chandler by Andrew Smith. Smith has a military background but Chandler Halderson most certainly does not, which again confirms how inappropriate it was of Smith to gift him that deadly weapon.
I reiterate - Andrew Smith and Chandler Halderson had never met before he brought that firearm to Bart and Krista's home in June 2021 without their knowledge or consent, and gifted it to Chandler. The two men's only connection was online, through their mutual love of violent video games.
If bringing and gifting the weapon weren't bizarre enough, Smith subsequently agreed to Chandler's request to keep the gun a secret from his hosts Bart and Krista. If you seriously think Andrew Smith's conduct was honourable, reasonable, or even normal, I'm afraid it says more about you than it does about him.
As I've always made clear, Chandler Halderson is the murderer and acted alone. However, he committed that double homicide around two weeks after Andrew Smith gave him both the gun and the ammo he used. Clearly there is a causal link between the two events!
If Smith had a shred of decency he would be ashamed of the central - if unwitting - role he played in Bart and Krista's horrific murders. Yet we saw no humility from him in court whatsoever. Quite the opposite.
His attitude on the witness stand was arrogant, disrespectful and downright rude, cursing, and answering one attorney's question with "That's none of your business". He's an immature, inadequate dork, whose conduct before and after the Haldersons' murders reflects very poorly on the US Army. I sincerely hope he isn't typical!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you! I'm not condoning murder, but when you look at the facts of this case, the defendant Donald got a really rough deal! I do feel sorry for him. His mother had him when she was 18 then either split with his father or was widowed. She remarried, so Donald then wound up with a stepfather and two younger half brothers, who he wasn't close to.
Those younger brothers were still living with her in middle age, and they both had hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank (Lord knows how). Oh and Donald's half brother John allegedly molested the defendant's son when he was a child - but grandma (defendant's mother) wouldn't believe it and sided with her son. ie the alleged pervert!
So there is obviously a disconnect between Donald (the oldest son), and his two younger half brothers. Yet he visits his mother once a week and cooks her and his brothers a meal. Then in 2012, his stepfather died and his mother announced she was totally cutting him, her eldest child, out of her will and leaving everything to his two younger brothers (who don't even need an inheritance with all that cash in the bank).
I think any reasonable person would consider that a better than usual motive for murder! Oh and Donald is a dog lover too - he left his boxer dog at home and didn't take him to the murders, and he left food and water at the crime scene for his mother's dog. So he can't be all bad! I guess he's in jail now - I hope his poor dog found a good forever home.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@marjoriegarner5369 Would that be the same brother Diana wasn't speaking to when she died, because he'd refused to give her a home on their childhood estate when she asked him for a safe haven from the media?
The siblings were actually estranged when Charles Spencer made his ridiculous funeral speech, publicly putting the boot into the royal family that had made his sister a star. Surely the most hypocritical words ever committed to paper!
Charles Spencer showed scant love for his sister Diana, or concern about her harassment by the press, when she was alive and he was actually in a position to offer her help. He had plenty of space at the Spencer family pile he had inherited (just by being the only son), to give her a bolthole turned her away, saying he didn't want journalists and paparrazzi camped out on his doorstep!
How ironic (and ghoulish), that Diana's brother only allowed her home as a corpse, when he welcomed her dead body with open arms as the tourist attraction it became. Dead she has raised many millions for Althorp - and Charles Spencer himself, bringing tourists to that boring, dusty country estate from around the world just to be near her remains. Hilarious really, when Diana herself couldn't wait to escape the place aged 18, for the bright lights of London!
Though how close to her remains the visitors actually were, is questionable. Charles Spencer claims to have had her buried on an island in the middle of a lake on the estate, which can be reached only by boat for private pilgrimages by her loved ones. But many believe her grave is not on that island at all, and it's all an elaborate hoax. Diana is, in all probability, buried with the rest of the Spencer family's dead, at the local church were they have been 'celebrities' for centuries as the ruling aristocrats.
But that tiny church would be swamped by tourists and Diana fans on pilgrimage, were it publicised she lay there. So Charles Spencer's big lie was born.
And of course it wasn't his only lie following the tragedy. His infamous funeral speech, in which he blamed paparazzi photographers, the press and even the royal family for her death at 36, was packed with inaccuracies and malicious falsehoods.
Only with time and expert analysis, notably the crash victims' autopsies and the public inquiry into the incident, would the true culprits emerge. Diana was killed by the poor judgement and reckless choices of a drink and drug impaired driver. But ultimately it was her own poor judgement in failing to make her own arrangements for her personal security, trusting the shady Mohammed Al Fayed with her safety, and finally, failing to fasten her seat belt, that combined to cause her death.
In the final analysis, Diana killed Diana. But obviously that uncomfortable truth didn't fit the victim narrative Diana had pushed in life, which her brother enthusiastically adopted and shamelessly peddled after her death - because he knew her fans would lap it up, and the cash would continue to flow into his pockets.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Agreed, I think the recent libel case will help men and women recognise sinister narcissistic traits in potential partners, and escape the relationship before they get seriously hurt - or even killed.
I am glad for Johnny Depp that he stuck to his guns and sued evil Amber Heard - she was telling such horrific lies about him 5 years after their divorce, he could no longer stay silent. It was clear she intended to continue milking their historic, failed 15-month marriage indefinitely, by destroying his good name for her own self-promotion.
He could not continue to tolerate that. And in confronting her lies in this very public court case, I'm convinced he's made a valuable contribution to our understanding of domestic abuse, whatever the sex of victim and perpetrator.
It's mostly women who are victims of domestic abuse and they are almost exclusively the victims of domestic homicide. However the Depp vs Heard case has publicised the fact women can be heinous domestic abusers too. And men should follow Johnny Depp's example and not be ashamed to tell the truth about the abuse they suffered from a woman.
The rules are the same, regardless of sex. Abusers never change, and abuse only ever gets worse - if they hit you once, don't stick around to find out if they are true to their promise not to hit you again. They won't be. You have been given a sample of things to come, and if you remain with that person you may not live to tell the tale. I believe Amber Heard was capable of killing Johnny Depp, and the only reason he's alive today is that he left the US for a European tour right after telling her the relationship was over. If he had not, he may well have wound up with the large knife she gifted him (inscribed 'TILL DEATH') sticking out of his heart.
Narcissistic abusers won't accept rejection, and their violence can escalate to murder when the victim takes away their power and ends the relationship. When you hear about yet another woman murdered by a man she was in an intimate relationship with, chances are he killed her soon after she dumped him.
4
-
4
-
@hotboy80baby18 In eight years, no proof of life was ever found for Victoria Propokovitz, a lady with serious health issues who needed a daily cocktail of prescription drugs to function. In all those years, she never filled out a prescription card, touched her bank account, or contacted any of her beloved family members. She was never seen or heard from again - she was clearly dead, and her loved ones knew it.
In most parts of the world, legal presumption of death takes effect after 7 years, when a missing individual is officially declared deceased and recorded as such, and their estate (if they have one), is divided between their next of kin.
The totality of circumstantial evidence against the defendant in this case, told a compelling story of guilt. Victoria Propokovitz did not commit suicide, as the defence laughably claimed - the evidence did not support that. The only reasonable explanation for her vanishing in the middle of the night never to be seen again, was that she had been murdered by her abusive husband. James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity. Who else but him, had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He was losing patience and money with his wife's medical issues. He had far better uses for the family finances - a new girlfriend he was wining and dining, taking pornographic photos of in hotel bedrooms, and gambling away six figure sums with, in casinos. His wife Victoria had become a costly inconvenience to him. He chose murder over divorce, because he didn't want to share the jointly owned marital assets with her 50-50.
Thank God trials like this one send a clear message to domestic abusers that they cannot expect to get away with murdering their partner, just by the successful disposal of their body.
The adage 'No body - No crime' is a myth, murder can and is proven without the victim's corpse, through diligent and determined police work such as we saw here. And it's a very important principle of law, in my view. Kudos to the two senior detectives who gave such detailed evidence and through their bodycam footage showed the jury exactly who James Prokopovitz is - an arrogant, aggressive, entitled bully, who abused his second wife Victoria just as he had his first, and finally murdered her.
Those two seasoned professionals had a gut instinct he had killed Victoria - just as her children did. And they didn't let go until they produced enough evidence, 8 years later, to take it to trial.
Jim's contempt for his missing wife was blindingly obvious, at one point telling police he wished he could, quote "shit her out", so that they would leave his girlfriend alone. He didn't want her back. And his escalating anger at the detectives who pursued him showed he fully expected, in fact almost demanded, to get away with her murder!
As he told family members with great certainty "She's dead, she's not coming home, and you won't find her", even adding the detail that she had no teeth, so couldn't be identified. It was yet more circumstantial evidence indicating knowledge - he knew all along where she was, rapidly decomposing in chemical sludge ponds which he himself stupidly admitted to cops he could access with a key.
8 years is long enough to know a missing person is dead. But as the years went by, Jim Propokovitz was wrong to assume he'd got away with murder. I hope a certain Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne disappeared in equally suspicious circumstances last year, watched this trial and worried!
4
-
@susanrobb3447 It's you who are mistaken, because you've based your ridiculous misunderstandings and half truths on the bogus, self-aggrandising legend Diana herself created. You are merely a Diana groupie, repeating her nonsense from the sly Andrew Morton book and 'Panorama' interview verbatim!
As a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties my statements are based on sound, unbiased research and first hand interviews with those closest to the Prince and Princess.
In truth there were MANY more than three people in Diana's marriage. In her haste to crucify her husband for his ONE affair (with the woman who is now his wife), she conveniently 'forgot' to tell Martin Bashir about her many extra marital affairs with multiple unsuitable men (several of them married). Ask all the wives of the men Diana ruthlessly pursued what they think about the self-styled 'queen of hearts'! They don't share your admiration.
Diana was a brazen hypocrite who worked hard to keep her own promiscuity and bad behaviour secret from the media and public, so she could play the wide-eyed, innocent, wronged wife. But that was very far from the truth!
Deluded Diana fans like you only 'hate' Camilla, a woman you never met and haven't the first clue about, because you've swallowed the lies of a long-dead narcissist wholesale. If you were genuinely interested in knowing Diana, not clinging to a fantasy version of her, you'd read my posts here with interest. They are by far the most authentic and accurate, and you'll learn something about her - the real person, not the manufactured celebrity. But sadly Diana's hand-maidens are as deluded as she was and like her have scant interest in anything as inconvenient as reality!
If only Diana were the devoted mother you fondly imagine, she'd have given her little boys a thought and fastened her seat belt. But Diana was having far too much fun running around Paris with a coke-addicted, Arab playboy to remember she was mother to the dependent Princes William and Harry. She was a disappointing wife, mother and human being.
4
-
The motive clearly was not theft, so it certainly wasn't a 'property crime' - no one stabs four people to death to steal the humble belongings of a few penniless students!
However, it's ridiculous to conclude as the bearded lawyer does @ 12:23, that the motive was not a sexual one, just because the victims were not sexually assaulted. The victims are three females and one male. The target was not the male - this was a rage killing against females, and the reason for that is almost certainly sexual rejection. Therefore the motive was sexual. A murder victim does not have to be raped/sexually assaulted, for the crime to have a sexual motive at its heart.
Three things you can bet on here: 1/ The perpetrator is a male 2/ The perpetrator has a personal relationship/was known to at least one of the female victims. 3/ The killer experienced/perceived he experienced sexual/romantic rejection from one of the females he murdered.
Two of the women killed, Madison (21), and Xana (20), worked as waitresses at a local Greek restaurant. That's another environment in addition to the University campus, that must be investigated as a potential source of motive and killer. Did a restaurant patron become obsessed with Madison or Xana, and be knocked back on making sexual advances? I believe a strong motive must exist to explain such a violent crime scene, and strong motives mean a strong suspect. Police will make an arrest for these murders very soon.
4
-
@stepheneurosailor1623 Well that's certainly an intriguing post! I agree it's interesting Chandler's girlfriend Cat's police interviews weren't released. That could have been an innocent, if rare courtesy to her in light of her cooperation and emotional fragility. On the other hand, it could be far more significant.
Chandler strikes me as weak, dependent and immature, so it wouldn't hugely surprise me if he had confided in Cat after committing the murders, even just for emotional support, and effectively made her an accessory after the fact (albeit a reluctant one).
I struggle to believe she'd have knowingly plotted a double homicide with him. And from what we saw of her and her very respectable mother, I can't see her playing any kind of 'hands on' role in something so bloody and shocking as corpse dismemberment/disposal. I could be wrong of course, but that's my instinct.
Unless police/prosecution are deliberately covering up for her, there's no smoking gun directly linking her to the murders is there? For example, Chandler went to her mother's/gf's farmland to dump his father's torso alone, not with Cat. If she was colluding with him in the cover up, you'd expect her to have accompanied him there to smooth the way with her Mom/Mom's partner, and maybe distract them while Chandler dumped the torso, saws, etc.
My understanding is Cat ended her relationship with Chandler pretty much immediately his crime came to light. If that's true and she had played any part in them, he have had no reason to protect her and would presumably have thrown all kinds of allegations at her (whether true or not!)
Do you know which legal firm picked Chandler up, after he publicly fired his defence team? I thought he was being crazily optimistic inviting applicants, when frankly he was lucky the public defender tolerated his BS. Don't think I've seen such a slam-dunk picture of guilt and mountain of evidence in the face of a 'not guilty' plea, since that other parent-murdering abomination Joel Guy Jnr!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gettinhungrig2 Really? Thing is, looking at this logically EVERY famous person knows their fame makes them vulnerable to murder by a member of the public. When you are an internationally known figure, it's always an unlikely, but a possible event. John Lennon was a highly intelligent, empathetic and insightful man with his feet firmly on the ground, so I feel he'd have been more aware of his immortality than most superstars. Plus he was on the cusp of fame in his early 20s when President Kennedy was shot and killed - I bet that put the possibility of his own murder firmly into his psyche forevermore. If it can happen to the most powerful man in the world, no celebrity is safe!
We cannot go back, rewind the tape and give it a different outcome, sadly. The comfort I feel is that John Lennon lived his life as he wanted to, with freedom, enjoying the normal, human things that are everybody's right like walks in the park with his youngest son. In terms of quality, his life was wonderful - he just didn't get the quantity of years he and the world deserved and that's the tragedy.
At least it happened at night, so there weren't too many witnesses - I am glad John's dignity wasn't hugely compromised during his violent death. And it is a great mercy it didn't happen when he was with his 5 year old child. As John's life ebbed from his body and he knew he was dying, he also knew his little boy lay safe in bed. I'm sure some of his last thoughts were of Sean, his 'beautiful boy'.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@swifty8503 We get it, you don't like Eamonn Holmes. That's cool, we don't all like the same people/presenters. But twice now you've alleged he's been rude on camera and 'insulted guests', without providing any specific examples!
Even if that's true, so what? You are talking about Eamonn Holmes' presenting style, not the way he behaves with his colleagues off camera, or indeed any workplace impropriety - the reasons Phillip Schofield is widely disliked within the TV industry, and why his privileged life just crashed around his ears. The two things are polls apart!
Phillip Schofield has been 'full of himself' and insulting to guests for many years. Take a look at Kerry Katona's recent GB News interview, he treated her abominably during a 2008 sofa chat. Yet he got away with that, and umpteen similarly rude and high-handed encounters.
ITV executives pandered to his inflated ego to such an extent, he launched a workplace affair with a 34-years-younger teenage boy he'd groomed from age 10, right in front of their and the entire 'This Morning' crew's faces! The then fifty-something, married 'straight' family man Schofield clearly had no fear of any consequences whatsoever from shagging the teen runner - least of all losing his job. His arrogance was off the chart.
It's clear you can't comment on Eamonn Holmes' conduct off camera, because you've never met him. Unlike those of us who have worked with him, you have no clue what he's like in the flesh (in reality, as many will confirm, he's unfailingly polite and professional). You're only able to say you don't like him as a presenter, which is pretty irrelevant.
Eamonn Holmes is still doing very nicely thank you with a big media career. Many viewers DO like his style. Your 'ignorant Irishman' insult stands out from your last post - it reflects badly on you, and I suspect, points to your true motivation.
4
-
@swifty8503 Thank you for sharing an example of what you regard as Eamonn Holmes 'insulting guests'. I agree, the Salma Hayek story sounds crass.
I know people like working with Eamonn, because I was one of them! In my experience he is liked by TV production staff, while Phillip Schofield never was. The two men are chalk and cheese. I believe Eamonn is a talented presenter too, while Schofield was always mediocre at best, and so narcissistic it showed in his sofa interviews (as the many celebs he was rude to are now confirming).
As I said, you're entitled to have your favourite TV personalities, and those you loathe, same as everyone. But it doesn't help your credibility to cite a person's ethnicity/cultural background as a reason to hate them!
My late grandmother was Irish, and a gentler, more intelligent person you will never meet. Condemning an entire group of people as 'ignorant' or whatever else, based only on their country of origin is bigotry.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Can't believe the stupidity of comments here from people who think this scumbag is being 'honest'. He horrifically murdered his wife with a hammer, but told a pack of lies on the stand about her mysteriously dropping dead after a minor fight - removing any mention of the hammer or indeed, any weapon.
Then his story got even more ridiculous. He claimed after dumping her corpse on a ranch, alongside a dead cow (she's the mother of his child - what a gent), he returned several days later and attacked it with a hammer, expressing his rage at what she'd done to him. What SHE had done to HIM - he'd just killed her!
He thinks that little fairy story will explain the hammer injuries which killed her and which in reality he inflicted while she was alive, not dead. Of course the genius did internet searches asking if medics can tell if injuries are made pre or post mortem. He won't win any award for criminal mastermind of the year.
The cold, matter of fact way he describes beating up a woman, kicking her twice when she's on the ground - and their small daughter waking up and walking in during the murder (though he tries to present himself as a caring daddy for carrying her back to bed - yeah right), show exactly how dangerous this psychopath is. Yet another woman killed by an abusive male when she let him know she wanted out of the toxic relationship.
Ladies - when you decide to dump a loser like this, please make sure you've got yourself (and any kids) away to a place of safety, before you tell him it's over. And whatever you do, never continue to share living quarters with your ex. That gives him means, motive and opportunity to kill you. This liar claims he told the victim he wanted a divorce, but you can bet your life it was she who told him that - and it cost her her life.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You don't know it's fiction, any more than he knows it's the truth! He clearly presented it as a theory, not fact, and as theories go, it makes sense. Kohberger is a vegan - Madison Mogen waited tables in a popular vegan restaurant, in the locality familiar to both of them.
Many people who've followed this case believe Bryan Kohberger likely had some kind of face-to-face encounter with at least one of the female victims, to explain his motive./obsession
It is also, however, entirely possible he developed an obsession for one or more of the young women living at that address, purely online. For dangerous, anti-social loners, the internet is the perfect hunting ground.
If there's no tangible evidence of a face to face, real world encounter between Kohberger and any of the victims, then it can never be proven as fact and (a confession from BK aside), will forever remain a theory. Many real events that actually happened are forever un-proven theories, because there's no way of 100% confirming they happened.
I share your reservations about this book. Who are his sources? The full, established facts of the case will rightly emerge at the murder trial, I'm not interested in too much speculation, however well-informed, before that date.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So very sad, thank you for posting here and reminding us that this is an all too real and raw human tragedy for the people affected.
My heart goes out to the Mathias family. Bad enough to lose a beloved relative in such tragic circumstances. But for there to be such a hotly-debated mystery surrounding his disappearance and worse, that some crazy conspiracy theorists blame him, adds agonising insult to injury. That is a terrible injustice to him, and his loved-ones.
The tragic cause of the boys' deaths is only too clear. They all succumbed to the harsh elements at that time of year. What desperately sad irony that Gary and Ted had made it to a survival shelter 12 miles from the car, yet for whatever reason had been unable to use the life-saving resources of food and heat it contained.
The two big mysteries are surely why their car wound up so far from their normal route home that night, an apparently deliberate detour that no one who knew them could fathom. And why, once they drove there, they abandoned the car - apparently in a hurry - and embarked on a gruelling trek in sub zero temperatures, that none of them would ultimately survive.
I would add a third mystery - and that is the failure of the organised searches to find them before it was too late. Ted Weiher's autopsy confirmed he lived for around 13 weeks, and the same may also apply to Gary, who it would appear was with him. The Yuba Five's parents reported them missing promptly, the very next morning. And a warden located their vehicle that same day, though he didn't realise its significance and report it until February 28th.
Even so, the authorities had enough clues to mount an effective organised search from February 28th, just four days after they went missing. It's entirely possible Gary and Ted could have been rescued in time - they were likely both alive in that survival hut for up to three months. But Ted's body was not found until June - when a group of motorcyclists visited the survival shelter. What additional agony for Ted and Gary's loved ones to know they were alive in that shelter, awaiting rescue that never came.
May the 'Yuba Five' boys rest in peace, and may their loved ones too find peace, in their tragic loss.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SkinnyRob In fact the evidence shows that courtroom experience will not be a positive experience for the child as you assume, but an ordeal almost as psychologically damaging to him as the crime itself.
Feelings - or rather emotions - inform every important achievement and glory of mankind since civilisation began. Without emotions, laws would be meaningless - every law ever made is underpinned by human emotion. Emotion does not automatically equate with poor judgement or lack of objectivity, quite the opposite!
This child was wrongly made to face his would-be killer not because society doesn't care about him and the damage that will do, but because the accused's rights have been given priority above all else - even the best interests of a child.
This is highly unusual. In civilised societies, nothing trumps the rights of children. I believe this is a 'blip' in the law that needs to be addressed and amended, without compromising the defendant's rights.
Ronnie O' Neal's defense lawyer could have directly communicated with the child, instructed by the accused, without negating O' Neal's legal rights or subjecting that child to the trauma of speaking directly with him. The intimidation and manipulation in the interaction between father and son was clear. O' Neal started off by telling the child he tried to stab to death 3 years ago: "It's good to see you", to which the child felt compelled to respond in kind: "It's good to see you too".
That 11-year-old was forced to exchange pleasantries with the man who murdered his mother and sister! That is not acceptable, and will undoubtedly come back to haunt him. He will feel he was disloyal to his murdered family. Ironically, he will also almost certainly feel responsible if his father is found guilty and receives the death sentence. His memories of speaking with his father over Zoom, as the prosecution's star witness, will stay with him forever and haunt him horribly if his dad is put to death.
Laws are not immovable and set in stone. As societies evolve and consensus and morality alters over decades, so the law must evolve and reflect those changes. I mentioned in another post to you that last year Scotland introduced a new law specifically to prevent any child experiencing the injustice this child did in court. Now a child involved in a serious criminal case as witness/victim, will pre-record their evidence on video ahead of the trial. And defence questions will be put to the child at that time, The video will be played to the jury. This new law does not compromise the defendant's rights, but protects children. I hope after the appalling spectacle of child abuse we just witnessed in this American court, the US will consider a similar change in the law to protect minors.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Unfortunately video footage of a murder suspect does not guarantee he/she will be identified. The killer of two children in Delphi in 2017 is still at large, even after one of his child victims secretly recorded him on her phone, following them across a railway bridge they'd just crossed. Coincidentally, another factor the Delphi murders has in common with the Missy Bevers case is that the killer is believed to have posed as a police officer to subdue his child victims.
Missy Bevers was clearly targeted by an assassin. This was a highly organised crime with the killer disguised head to toe because they knew about the cameras inside the church. It's more than likely the killer was at the wheel of the car seen acting suspiciously in a neighbouring car park just 2 hours earlier. I'm surprised you think that vehicle was unrelated to Missy's murder. The driver obviously turned their headlights off to obscure the licence plate from security cameras. Why would they do that unless they were up to no good?
The police SWAT uniform was chosen for three reasons IMO: 1/ To disguise their identity from the cameras 2/ To hide their identity from Missy herself (supporting my view that Missy knew her killer), and 3/ To intimidate her. If the killer was a woman, she could feasibly have chosen that outfit because it gave the impression she was a scary man in authority, and therefore allowed her to quickly overpower, subdue and kill Missy. A male killer could have chosen the police disguise for the same reason - people fear authority.
I am not convinced the killer is a woman though. Missy was a physically strong and fit female (if petite). Another female wouldn't necessarily be confident about overpowering her in a physical fight, armed only with a blunt object (hammer). Surely if the killer was a woman she'd have ambushed Missy with a weapon like a knife or gun, with which she could be confident of killing her quickly.
If as it appears this was a targeted murder, the perpetrator knew Missy's exercise class was starting soon and her students would be arriving imminently. Therefore the killer was very confident of killing Missy quickly with the hammer, and fleeing the crime scene before they walked into the building. Again that level of confidence in their ability to dispatch Missy fast with the hammer points to a male, not a female assassin. The use of the hammer/beating someone to death is an extremely violent and prolonged method, which suggests rage, and a personal reason for wanting Missy dead. So I am surprised police don't seem to have identified any compelling 'person of interest'. A strong motive usually leads police to the murderer!
Statistically speaking, the most likely killer is Missy's husband - even if he didn't commit the crime in person. They had the textbook issues that provide motive for domestic murder, ie, marital discord, money issues and infidelity. Though it's not admissible in court, his general conduct since her horrific death is not that of an innocent, grieving widower. He hasn't shown any real emotion. I believe he also benefited from a large insurance policy on his late wife. I am far from convinced of his innocence. It is extremely surprising we are coming up to the 7 year anniversary of this much loved mother's murder, and still her brutal killer walks free.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@silver4831 First of all, you'd be hard pushed to find a 'full op trans woman', as the vast majority of trans-identified males/trans women (well over 90%), happily retain their male genitals, and have no intention of losing them.
Regardless, all trans women are biological males, and therefore belong in male prisons. It is not the responsibility of women to be human shields protecting men from attack by other men! Every prison has measures in place to protect those inmates deemed vulnerable, for whatever reason.
A trans man is a biological women, and is therefore not the physical/sexual risk to females that a biological man is, so yes, a trans man belongs in a women's prison, with other biological women. As a biological woman, a trans man would obviously be at huge potential danger of being attacked in a men's prison.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That gender-based themes openly discussed in SATC back in the nineties can no longer be talked about is not progress but censorship! I posted this point earlier, and it was taken down - which sadly proves me right!
In 2020 no one can publicly challenge toxic trans extremism without personal risk of being branded 'transphobic' or a bigot, getting doxxed, 'no platformed', or even losing their job or being physically assaulted. A few celebrities are being brave and speaking out, among them JK Rowling, Jenni Murray, Jonathan Ross and Graham Linehan. And they are very brave, because this male-led, misogynist, homophobic assault on free speech has the power to ruin lives.
I dare you to leave this comment up - I make a totally valid and reasonable point!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
WTF? They didn't do anything to her - Diana fell out of love with Charles, just as much as vice versa. But unlike Charles, she didn't meet anyone she wanted to marry. Diana instead had many casual, sexual affairs with a long queue of different men - several of them married men.
I don't know how Diana slept at night, knowing she had put so many marriages under threat, and ended the 2 year marriage of Will and Julia Carling. Diana was a hard-faced home wrecker, without an ounce of conscience or remorse!
A ghastly, malevolent and unhinged woman, who didn't want Charles herself, but spitefully didn't want him to be happy with anyone else.
Charles has achieved something Diana never could, if she'd lived to be 100 - a happy marriage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Watch Charlie's tell-tale body language from @4:52. He's telling a totally fabricated story about a supposed visit/conversation he had with his former girlfriend Catherine (the go-between who set up the contract killing of Dan Markel), right after the hit that HE had ordered!
This is the ridiculous, far-fetched fiction Charlie came up with, in hopes of escaping justice. Not a chance! He expected the jury to believe that his ex-girlfriend and her gangster ex-husband conspired to murder Dan without any input from him - then blackmailed him to keep their mouths shut, hence his huge bank payments to Catherine. It makes no sense at all.
Notice how his eyes constantly go down to the floor, and even completely shut for extended periods, as he gives this false, entirely made-up account. It's a total giveaway he isn't recalling a genuine memory, but instead is inventing a false narrative. Thankfully the jury didn't believe a single word of his testimony, and he will die in prison.
It will be fascinating to see if matriarch Donna Adelson does similar eye movements, if she too is dumb enough to give evidence in her own defence (that didn't go so well for her son - I've a feeling she'll take her lawyers' advice, and stay silent throughout her murder trial).
Here's to his ghastly Mom Donna, the spider at the centre of the web, and sister Wendi the family princess and chief narcissist, following in his orange-Croc-ed footsteps to a permanent prison cell, very soon! The Adelson family robbed two little boys of their loving father, and burdened them with the terrible legacy of murder. It's high time they were all serving life in prison, and Dan, his parents, and his beloved boys, got some measure of justice.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
100% agree! In courageously coming out as a male victim of female domestic abuse, Johnny Depp has performed a great public service in educating other victims (and potential future victims), about the M.O. of vile narcissistic abusers like Amber Heard. God bless him, he deserves an award for that IMO.
Sadly there are many more abusers out there just like her, and the cycle of narcissistic abuse is all too predictable. That's why it's crucial people are educated to recognise the red flags in an abuser's behaviour, that indicate they need to escape that relationship sooner rather than later!
You can waste many precious years being made miserable by one of these toxic, vindictive parasites - trust me, I've done the homework! After the early, romantic 'love-bombing' phase in which they are devoted and attentive, can't do enough for you, and get you hooked, the abusive 'de-valuing' stage begins, when they turn on you and start to criticise the qualities in you they used to praise.
Amber Heard knew exactly how to hurt Depp, challenging his credentials as a top movie star with insults like "Old, fat, washed-up actor" - the guy who, unlike her, commanded $20 million a movie!
Johnny Depp adores his children, so of course she knew that was another soft spot. She criticised his parenting and dismissed him as a 'Deadbeat dad'. The CONCEIT of a childless woman who didn't even get along with Depp's children (and aggressively fought with him in front of them) attacking his parenting skills, is off the frigging scale!
Amber Heard is a vile, manipulative and supremely self-serving excuse for a human being, a violent thug posing as a humanitarian, a champion of women, and most outrageously of all, as an abuse victim. What a sick joke - talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing! The Depp vs Heard trial fully exposed who Amber Heard really is - and she fully deserved to be 'outed' as an abuser and pathological liar. Today she's finished as an actor and a public figure. Her sins have come back to bite her, and all because six years after they split, she could not quit abusing her more famous and popular ex husband with heinous lies designed to destroy him!
I'm grateful to Johnny Depp for his moral courage in confronting her through the courts, and showing the world how easy it is for a decent, intelligent person to be taken in by a narcissistic abuser like her. As a victim of childhood domestic abuse at the hands of his sadistic mother, Depp was pretty much the perfect, tailor-made victim for Amber Heard. And she brought him low enough to self harm, as we heard in the heartbreaking audio recording of him after they'd split, telling her to cut him with his own knife. "She had taken everything from me, so I offered her my blood", he told the shocked court. The physical deterioration in Johnny Depp from the start to the bitter end of his relationship with Heard, should serve as a stark warning to us all of how destructive such abusers can be if you let them into your life and give them power over you. The 6-week trial must have been quite an ordeal for him.
Knowledge is power, and I believe his historic legal victory will literally save the lives of people who would otherwise have been ensnared by another male or female 'Amber Heard'. She is far from the only one - sadly, there are many more abusers out there, just like her. Be careful friends - protect your heart and soul!
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RynoKnarr14 Josh Powell brutally murdered his two little boys for entirely selfish reasons.
He had vilely murdered their mother Susan and knew police were closing in on him, so he intended to kill himself to avoid spending the next 50 years in jail.
As he had decided on suicide, he also decided to murder his children at the same time out of sheer spite. He resented his late wife's parents getting custody of the kids after her death, and wasn't going to let them live happy lives raised by their loving grandparents.
He had nothing to lose as he was going to escape justice by committing suicide. So he murdered a couple of innocent, defenceless, (and thanks to him motherless) children to get 'revenge' on Susan's poor parents. Josh Powell didn't think they had suffered enough from him abusing, murdering and hiding the body of their beloved daughter - he wanted to deliver yet more horror and agony by viciously killing those sweet grandchildren.
The system failed Susan Powell and her family, because Josh Powell should not have been given ANY access to those children, as the prime suspect in her murder! Because the family courts stupidly ruled he had 'rights' as a father, they ignored two little boys' rights to be safe and unharmed by the dangerous, abusive man who had killed their mother. The courts allowed Josh Powell the chance to commit that evil double child murder.
Wherever the children's souls are now, they are not with Josh Powell - he's in hell, along with his equally warped father and brother who helped him murder and dispose of poor Susan.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nomudnolotus4410 Not sexist, the facts are the facts and you are quite wrong, domestic abuse is totally a 'gender specific thing'. Most domestic abusers are male, most victims are female, and the victims of domestic homicides are almost exclusively female. The facts are all too depressingly clear, and it's not an argument - men kill women!
I'm aware there are female abusers, but they are highly unlikely to kill - unlike their far more common, male equivalent. So for women, domestic abuse is literally a matter of life or death, as Gabby Petito's recent murder (and Maya Millete's, and Suzanne Morphew's, and Shanann Watts', and Kelsey Berreth's, and all the other murders of women by men who claimed to love them), powerfully prove.
I am very sorry to hear of your experiences and I agree with you, kids of both sexes should learn about narcissistic/domestic abuse at school. It's not that I want to 'demonise' men, or 'leave men out of the equation' as you put it, but we have to face facts, however uncomfortable they may be for men - women are in grave danger from this issue, men are not. Domestic abuse is everywhere, it cuts across all cultures, classes, ethnicities and age groups, and is a global pandemic more deadly for females than Covid. Yet addressing the crisis of violence against women is not a priority for any of the world's governments. Instead it is swept under the carpet, underestimated or regarded with tacit acceptance, as an inevitability. What an insult that is to men!
While I accept your point that men can be victims of narcissistic/domestic abuse, this is not an equal opportunities crime, the victims are in the overwhelming majority, female. Barely a day goes by when we don't hear about a woman being found dead (or disappearing), at the hands of her male partner/ex partner. Most men are not abusive, but a significant minority ARE, and the majority of decent men like yourself should call them out, not seek to minimise their crimes against women.
There is a widespread reluctance on the part of men, to acknowledge male abuse of women, or to confront it. We saw that clearly on the police bodycam of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito. Those male cops couldn't wait to befriend Brian Laundrie, who they knew had just been reported by two 911 callers for hitting his girlfriend. Those officers were fully aware he was an alleged domestic abuser, so their sympathetic, even pally behaviour towards him, was totally inappropriate!
No wonder that bodycam footage has been widely criticised - even by senior police officers. According to Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, his police colleagues handled Laundrie all wrong. Sheriff Judd said after the 911 reports they had ample grounds to arrest him for domestic abuse and take him into custody, and should have done exactly that. But instead cops decided Brian Laundrie was the victim and Gabby Petito the perpetrator! That's not just lousy detective work - it suggests a deep seated and innate reluctance to identify and punish another man accused of domestic abuse.
Those cops were using exactly the same warped 'logic' you expressed in your post, ie the false premise that male and female domestic abuse are exactly the same crime, and of equal gravity. They are not, make no mistake about it, and police should know the statistics better than anyone. Of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito, it was HER, not him, who was at risk of serious harm or death. Therefore her care and welfare as the victim should have been their priority, and Brian Laundrie should have been treated as the domestic abuse suspect he was. Their disastrous errors of judgement were tragically proven 2 weeks later, with Gabby's death at Laundrie's hands.
The police failure to confront or condemn Brian Laundrie for his independently confirmed abuse of Gabby Petito, paved the way for her murder by him soon after. In accepting Gabby's predictable self-blame at face value (cops should know abuse victims often blame themselves and downplay the abuse), and ludicrously giving Laundrie victim status, the cops in effect endorsed his abuse of her. No wonder he was all smiles at the end of the bodycam footage, as a distraught Gabby was sent off to spend the night alone in the van and he was chauffeur driven to a cosy hotel. He knew he got away with it!
As the damning bodycam footage shows police endorsed Brian Laundrie's domestic abuse and in so doing empowered him to not only continue to abuse her, but to escalate his offending to her murder. That bodycam video should be used in future to train law enforcement on how NOT to deal with domestic abuse cases. Because it clearly shows they missed a golden opportunity to save Gabby's life. Had they not been so weak with Brian Laundrie, acted appropriately on the 911 reports and taken him into custody, there's every chance Gabby would be alive today. Abuse victims are too weakened, brainwashed and traumatised to stand up to their abuser - that's why it's critical that police do!
Brian Laundrie is a coward and a bully. He was long overdue censure/punishment for abusing Gabby, and that encounter with police should have been it. He should have been told by those cops in no uncertain terms his abuse of his girlfriend was illegal, would not be tolerated, and would not go unpunished! He should then have been slapped in handcuffs and driven off to spend the night in a police cell - not taken to a comfortable hotel by a friendly cop doing an 'old pals' act!
Like all cowardly bullies, Laundrie would have collapsed if confronted. On the bodycam he was plainly very nervous around the police, because he knew damn fine he was guilty as sin. But he rolled out his usual covert narcissist tactics, smiling, apologising, and playing the bumbling, 'wouldn't hurt a fly', nice guy act - and those dumb cops were taken in!
If police had only treated him like the nasty abuser he was, I think he'd have wet his pants and wouldn't have dared lay a finger on Gabby for the rest of the trip. More to the point, if he'd faced dramatic consequences for his abuse, ie a criminal charge (or even the threat of one), Gabby would have had to call her parents and reveal his abuse to them for the first time (she'd clearly been covering for him, as they knew nothing about it). Third party involvement in that rapidly escalating abuse situation would almost certainly have ended the 'Van Life' project, and Gabby would have returned home - Alive.
But cops dropped the ball, made a bad situation worse, and flunked a golden opportunity to save Gabby Petito's life. That's what can happen when you downplay the male abuse of women!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
U utterly FAIL 2 grasp the reality re Chris Watts' true character. Did U research this - his Ma damaged him hugely & put a very warped male ut there 2 wreak tragedy!
Chris Watts played the passive, great guy & criticised his wife 2 ppl 2 make himself seem sweet! He is a MASSIVE CTRL FREAK! He made his wife the leader because it suited him. She'd have much preferred a mature adult male 2 share life's stresses, but she married a big freaky child! Why is she blamed 4 HIS weak, selfish ways... Wake up - HE dictated their marriage terms!
Why did he select murder - he cd easily have split, & left his family. Simple & legal!
He hated his wife & kids. He resemted his smart, likeable, eligible wife - he was aware she'd have had a great life after divcrce. She had always backed him & was faithful - but if he did the dirty, cheated & left her, he was well aware she'd have made a tuff adversary! She was always smarter, faster & superir 2 her dumb hubby, but she sweetly kept it quiet because she cared that his fake image stayed safe, his 'great guy' mask was crucial 2 him! His image was ALL. If he dumped her & the kids she'd have trashed his image 2 all. & all were likely 2 agree with her that he was a big shit! If he killed her she'd stay 4ever quiet & his mask stayed firmly placed. Plus with his family dead, he'd have avided their cash burdem child supprt etc. He's have had a great lifestyle 2 give the mistress! He saw a fresh life with the mistress & viewed his faithful wife & kids as dispsable, he literally threw them away like garbage.
Please put yr emphasis where it is useful - CHRIS WATTS, the REAL Chris Watts that is! U seem 2 believe the Chris Watts he has successfully faked 4 years & years til his mask fell & he murdered. That's ridiculus.
4
-
I think he has a big shock in store when he realises he killed the only two people in the world who cared deeply for him, and were always in his corner. In jail he will soon realise no one cares if he lives or dies - and many will want him dead. He's no totally alone, through his own dumb choices. For an extreme narcissist like him, that will be tough.
It's ironic that, because he'd never worked and didn't know the value of money, he assumed $500k life insurance would be enough for him to live on for the rest of his life. If he lived to be 80, it only represents $10,000 a year - and he's used to a far better lifestyle than that! And in fact, had he got away with the murders, I reckon he'd have burned through that cash within 5 years tops - and then been penniless, without his mum and dad to help him. He's a pathetic, useless man-child, but his parents played a big role in making him so. Who pays all the bills of their adult child, so he can stay in college for NINE YEARS??? Crazy.
4
-
4
-
This is no surprise. We already knew Amber Heard is an immoral scumbag, who will try any trick in the book to wriggle out of meeting her financial obligations. Hell, she even stiffed the LA Children's Hospital for terminally ill infants out of the $3.5m donation she'd promised them! She's lower than a snake's rectum.
She was present throughout the lengthy legal trial, she knows full well it followed due process and that she was treated totally fairly. She's only questioning its legitimacy now, because she LOST! Her duplicity in trying to get out of paying Johnny Depp what she legally owes him is frankly embarrassing!
Suck it up Amber - you would not stop abusing your victim Johnny Depp, even many years after your divorce. Your extended, malicious vendetta against him, purely for 'daring' to end the marriage, has now cost you not only the outrageous $7m divorce settlement you wrestled from him (for a childless, 15 month union), but another $2m on top! Marrying for money backfired on you, big time!
That $9m pay out doesn't go close to justice for Johnny Depp, for the heinous lies you told about a thoroughly decent man. Now the full story has been told through the courts, it's clear he never perpetrated, but only ever received the most extreme kind of physical and emotional domestic abuse from you.
But $9m damages was the jury's judgement after sitting through a full and complex airing of the evidence. And as is now crystal clear, a financial penalty is the only retribution an abuser and arch gold-digger like Amber Heard will understand, or respect! Ms Heard cares only about money, in her warped values it comes way ahead of every other human consideration. So a multi million dollar fine is the most appropriate punishment.
Amber Heard had her chance to con the jury, as she conned the judge in Depp's UK libel trial against The Sun newspaper. But this was a far more in-depth examination of the facts, and of her evidence - and a far more savvy group of people! After six weeks of detailed witness statements and a mountain of evidence. the jury simply did not believe Ms Heard's version of events. She isn't half as good an actress and liar as she thought she was! PAY UP AND SHUT UP!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bluegeorgia8922 Yes, Ronnie O' Neal's poor little boy was just 8 years old when he witnessed his father brutally kill his 9 year old, special needs sister with multiple hatchet blows to the face, head and neck, and beat his mother to death with a broken shotgun as she cowered on the neighbour's doorstep where she'd gone for help. He then set fire to the family home.
When emergency services arrived at the burning house, that little boy fled through the front door and collapsed with stab wounds. Unluckily for the defendant he survived, and told medical staff in the ambulance that his father, not his mother, was the family annihilator.
A fireman who gave emotional evidence described finding the little girl dead. He carried her out of the smoke-filled house across a floor slippery with blood, and outside laid her body on the grass. She was tragically beyond help, and totally unrecognisable from repeated, heavy axe blows. He recalled hugging a male colleague, and weeping.
O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend killed their daughter and attempted to kill their son, and that he only murdered her in response, in an impulsive 'crime of passion'. The prosecution say that's garbage - O' Neal arrived at his girlfriend's house that night intent on murdering his entire family in totally pre-meditated attacks, and only by sheer fluke did his son survive.
That little boy is now 11 and will be the prosecution's star witness, giving evidence against his father via Zoom. O' Neal's opening speech wasted no time discrediting both his girlfriend who he's pinning the murders on, and his child who is the sole surviving victim and witness. He told the court his boy was lying in saying he had murdered his mother and his sister. He blamed his 'lies' on his autism, PTSD from the shocking and bloody crime scene, and brainwashing.
O'Neal said his son had been placed in two different adoptive homes since the murders. The first did not work out, but the second did. And according to the defendant, he was adopted by a detective who had worked his family's tragic case. This detective had "coached him to lie", and say he was the killer that night, said O' Neal.
I watched a 30 minute video of Ronnie O' Neal's opening statements in his defence. on Fox News. It was hard work! Why 'Court TV' presenters say he's 'articulate' I don't know. He kept using the same phrase "The evidence will show" over and over, like it was some brilliantly clever linking device, that made him look like a professional lawyer. It just made him look like a posturing, amateur idiot!
The way he constantly shouts at the jury is just plain aggressive, and likely to alienate every single one of them. It's also a chilling reenactment of his aggression to his vulnerable victims that horrific night. He's clearly an egotistical, controlling, violent sociopath. And he's done for.
O' Neil is so fundamentally self-serving and immoral, he has no qualms about denying his crimes for a shot at escaping justice. He does this even though it requires appalling victim-blaming, and puts his traumatised son through the added ordeal of recounting the violence in court, being cross examined, and called a liar.
I understand that defendants have a right to presumed innocence and a fair trial. But don't victims of crime, and especially child victims like this young boy, have rights too? Surely they deserve support and protection? I think it's wrong to make this child give evidence against his killer father, even over Zoom. He could have given a written witness statement instead, to be read out by a prosecution lawyer during the trial.
When Ronnie O' Neal is inevitably found guilty and sent to death row, his son could well feel responsible for his fate. That's a hell of a burden to place on an 11 year old's shoulders, no matter how evil his father!
I pray he that little boy is receiving ongoing, professional psychotherapy and emotional support to move forward after this explosive trial. My heart goes out to him - I feel he has been badly let down by the justice system. Please God in time he can recover and heal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
My late grandfather Fred was a miner in South Wales during the 1940s - '60s. No human being should have to work in those hellish conditions deep underground. All those men risked their lives every day, and their families feared for them.
Imagine working in the dark and damp, losing track of time so deep underground, far away from the human world. There was no respite, you were down there till you finished your shift, and no facilities for the workers - they each took their own food and drink each day, and suffice to say, there were no toilets or washing facilities.
The men forged strong friendships, and looked out for each other. When my grandpa was nearing retirement and struggling to breath due to emphysema from years of coal dust, his colleagues took care of him and got him a job above ground as a watchman in the hut, caring for the poor pit ponies and horses. The animals suffered terribly too, and they generally died on the job with no retirement. It was the worst kind of manual labour for man and beast.
My grandpa suffered terribly with emphysema. His last years at home were sad, a formerly fit and handsome man sat in his armchair like a gaunt ghost, wheezing relying on oxygen tanks just to get some breath. He died at 62, the happy retirement he hoped for never materialised. I am here today typing this, thanks to his sacrifices and suffering, my sweet Nan Daisy's too, she kept the home fires burning, worried about him and kept their four children fed and well cared for. God bless them and all the mining families who gave far too much.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Djeispark I'm very sorry to hear you suffered horrific childhood abuse. As I made clear in my post, as adults we all have choices, and whatever an abuser's history there's no excuse for their vile crimes.
But if you have studied the subject of abuse (as I suspect you have), you'll have heard of something called 'the cycle of abuse', ie abuse is frequently carried down generations of the same family, as if it were genetic. Of course it isn't genetic, it is learned behaviour, and your story proves it is possible to break that cycle.
My worry is if we simply dismiss the worst dregs of humanity as 'monsters', and don't look at context or seek to understand how their development was warped, we are then passive and don't believe we can identify or address causes and environments in which that kind of horrific behaviour thrives. Therefore we just shrug and accept a proportion of people will be violent abusers and killers, as though it were inevitable. I don't believe its inevitable. But we need to study abusers far more closely than we currently do if we are to glean critical information about them, and what better opportunity to do that, than when they are imprisoned for life?
I'm a great believer in getting value for money for the taxpayer funding these scumbags bed and board. I think they should be studied like lab rats, to better understand them, with a view to recognising the red flags and preventing innocents becoming their victims.
4
-
4
-
1977, 42 years ago, the Queen's Silver Jubilee year. Dame Barbara speaks some nuggets of wisdom. The permissive society, the pill and so-called sexual freedom doesn't seem to have done as much for women as it has for men.
And the internet was not even a twinkle in Bill gates' eye back then - Dame Barbara would have been apoplectic at the vile, hardcore porn children can and do see today at the mere click of a mouse.
Sadly the misogynistic, 'Madonna - whore' view of women she expresses here, betrays her Edwardian upbringing. Calling children prostitutes as she does her is pretty appalling!
Knowing "...where babies come from" is one thing, but I wonder if she knew what a clitoris was, or did, or how crucial a clitoris is for women to enjoy an orgasm? Did she even know men are not the only ones who have orgasms, and that women have orgasms too?! And if she did know these facts about female sexuality, did she share them with her children?
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Agreed! In my view Richard Lester's first two Muskateer movies, released just 6 months apart in 1973 and '74, are by far the best Muskateer movies ever made. He intended it to be one movie, but had filmed so much material, he realised he'd never make his promised release date, so instead he split it into two movies, 'The Three Muskateers' of '73 and hot on its heels 'The Four Muskateers' of 1974.
Because the two films were made simultaneously with the same superb, all-star cast, they are best watched back to back.
Richard Lester (unwisely in my view), made a third movie with the original cast - minus its wonderful leading ladies Faye Dunaway and Raquel Welch who'd both been killed off - in 1989, 'Return of the Muskateers'.
I think that third film was a mistake. The plot and script were inferior, and most disappointingly, the cast were no longer in their sexy, dynamic prime. And it showed! Oliver Reed was looking quite portly and booze-ravaged, and Michael York had lost the youthful exuberance so essential to D'Artagnan's character. The only Muskateer who'd hardly aged a day was Richard Chamberlain as Aramis.
Christopher Lee was rather improbably brought back as villain Count de Rochefort, after he was definitely killed with a sword through the heart by D'Artagnan at the end of the 1974 'Four Muskateers' movie.
In the subsequent, third and final movie, Rochefort explains that he survived that fatal wound, bleeding overnight on the floor of the cathedral (where he'd received D'Artagnan's sword through his chest in a dramatic and beautifully choreographed and performed fight to the death), and spent the next 20 years imprisoned in the Bastille.
Liberties like that with the plot make me prefer to watch the two first movies, which wrap the story up well, and forget the third movie ever happened!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Diana's marriage to Prince Charles made her an international star with a huge fortune, two healthy handsome sons and VIP status for life as mother of the future king. She was not 'duped', she did very well out of the union! If Prince Charles had not proposed she'd be just another upper class divorcee, gossiping to her Sloaney pals over Knightsbridge lunches.
Diana threw away the glittering life the royal family gave her, when she chose to run around Paris with an Arab cokehead - then forgot about her dependent children and neglected to fasten her seatbelt. Diana failed in the first duty of every parent - to stay alive to raise your children to adulthood!
Not only was she not much of a wife, she was a big let down as a mother too. As adults, poor William and Harry privately faced the fact their mother duped them into meeting a long list of her lovers, including James Hewitt and Will Carling. She should have had a revolving door fitted to her bedroom!
When her affair with her husband's married pal Oliver Hoare turned sour and he dumped her, she took her revenge by making literally hundreds of silent phone calls to his home. Hoare knew it was her behind the nuisance calls, and decided to come clean to his wife about the affair and Diana's creepy stalking. Together the Hoares decided to present a united front and report her to police. That's how two embarrassed Scotland Yard detectives visited Diana at Kensington Palace and told her to cut it out. She was so stupid, she batted her eyelashes and denied it was her behind the calls. But the cops had traced them, and told her they were made from a local payphone and from her own private apartments at KP. Diana was backed into an embarrassing corner, and had to think quickly. She blamed her own son William for the silent phone calls! What a wonderful mother. The woman was utterly shameless.
Diana was far too self centred and vacuous to make a good wife, and would never have had a happy marriage with anyone. Charles meanwhile married the love of his life Camilla (who, had times been different, he'd have been allowed to marry in the first place), and they are still happy today. That tells us the truth about the Waleses' doomed marriage.
Charles and Diana were incompatible from the start - despite her self pitying act pretending she still loved him for public sympathy, the truth is Diana was never happy with her husband, only the fame and status the marriage gave her! As is evidenced by all her extra marital affairs - that's not the behaviour of a heartbroken wife in love with her husband! Charles bored her to tears. And all that sanctimonious bull crap about wanting to be 'queen of people's hearts', UGH how unutterably egotistical and COMMON!
I do wish Diana had lived. She'd have got more and more barking mad as she aged, and failed to achieve a happy marriage. Seeing Charles and her sons happy in their private lives would have made her increasingly bitter and twisted. And boy did Kate and Meghan dodge a bullet there - she'd have been madly jealous of their youth, beauty and the greater media attention they got as they took centre stage and she became a grandma.
No doubt Diana would have started to look strange, having umpteen cosmetic procedures to cling onto her sex appeal. Her looks were always her main appeal, in the absence of wit, intellect, outside interests or depth of character. I think she'd have been very entertaining post menopause, what a shame we won't get to see it!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Shayna Hubers is a highly dangerous, manipulative narcissist who decided to kill Ryan Poston that night because she'd hacked his Facebook account and knew he had a date with a beauty queen. She was jealous and controlling as hell and would not listen when he tried, umpteen times to finish with her. It was the classic abuser's 'If I can't have you, no one will'.
Just as a woman involved with an abusive male is most at risk of murder when she ends the relationship, the same applied here. Poor Ryan didn't realise what danger he was in when he tried ending this relationship and wanted to be single and dating again.
Shayna turned up at his home unannounced, and uninvited, as she'd done many times before (in the past he had left her at his home and gone to stay with his Dad because she simply refused to respect his request for her to leave).
His neighbours heard no argument, as she claimed in her 'self defence' baloney - they heard her crying on his doorstep, because he wanted her to leave. And soon after they heard six gunshots. This was not a domestic or any kind of fight - it was an execution.
Ryan was not attacking his ex girlfriend when she killed him. He was sitting behind a table. Hubers calmly picked up the gun, released the safety catch, and put him on the ground with a shot to his forehead at close range. She then circled his body, and fired another 5 bullets, all of them into his head. It was ruthless and incredibly, gratuitously violent - she enjoyed every moment.
Shayna Hubers destroyed Ryan's handsome face, and afterwards joked she'd given him the nose job he always wanted. That was not self defence - it was cold, premeditated murder motivated by jealousy, anger and rage because she could not take his rejection and would not let him be happy with another woman.
This evil woman is a psychopath and cannot ever be rehabilitated - she will always be a danger to the public and needs to die in that locked cage.
3
-
3
-
So was his dead parents' blood found on the carpet and around the fireplace where the glass front was broken? His long, rambling tale about his supposed toe injury (blood 'squirting out' sounds dramatic - yet the piece of glass embedded was so small, he hadn't even found it initially!) and his subsequent clean up obviously suggests a cover story for victim blood.
This young man's lazy entitlement oozes from his slowly delivered, rambling narrative. He was a very privileged and lucky individual. Born in the US to loving, dedicated parents, he was fed, clothed, educated and given every chance to lead a productive life, giving something back. But all he is interested in is taking. He spun a totally false and parallel life of school and work - the life he should have been living - to enable himself to live the lazy life he preferred, shooting up the enemy in video games and eating take out with his girlfriend.
Hearing him talk about those parents is interesting. Lots of barely concealed resentment against his father, who sealed his own fate by challenging his lies. He clearly despised his loving, gentle mother so much she doesn't event warrant any anger!
We are breeding a new category of man - the entitled, useless man-child. This guy is textbook, but for the fact he had a girlfriend and committed murder which makes him slightly rarer. Most of them can't get an actual, flesh and blood woman, and don't kill when they don't get their own way.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Great video, I so enjoy watching the progress at your cabin, it's amazing how much you have achieved in a short time, and all to a fantastic standard - Respect.
Your daughter is adorable! As is sweet Puffy, but I have a suggestion. Wouldn't a big German Shepherd/Husky or other large breed be a better companion for you on your adventures? You've said before Puffy is your girlfriend Crystal's dog - and also that he's such a softy, he would try to make friends with the wild wolves around there, who'd like to eat him!
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing Puffy, he's a cutie. But I can't help feeling you deserve a dog of your own whose breed is better suited to that active, outdoors life and the extreme weather conditions. You are on your own so much at the cabin and both tents, you really deserve a furry friend of your own. I hope you'll think about it - a new dog would be a fantastic regular addition to your YouTube channel and I believe very popular with viewers! 🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾
Wishing you continued happy, safe adventures, from a sub in England. 👍👍👍
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Camilla had one affair with the man she is now happily married to - Diana had umpteen extra marital affairs, many with other women's husbands! Diana was more 'Queen of Tarts' than 'Queen of Hearts'. Stop making out Diana was some sort of saint, she had the morals of an alley cat and was every bit as pleased to get rid of Charles as he was her! She was no victim, she just played the role for public sympathy.
Diana fans idealise her because she died young and beautiful and will always be so in their minds. If she'd lived and lost her youthful good looks the public would have soon seen the real Diana, shallow and spiteful, and gone off her. What's more she'd have become even more ridiculous as she aged, having multiple facelifts and sticking the knife into Kate and Meghan her younger, more attractive daughters in law, jealous as hell they were getting the media attention that was once hers!
Those gals dodged a bullet, Diana would have been the manipulative, meddling mother in law from hell!
3
-
@Eastwindwards Have you considered writing 'Mills & Boon' romances? Give it a go - that's exactly the kind of sentimental, fictitious twaddle they go for!
Look at Diana's hostile, indifferent body language to her husband on their later royal tours - or watch her backstabbing 'Panorama' interview, or read the self pitying Andrew Morton book she slyly instigated, a no holds barred character assassination on Charles. That's what she really thought of her husband!
When exactly do you think Diana quote: '...held out for Charles'? When the marriage foundered and he returned to the love of his life Camilla, Diana threw herself into meaningless bed hopping, which continued for the rest of her life!
It's doubtful Diana would have found any man who could make her happy. She was a covert narcissist of the most extreme kind - a bottomless pit of take, take, take which no mere man could fill.
Marriages fail - especially arranged marriages like Charles and Diana's. That's life, it's not the tragedy Diana pretended to get public sympathy. Diana may have played the victim but she walked away from that marriage triumphant, with two fine sons, £17 million in the bank, world fame, VIP status and a Kensington Palace pad.
It's ironic that in the end Diana DID become a victim of her own poor judgement. She put her personal safety in the hands of the sleazy Al Fayeds who provided a drunk driver, and failed to wear her seat belt.
The marriage she constantly bitched about had given her a wonderful, glittering life, which she threw away in an instant when she failed to give her children a thought and fasten her seat belt. The inquest was clear - if she'd only buckled up, she'd have lived!
3
-
3
-
Exactly, Vinnie clearly hasn't been following this case at all, he's totally clueless about the facts and the various players. Fact is, no family member but Melody had any motive to kill Gary - she was his wife of 38 years and in line to get the whole $4.5 million estate, as she knew. None of their kids would get a cent if he died!
She was also having a hot and heavy affair, and they'd talked of marriage. She couldn't stand her husband Gary, they lived in separate parts of the house, she had betrayed him umpteen times with various affairs, and spending outrageous amounts of money.
She is a vile, greedy, self-centred woman and 3 of her 4 kids believe her capable of murdering their dad. That is all powerful evidence of her guilt - and I haven't even got onto the forensics!
So what if Scott said he'd seen burning bodies in Iraq, and so believed it was one? Doesn't mean he put it there! In fact it was Melody who mentioned the body first (pretending she'd just noticed it). She asked Scott if he'd thrown a goat on the fire. I think that's a REALLY weird comment, and horribly offensive when she knew it wasn't a goat laying there, but her husband!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lucybraun8969 Context is all! Diana was sobbing over losing HRH (as ALL divorcees lose it), in front of her children, in her self centred, 'poor little me' egotistical way. And 14 year old William only said that to comfort her. When he became a man he understood the reality of the situation, that his mother should have been mature enough to accept losing HRH was an inevitable part of divorce (Sarah Ferguson too lost HRH, while remaining Duchess of York, as Diana remained Princess of Wales).
As an adult Willian would not have restored the HRH title to his mother. That would have made her an exception to a centuries old rule. William is an intelligent man who understands royal tradition and protocol.
In fact as he matured he'd have increasingly seen how childish, self centred and manipulative his mother was, and become impatient with her. In all likelihood, there would have been some serious fallings out with his dreadful, spoiled mother!
Diana would undoubtedly have struggled having two younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law Kate and Meghan, taking the limelight off her, and resented them. I think William and Harry would have had a tough time with their mother's petulant tantrums, and she'd have been the mother in law from hell to Kate and Meghan. Truth is they ALL dodged a bullet when the capricious, self-absorbed Diana died!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In 2003, Paul Denyer, big, burly, woman-hating, serial killer of females, began identifying as a 'trans woman', and calling himself 'Paula'. Yet another insult to the women whose lives he ended so brutally, and to ALL women!
Denyer suddenly denied his earlier admission he was motivated to kill by a hatred of females, and said he's had gender dysphoria from childhood, and murdered women because he was envious and resentful of them. Utter garbage!
After his prison request for sex change surgery was denied (a request backed by prisoner support groups), he reverted back to his real name Paul. As one victim's family member rightly said, his claim to be transgender was all a stunt.
This '60 Minutes' report doesn't cover Denyer's history, but there were early signs he was highly dangerous. When he was 10, he killed the family's pet cat, cutting her throat and hanging her from a tree. He had a history of bullying smaller children at school, using sexual violence against them (Denyer became morbidly obese as a teen). He applied to join Victoria Police, but failed the medical. He was fired from 7 jobs, the last of which was at a ship builders yard, where he was observed making knives for his own use. Soon he was stalking females in his local neighbourhood.
In 1993, a woman neighbour was the target of an early crime. Denyer broke into her home while she was out with her boyfriend and newborn baby, and killed her pet cat and three kittens in sadistic knife attacks. He staged the scene, slashing furniture and leaving multiple pornographic images torn from magazines, and a message to the woman written in cat's blood. 'Donna You're Next'. He later admitted had the woman been home, he would have murdered her. Other female neighbours were also broken into, but police failed to identify Denyer as a suspect. At the time of the break-ins and murders, he lived with a girlfriend.
No one should be under any illusions - Denyer's crimes were sexual, regardless of whether or not he sexually assaulted the victims or not. That's the reason he targeted females, exclusively - he got perverted pleasure from inflicting sadistic violence on women and girls.
Sex killers like Denyer cannot be rehabilitated, and will forever be a serious risk of harm to females, therefore they are not suitable candidates for parole. In 2023 his first attempt at winning parole was rejected. He should never have been allowed to apply! In 1993 he was originally sentenced to three consecutive Life terms with no parole, which was exactly right. But he appealed, and incredibly the following year he was successful, winning a non-parole period of 30 years, making him eligible for parole from 2023. That ruling was an utter outrage! Women and girls must be protected from violent deviants like Denyer.
In October 2023 the Australian government announced a change in the law to withdraw future parole rights from Denyer and other prisoners in the most serious category (eg multiple murders/murders of children).
3
-
What charisma! Loved his powerful portrayal of 'Dracula', in the superb 1977 BBC adaptation. But for sheer emotion, the youthful, beautiful Louis Jourdan of the classic 1948 movie 'Letter from an Unknown Woman', lingers in the memory. He brought a warmth and vulnerability to the womanising pianist, that was truly heart-breaking.
This TV appearance in Summer 1983, came two years after the shock death of his only child Louis Jr, aged 29. He found him dead in bed from a prescription drug overdose at the family home in Los Angeles, on 12th May 1981. Louis Jr had suffered long-term depression, and his death was ruled a probable suicide.
Work was no doubt a welcome distraction for Louis Jourdan, at this sad time. And what better than the plum role of a 'Bond' villain, working in an exotic location alongside his old friend Roger Moore?
It's a reminder that all of us, however fortunate, talented, wealthy, privileged or otherwise blessed, have our private sorrows.
Louis Jourdan died at home in Beverly Hills on Valentines Day 2015, aged 93, eight months after losing his childhood sweetheart and wife of 68 years, Berthe Frederique (known as 'Quique').
Louis, Quique, and their son Louis Jr are buried together at Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery in Los Angeles. The inscription on the shared headstone reads:
'Where do we come from?
What are we?
Where are we going?'
(Title of a painting by Paul Gauguin).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If she were dead, her suffering would be over. Lucy Letby must live the rest of her life locked in those four walls, knowing she's the most hated and despised person in Britain. And knowing the only way she is ever getting out of that maximum security prison, is in a body bag.
No more high status job, no more good times with friends, she'll never be able to do all the things she used to take for granted - go for a drive, have a meal in a restaurant, enjoy a night at the pub, go shopping, host a barbecue, visit friends, drive a car, own a pet, go abroad on holiday, have a boyfriend/get married, have kids etc etc. Imagine all those freedoms, taken from you? Life literally wouldn't be worth living!
And she's such a spoiled only-child, she no doubt thinks she's far too good to be in there, surrounded by criminals. A narcissistic baby killer won't do well in prison - she will have a target on her back. She picked on the most defenceless, fragile victims, but she will now be living with some really hard-faced killers, who would love to do her serious physical harm. I doubt she'll be quite so brave up against another adult! Letby will be receiving some tough lessons in humility behind bars.
She's lost everything - and brought shame on the parents who doted on her. She threw away her charmed life, because she's a spoiled narcissist, who couldn't resist playing God with other people's precious babies. I hope she lives a very long life, remembering the wonderful lifestyle she used to have - and still would have, if she'd only let those poor babies live. Living with the consequences of her evil crimes is the worst possible punishment. Her future is beyond bleak. She doesn't even have the hope of future parole to keep her going - that is surely a fate far worse than death.
3
-
@margaretblyth8534 Your multiple, anti-Camilla posts are full of factual errors and bile. But your claim Prince Charles was ever in love with Baroness Dale Tryon is utterly laughable.
Dale Tryon was merely an Australian social climber, who got to know and pursue Prince Charles through her marriage to British aristocrat Baron Tryon, a member of the prince of Wales' inner circle.
Dale Tryon had no shame in chasing Prince Charles even though she was married, and made herself fully available, even taking up fly fishing as an excuse to spend time with him. Her whole life she traded on their supposed affair (which if it happened at all, was very brief), even sucking up to Princess Diana and persuading her to wear one of the Godawful dresses she manufactured under her nickname 'Kanga' to the high profile 'Live Aid' concert.
Once her husband made plain he wanted a divorce and she saw her links to royalty weakening further, she lapsed into a deep depression and health issues, culminating in her death at 49. Dale Tryon was always a pathetic figure of limited intellect, and certainly not someone Charles was ever in love with as you ludicrously claim. She simply wasn't intelligent enough to hold his interest!
Contributing multiple posts full of nonsense here only brings confusion and misinformation to this thread. Please go and do some research before you type another line of garbage, you're adding nothing of value to the discussion and only exposing your own shocking ignorance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ggbice Amen, the jury clearly gave this case proper consideration and debate, and reached the correct guilty verdict. Respect to them.
It's funny, the people who comment here that there wasn't enough evidence of murder to convict him, clearly didn't follow the 2 week trial. Because they don't quote any of the MANY prosecution witnesses, whose evidence strongly indicated a domestic homicide by the victim's abusive husband!
They ignore the ton of incriminating evidence against the accused, and instead quote the lame and limited arguments of the defence, whose only possible option to save his skin was to try and persuade the jury that the victim committed suicide. A cancer sufferer who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, supposedly walked far enough from home without her dentures or cigarettes, and without leaving a suicide note or any footprints, killed herself, before magically vanishing-away her own, fully clothed corpse. It was a story and a defendant so totally lacking in credibility, the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary witness to take the stand and speak in support of James Prokopovitz.
The lack of a body was actually a problem for the defence, more than the prosecution. Because the fact Victoria disappeared off the face of the earth and was never found despite exhaustive professional police searches, indicated third party involvement, therefore foul play/murder.
Suicide victims are usually recovered - it is murder victims, who go missing!
After 8 years of police searches and public appeals, common sense decreed someone had worked hard to dispose of Victoria's remains to ensure she wouldn't be found. And who else could that person be but her abusive husband, who found her illness and medical bills a drain on his patience and finances. James Prokopovitz, who made it blatantly obvious to police he despised his wife and didn't want her back. The man who at the start of 2013 began an affair with the newly widowed Kathy Friday, and determinedly and repeatedly lied with her to the authorities about when their relationship began, because it was one more smoking gun signposting his motive to murder his wife.
There's no question Victoria was killed and disposed of by her husband. Police even worked out where he put her corpse - it was undoubtedly in the industrial sludge ponds he could access 24-7 with his own key, a location with no CCTV cameras. He was so confident the powerful cocktail of chemicals in the ponds would destroy her - he even mentioned her lack of identifying teeth - that this knowledge assured him he'd escape justice. Thank God he was wrong!
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
3
-
Excellent special report by Court TV. One by one, the Adelsons are falling like dominoes - first Charlie, who will die behind bars, next his mother Donna, the controlling spider at the centre of this family web, whose murder trial starts next week (she's done). And the really intriguing question now - has Wendi been clever enough to avoid prison for her role in her ex husband Dan Markel's murder?
I agree with the final panel, Wendi Adelson's played a much smarter game than both her mother and her brother. But let's not forget, Wendi was the golden child in that family. The main reason she's escaped prosecution to date, is that her parents and older brother actively protected her, and kept her at arm's length from their grubby murder plot.
However with Charlie's murder conviction and now Donna's prosecution, it seems cracks are appearing in their relationship with Wendi, the family princess. No doubt terrified of prison, Wendi is keeping her formerly close family at arm's length. Having done so much for her, Charlie and Donna are likely enraged. They may now be turning on Wendi. Could there be a third-act twist in this tale - will the Adelson family try to take Wendi down with them?
The murder of Dan Markel was all about Wendi, first and foremost - and a family so massively egotistical they believed they could literally kill him, and get away with it. Wendi is involved in this crime up to her neck - she knew about it, and she endorsed it. Dan would be alive today, if his ex wife had wanted him that way. Wendi didn't want Dan alive, because he was beating her in the child custody courts and thwarting her having full control over their two kids - and by extension, full control over her life, and her family's lives.
Interesting that we heard in this report prosecutors recently had a closed door meeting with Wendi's eldest brother Rob Adelson, long estranged from the Adelson family. Could he be called as a state witness at his mother Donna's imminent murder trial? His evidence would be dynamite, and keenly anticipated by the media. What is his insider take on the twisted family dynamics that got his former brother-in-law Dan Markel killed?
We can be sure prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to nail Wendi Adelson. An old girlfriend of Wendi's is talking to them, and spilling the beans about her in closed meetings. It's safe to assume she and Wendi are no longer friends! Like Wendi, Harvey Adelson, the family patriarch, has also been named as a conspirator in the murder for hire of Dan Markel. Could he be next to face a jury trial? This show will run and run.
3
-
3
-
@19:10 The medical expert is wrong here, and Vinnie didn't correct her. She mistakenly states that Photo One, ie the still image depicting the FIRST position of the suitcase, is the photo on the RIGHT.
From that wrong conclusion, she goes on to say the case was flipped over so that the zipper was underneath victim Jorge Torres, and that SECOND photo is seen on the LEFT. In fact the opposite is true.
Photo One, depicting the FIRST, starting position of the suitcase, is the image on the LEFT, when it's partially laying on the rug, with the zipper underneath Jorges. The first cellphone video Boone made, which was shown at the beginning of this episode confirms it, and clearly shows that first, original position of the suitcase, sitting on the rug with the zipper positioned beneath it, @ 3:32.
Boone then flipped the case over to lay some distance away from the rug, with the zipper now positioned at the top, above the victim, as seen on Photo Two, which is the SECOND still image on the RIGHT of the screen.
Vinnie wasn't concentrating here!
3
-
3
-
@haleyt3754 You make some valid points., and I understand where you're coming from. I agree, the parents must have spotted issues in their youngest son, long before he murdered them both.
The truth is, there are always red flags to be picked up by parents when a child is going wrong. Ditto with toxic romantic relationships. But too often parents wilfully ignore or dismiss the signs, as do the girlfriends and wives of the overwhelmingly male, psychopathic/narcissistic wife killers/family annihilators.
Historically the received wisdom about 'children' who killed their parents (even adult children like Chandler Halderson), was always that they were cruelly mistreated as kids by those parents, either wilfully abused or coldly neglected. Perversely, these killers were presented by some academics as victims themselves.
But in recent years it's increasingly being recognised monsters can be moulded by the opposite conditions - an over indulgent parent or parents. Indulgent parental figures who fail to outline and enforce boundaries and expectations of good behaviour in their progeny, and respect the rights of others. Such parenting can create such dangerously entitled and narcissistic adults, they are even capable of murder in their own self interest.
I believe that's what we're seeing in the case of Chandler Halderson, and similar, recent parent-killers like Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jnr. All grown men in their twenties who killed their parents when they belatedly threatened to remove their financial support - support that should have ended many years earlier!
These young men weren't grateful for the sacrifices their parents had made to keep them, long beyond childhood. On the contrary, they took it as their due, and were enraged when their father (in every case), told them the free ride was ending. I believe modern western societies are breeding a new category of stunted male - the 'man child'. Unlike their fathers who expected to become adults at 21, with full time jobs, mortgages and families to support, today's males expect to stay dependant teenagers right through their twenties - and often into their thirties too!
3
-
3
-
@BlazeCasey I think every woman who ever suffered a painful break up knows exactly what Diana was up to with that holiday fling! Dodi was being used by the princess - he wasn't dynamic or accomplished enough to hold Diana's interest beyond a few weeks of sun, sea and sex.
A rich kid living on a £100,000 a month allowance from his father Mohammed Al Fayed, Dodi still hadn't created a home or a career for himself aged 42. He'd never had children or a lasting romantic relationship, and his one marriage to a model lasting a mere 8 months showed he had serious commitment issues. He was using Diana too, obeying his father's orders to seduce her, for the prestige a union with a senior British royal would bring the shady Al Fayed family.
Diana's closest friends all said she was madly in love with Hasnat Khan, and would have tried to rekindle their relationship on her return to London. I tend to agree. As Dodi bought her expensive gifts (including a gaudy diamond ring she told one friend would be firmly going on her right, not her left hand), he was trying to win his father's approval by bagging Diana as a trophy girlfriend - and if she agreed, wife.
But Diana was too savvy to become an Arab playboy's new status symbol. In her eyes Dodi was perfect casual fling material, what better than a wealthy playboy to make her real love back home jealous? But a husband, never!
Mohammed Al Fayed, who only ever had a passing acquaintance with the truth, spun lie after lie following Dodi and Diana's deaths, trying to sell the public his fairy tale that the pair were not only engaged but expecting a child together. Again Diana's closest friends stepped forward to blow Al Fayed's self-serving fiction out the water. Her old pal Rosa Monckton holidayed with Diana just two weeks before she died, and reported her friend was having her period, therefore could not possibly have been pregnant. Her estranged boyfriend Hasnat Khan revealed in a police interview that he doubted Diana was with child, because she was methodical about taking her contraceptive pill.
Mohammed Al Fayed's crazy talk of marriage, pregnancy, and a conspiracy to murder with the Duke of Edinburgh as its mastermind, were a smokescreen to distract from the pivotal role he played in the couple's deaths. It was Mohammed Al Fayed who directed his son's movements with Diana on that final, fateful night - and Mohammed who crucially provided them with a drunk, drugged and reckless driver. If any one person can be blamed for the tragedy in the Pont d'Alma Tunnel on August 31st 1997, it is surely Mohammed Al Fayed.
Common sense tells you Diana would not have been crazy enough to fall pregnant to a man she began a holiday romance with just 3 weeks previously. Diana was the most eligible woman in the world, she could take her pick of the world's most eligible men. She would not have jumped into a serious, committed relationship so soon after Hasnat Khan broke her heart. And in my view (and many others'), she simply would not have regarded an idle multi-millionaire tycoon's son as husband material.
3
-
@BairMendoza '...the impossible situation she was trapped in'? What was 'impossible' about Diana's situation?
She eagerly entered into an arranged marriage to a man she'd met only a handful of times, because she wanted the VIP status, glamour, global fame and unimaginable privilege of becoming Princess of Wales. Diana did not marry Charles for love! She grabbed every glittering prize her position as Charles' wife gave her - and repaid him with terrible disloyalty.
When they both realised they were incompatible (Charles bored her to tears - as she made abundantly clear with her hostile body language on joint engagements from the late 'eighties), he returned to his former love Camilla, and Diana had at least 10 extra marital affairs - many with other women's husbands. There were many more than 'three people' in the marriage, as she claimed - she forgot to count all her casual lovers, frequently smuggled to her Kensington Palace apartments by creepy butler Paul Burrell in the boot of her car!
She worked very hard to keep these sexual flings secret from the public, so she could play the innocent, wronged wife and point the finger at Charles and Camilla. She was no victim as she pretended, she was a devious hypocrite! That she launched a public character assassination on her husband, hurting her children terribly - while hiding her own dirty secrets - only exposed what a manipulative, spiteful narcissist she was!
Diana's legacy is her children, nothing more. She could have started a charity in her name or left behind some other lasting achievement, but she did not. Big names like Dame Elizabeth Taylor and Sir Elton John did far more for the cause of Aids/HIV than she did, and set up charities in their own name that thrive to this day.
As for her land mines photo opportunity - she had no clue about that issue until her friend the great Lord Richard Attenborough begged her to get involved. Diana never had an idea in her empty head, unless it was about shagging another woman's husband, or stabbing Charles, the poor sod who gave her everything, in the back!
Ah, I just thought of one legacy - she might remind people of the stupidity of failing to wear your seat belt, even on short trips - and especially if you have dependent children. Diana was a 36 year old mother of two, who behaved like a reckless teenager that night, and threw away her glittering, opulent life because she didn't give her two little boys a thought and fasten her seat belt. She was ultimately as lousy a mother, as she was wife.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Do you find Amber Heard attractive then? I really don't see it, even when she was younger and not as haggered as now - physically and charisma-wise, she's nothing special in my view. I admire good looking, magnetic people of both sexes and readily praise where it's due. But I cannot see what Depp saw in her - she's no Grace Kelly, Ava Gardner, Marilyn Monroe or even Scarlett Johansson! Frankly it's no surprise to me she's a lesbian - it's pretty obvious. There are umpteen way better looking, more intriguing and far sexier women than her around, and he could take his pick.
The answer to why he was so drawn to toxic Amber Heard, lies not in her decidedly average physical appeal, but in her narcissistic abuser credentials. Because sadly he was drawn to her toxicity, as a survivor of childhood narcissistic abuse by his mother. The roots of such toxic relationships go deep!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What a sweet, kind lady to try and help Jerry - she even told cops she knew him, to protect him, when in fact she only met him in the airport.
Respect to the big guy too, who tried valiantly to step in and stop his belligerent behaviour with staff and customers from escalating, feeling he showed signs of a genuine PTSD condition.
Unfortunately, excessive alcohol is a drug as powerful, toxic and mind-altering as any other. You can't argue with a drug-addled mind, and the rest of the video featuring Jerry's arrest and adventures in police custody, is sadly predictable.
But let everyone take from this video the good news it shares - the best of humanity is out there, alive and thriving. Watch too many cop bodycam videos and you may doubt it, but there really is more good in people than bad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Iseeyou19xx You sound like Diana - but you can't be, because the dozy bint got herself killed in a totally needless accident. You've watched too many cheesy, straight-to-video TV movies about Charles and Diana, and swallowed every fictionalised account as though it were a documentary!
Prince Charles was the best thing that ever happened to Diana - she owed him everything. Without him and all the VIP privileges the marriage gave her, she'd have been nothing - just another dim aristocrat's daughter without qualifications or career ambitions beyond au pair, chalet maid at a Swiss ski resort (ie char lady), and teaching assistant doing finger paintings with 4-year-olds! Charles gave her a glittering lifestyle which was set to continue after his very generous divorce settlement - if she'd only behaved like a grown woman of 36, not a crazy teenager!
Diana had at least 10 extra marital affairs, to Charles' ONE. She had a damn nerve pointing the finger at him and Camilla, when she was a mistress many more times - with a very nasty habit of chasing other women's husbands! Ask Julia Carling, Susan Mannakee, Diane Hoare and all the other wives whose husbands Diana seduced, what they think of The Queen of Tarts!
Diana ruined her own life by running around with shady Arabs who gave her a drunk driver, then forgetting she was a mother and failing to wear her seat belt. She was a lousy wife and an even worse mother - she failed in every parent's most basic duty to their children, to stay alive to raise them to adults. Poor William and Harry, was a disappointing mother she was.
3
-
@gmagee2573 How did the royal family mistreat Diana? They treated her very well indeed! They made her a global star, and gave her a glamorous VIP lifestyle and super high status as a senior royal. Diana owed every privilege she enjoyed, to her marriage to a Prince Charles!
Charles gave her a very generous divorce settlement, meeting pretty much every one of her many demands. After her divorce, Diana was a wealthy and powerful woman, all thanks to the royal family.
The Queen was so good to Diana, on her divorce she offered to provide her with a Scotland Yard trained team of security guards and driver for life. This is the best possible security, for only a select category of the world's top VIPs - so good, money alone can't buy it!
The Queen felt her former daughter-in-law Diana needed and deserved this top level of protection, as mother to the future king. So she was happy to pay for it. But Diana churlishly refused the Queen's kind offer - if she had behaved like a grown up (and a responsible mother), she'd have accepted that gift of a personal security team, kept herself safe wherever she went in the world, and would not have died at the hands of a drunk driver just one year later.
Why are you so vicious against Prince Charles ? It's not like he was a womaniser, who ran around with loads of different lovers, while married - no, it was Diana who behaved like that! She was even running around with a new lover when she died!
Charles' only 'crime' was falling out of love with Diana - exactly as she fell out of love with him. The split was entirely mutual - guess what, they weren't compatible! Happens a lot with arranged marriages. Nobody's fault - yet Diana was desperate to milk the split for her own ends, blame Charles entirely, and turn the public against him. She was extremely manipulative, and horribly vindictive!
After Harry's birth, Diana couldn't care less what her husband got up to in Gloucestershire, while she was living the life of a promiscuous single woman in London.The couple were living totally separate lives. She didn't want Charles, the relationship was over. But she was spiteful, and didn't want him to be happy with Camilla, the woman who did love him and always had. So Diana pretended she was heartbroken over Charles, to get public sympathy. It was all an act!
Diana was a bitter-and-twisted woman who tried to break up many marriages. She succeeded with rugby star Will Carling's marriage to TV presenter Julia Carling - her fling with him prompted Julia to file for divorce from him, before they'd even been wed 2 years!
The princess turned stalker when her married lover Oliver Hoare dumped her, sick of her constant demands that he leave his wife for her. Diana was ruthless when men disappointed her! She made over 300 malicious, silent phone calls to his marital home. Scared by her harassment and obsession, Hoare came clean to his wife about the affair. She forgave him, and together they reported Diana to the police.
That's how the story of Diana's unhinged behaviour - and her extra marital affair with an old friend of her husband's, who was a married man - were leaked to the papers. At last the public started to see the true, dark side to Diana's character - the side she hid from the media behind her carefully controlled and entirely fake 'Queen of Hearts' image.
Diana didn't care who she hurt, as long as she got her own way. She upset her children terribly, when she publicly attacked their father in her infamous 'Panorama' interview. The way she played the 'innocent victim', full of self pity and bleating about there being "three people" in her marriage, when she knew there were many more if you counted all her lovers, was sheet hypocrisy and spite! If Diana had lived and been subjected to the scrutiny of the internet age, the wheels would have come off her artfully contrived media image. And as the real woman behind the fake image emerged, with her self pity, grudge-holding and petty, seething resentments, her fan club would have fallen away.
Diana is only popular today because she died young and beautiful, and will forever stay 36. A 60 year old Diana, desperately trying to hold onto her looks with various cosmetic surgeries, would be far less appealing! She would inevitably have become a lower level of celebrity, as the former wife of Prince Charles. And she'd have been in a constant rage at her son's younger, more beautiful wives taking the media limelight from her. Diana at 60 would not have been a pretty sight!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@charwest9449 You described her weirdly inappropriate emotional range perfectly! Heard's performance on the stand only confirms what I already knew - she's lying shamelessly, and she's a really bad actress.
This D-lister is such an off-the-scale narcissist, I think she arrogantly assumed hooking one of the world's biggest movie stars would elevate her own career to the same level as his. Like she's in anything even close to the same league of talent as Johnny Depp, one of the finest actors of his - or any other - generation! She is totally deluded.
I think it came as a nasty shock when it dawned on her that her marriage to Depp wasn't automatically promoting her to the same A-list status as him. If she'd loved him, she'd have been proud of him, not regarded him as a rival. Being a major league narcissist, her husband's far greater star power enraged her, made her resentful of him, and fuelled some of her nastiest insults (eg calling him a "Fat, washed up actor", questioning why a major fashion house gave him a multi-million contract when according to her he has no style, etc).
She got more and more resentful of his career success, when her own didn't match it. The poor guy couldn't win - she pursued him because he's super rich, super successful superstar Johnny Depp, then she started to HATE him for it!
He so deserves to kick this freeloading abusive tramp out of his life once and for all and put the whole sorry nightmare behind him. I hope he can then focus on his career and return to form with a fantastic movie role. I was amazed to learn he's never won an Oscar, after all the multi faceted roles he's played so well. I believe millions of people would love to see him win this case against his abuser, and then win that Oscar.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sandrakissack1332 That's conspiracy theory nonsense, promoted by Mohammed Al Fayed to deflect from his own burden of responsibility for employing a reckless, drunk, uninsured 'chauffeur' whose dangerous driving killed the Princess of Wales along with his son.
Diana was not murdered, she was far too dim to be a threat to anyone! And killing her in a car crash would be impossible to achieve anyway - remember, the route taken by the Mercedes was agreed at the very last moment, rubber stamped over the phone by Mohammed Al Fayed (Dodi didn't go anything without his overbearing father's say-so).
The inquest showed all seat belts in the Mercedes were in full working order - Diana was simply having too much fun with her new fling to think of her two children and fasten hers. It was a stupid decision, which along with her other stupid decision to trust the shady Al Fayeds with her safety and security, cost her her life.
Diana had known Dodi Al Fayed only 2 minutes, he was a rebound affair after her split from surgeon Hasnat Khan, and she had no intention of marrying him (the ridiculous motive given for her supposed 'assassination'). Nor was she pregnant, another lie promoted by Al Fayed - her best friend confirmed she had her period two weeks before her death.
Diana suffered an unsurvivable tear in the pulmonary vein to her heart. If she'd got to the hospital within 10 seconds, she could not have lived. The impact of hitting a concrete pillar inside that tunnel at an estimated 70mph, twice the speed limit, caused horrific internal injuries to the car's occupants.
Please do some research online, before you swallow the lies of the crooked Mohammed Al Fayed and spread misinformation! Diana's violent, premature death at 36 was ultimately as a result of her own lousy choices. If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@devong7124 Ha! Ha! Great title! There is so much wisdom in your words, I was very moved by your authentic personal story and recollections - thanks for sharing. Your post may well help someone who stumbles upon it in future.
Your children were lucky to have a great mother with emotional maturity, who put their security and happiness above her own need for short-term validation or sympathy. If we receive good parenting (as you clearly did), we frequently pass it on, and this is why it's crucial we do our utmost to be good and selfless parents - our influence will undoubtedly be passed along down many subsequent generations, helping form their characters. So make sure you are a positive influence!
Unfortunately Diana was unable to be the selfless parent her children needed. This was in no small part due to the poor parenting she experienced during her formative years. Her mother Frances was unfairly labelled 'The Bolter' by Diana's father Johnnie Spencer after leaving him when Diana was just six years old. Johnnie did his four children terrible psychological harm by telling them their mother had abandoned them and chosen her lover (her second husband Peter Shand Kydd) over them. This was a blatant lie he told his three daughters and son to save face after their mother left HIM, and to demonise their other parent. Diana learned how to lie and manipulate other people's perceptions from the master - her abusive father Johnnie. Sadly she also learned to distrust women, thanks to his misrepresentation of her mother's departure. This antipathy to her own sex emerged in adulthood as an unfortunate compulsion to pursue married men, and to hell with their wives!
The truth was Frances had suffered years of physical and emotional domestic abuse from her husband, Diana's father, and she could take no more. She adored her children, but on first leaving Johnnie there was no question of taking them with her. He was a powerful aristocrat of great influence, whose family had close links to the royal family going back centuries (the Queen was a guest at their Westminster Abbey wedding, and Godmother to their only son Charles).
Had Frances taken the children away with her Johnnie would have had her arrested for kidnap within hours, and his daughters and son returned to him. Frances fought a determined but doomed battle for custody of her children - from the start she knew her ex husband held all the cards. Wily old Johnnie even persuaded Frances' own mother Ruth Lady Fermoy to testify against her daughter, in his favour. After a bitter battle, he won full custody - but the children paid a terrible price. They saw little of their mother due to ongoing acrimony between their parents, and were raised by a succession of young, inexperienced au pairs and mother's helps. Their father was a largely absent figure, enjoying an active life of country pursuits and socialising, leaving childcare to the young women he paid peanuts.
Diana and Prince Charles shared lonely childhoods in common. The Queen was not a hands-on parent to her eldest son. Both he and Diana suffered greatly from the lack of a constant maternal figure in their vulnerable, formative years. The failure of their arranged marriage is sadly an all-too familiar mismatch of two emotionally-needy people, neither of whom could give the other the emotional support and unconditional they so desperately craved. I have never claimed Charles was perfect, but to put all the blame for the divorce on him, as Diana was hell bent on doing, was unrealistic and unfair. It takes two to make or break a marriage, and Diana's own boredom with her husband and her many meaningless sexual affairs, played a major part in the relationship breakdown too.
From birth Prince Charles was spoiled as future king, with paid flunkies attending to his every practical need. But in terms of emotional care, his was a childhood of poverty. Not only did he have little in common with Diana intellectually or in terms of their interests, she was too immature and narcissistic to be the loving, nurturing and steadfast life partner he needed.
Camilla may not be photogenic with Diana's willowy model-girl figure, but she is all-woman, and secure enough in herself to step back and let Charles shine as future king. What's more she loves him warts and all, and doesn't seek to compete with him in some sort of media popularity contest, as Diana did. Had Diana really loved Charles as she claimed she did, she'd have been proud of him and only too delighted to support him as his wife, not compete with him as his rival!
Would the Princess (who would have turned 61 this July), ever have achieved a happy second marriage had she lived? Of course we'll never know, but I seriously doubt it. Even assuming she had met a man she loved enough to forfeit the Princess of Wales title she fought tooth and nail to keep in her divorce settlement, her track record with men did not bode well. Her parents' acrimonious split had warped her view of committed relationships, and she frequently sought out men who were emotionally unavailable (often because they were married).
Her last love Dodi Al Fayed was a rebound fling to make the man she really cared for, surgeon Hasnat Khan, jealous. She would not have married a coke addicted playboy who lived under his overbearing father's thumb, in a million years! Diana was quite a snob, and would not have deemed Dodi husband material. When she died she had not come close to meeting a man she could marry.
I think Princess Diana would be single today. Like a latter-day Princess Margaret, she would still be living alone in her grand Kensington Palace apartments, and would still be enjoying a privileged, hedonistic lifestyle as a senior royal and mother of the future king. But over the last 25 years as the internet shone a powerful light on her less appealing traits - and as she aged - her popularity would have dramatically diminished with the public. I have no doubt whatsoever she'd have had more than one big bust up with her sons that made global headlines, and that there would have been tensions over their choice of wives.
No doubt super-vain Diana would have resented the younger, more beautiful Catherine and Meghan stealing the headlines, attention and admiration she felt were her due. Her media image and fame were always very important to her - too important. Every morning over breakfast, Diana would pore over every newspaper to see what coverage she'd received that day, and (most importantly), judge how good she looked in the photos. To see younger women marry her sons and usurp her previous media supremacy would have been a bitter pill for Diana to swallow.
You are so right about the importance of honesty in this life. Diana's selfish, devious father Johnnie Spencer handed her a legacy of lying and cheating to get what you want out of people. Not a healthy example, and one which led her to make poor choices that were damaging to others, but ultimately most damaging to herself.
Princess Diana was never the victim she played to perfection, until ironically she made herself one that fateful August 1997 night in Paris. Diana's massively charmed and privileged life ended aged 36, due to her own lousy choices - namely handing her security and safety arrangements to shady Mohammed Al Fayed, who provided a drunk, drugged, reckless and uninsured driver, and omitting to fasten her seat belt.
As a senior royal and mother of the future monarch, Diana was entitled to have the very best, specialist royal protection team for life. But in the last years of her life she spurned this 'gold standard' police protection. On her divorce a year before her death, it's said the Queen had made it known she wanted her to make use of this provision, and take advantage of top drawer royal protection drivers and bodyguards. She was concerned that while her former daughter-in-law was no longer Prince Charles' wife, she was still a senior royal and needed that security. The monarch was proved tragically right, when Diana was killed the following year in an accident that would not have happened had she been using the royal protection team that was her due.
This was no conspiracy. Al Fayed instructed Dodi and Diana which route to take by cellphone at the very last moment - assassination by car crash would be a ridiculously hit and miss way to kill someone. And how could the assassins be sure the target would fail to wear their seat belt?
As the inquest into the crash confirmed, all seat belts in the Mercedes were in full working order, but none of the occupants, Diana included, chose to fasten theirs. The experts were unanimous - had she only taken a few seconds to fix her seat belt, she'd have walked away from the crash alive, with a broken arm and bruising. As mother to two dependent children, Diana's reckless choices that night are hard to fathom, but they cost her boys a mother, and immeasurable grief, pain and trauma.
3
-
@carollemieux5254 You are making up my posts yourself, because nowhere did I say anything of the kind! You only reveal how 100% brainwashed you have been by all Diana's propaganda.
In fact I have made it totally clear there was fault on both sides - I have corrected Diana's lies that Charles cheated first, that the marriage breakdown was down to him only, and that she was an innocent, wronged wife who wanted her husband back. NOT true!
If she wanted Charles back, why did she throw herself at so many different men? She had a funny way of showing love for her husband! She never wanted the marriage to work - she was bored to tears of him and couldn't care less who he slept with in Highgrove, while she was in London seducing any man with a pulse - and preferably, a wedding ring.
Marriages never fail due to one person, as Diana tried so hard to persuade the public. They are always down to both husband and wife - unless there is domestic abuse, which certainly was not the case here (though I'm surprised Diana didn't pretend Charles had hit her - she was unhinged enough!)
Since reading the truth about the late, manipulative princess 'makes you ill', I suggest you stay off forums like this one.
Because this is not a Diana fan site for fools like you, perpetuating a myth. They are for grown up discussions by intelligent people interested in true history - not one egotistical person's warped version of it!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tamaraonthego That's hilarious! Diana was the biggest kept woman in the world - practically the patron saint of kept women! She left her expensive private school without a single qualification or career ambition, and drifted into the usual, 'nothing' au pair and posh primary school assistant roles of aristocratic girls waiting for a suitable man to marry and keep them. And boy did she hit the jackpot with Prince Charles!
Diana later admitted she had her eye on the Prince of Wales (her sister's old boyfriend) for a while, and deliberately 'kept herself tidy', ie a virgin so she'd be a contender for his bride and the glittering prize of becoming a princess and future queen. You Diana fans forget, she owed everything to the royal family, they made her a fabulously wealthy, global star. Without her marriage she'd have been just another blue stocking divorcee, twiddling her thumbs in the stockbroker belt!
And please take off your rosy coloured specs about the princess - she was a mistress MANY more times than Camilla, her favourite past time was pursuing other women's husbands and slipping them her private phone number. Ask the wives of Barry Manakee, Oliver Hoare or Will Carling what they think of the Diana, Queen of Tarts!
The difference between Camilla's one extra marital affair with Charles, and Diana's umpteen affairs with a cast of thousands, was the quality of the relationships. Camilla wound up happily married to Charles. Diana's sexual flings were just notches on her bedpost that caused a lot of misery to the wives involved and broke up at least one marriage - Will Carling's. Julia Carling could tell you all about mistresses - she lost her marriage because of one, Diana Princess of Wales!
The way Diana crucified Charles and Camilla in the media and played the innocent, wronged wife, while sneaking around behind the scenes sleeping with anything with a pulse (and often a wedding ring), was rank hypocrisy.
If Diana was such a wonderful mother, why did she elect to send her children off to boarding school? William and Harry could have been day boys and lived full time at Kensington Palace with their mother. The truth is Diana didn't want two little boys under her feet while she was carrying on with all her lovers.
A devoted mother wears her seat belt every time without fail, never once forgetting to fasten up - especially when a high speed chase with the paparazzi is on the cards! Medical experts confirmed, if Diana had only given her dependent children a thought that night and worn her seat belt, she'd have walked away from the fatal crash with bruising and a broken arm. Front seat passenger Trevor Rees Jones survived because he saw how crazily the drunk chauffeur was speeding, and buckled up moments before the impact.
Diana failed in every parent's first duty to their children - to stay alive to raise them to adulthood.
The princess was a manipulative, self serving narcissist who fooled people like you because she was photogenic. Genuinely great and selfless women like Mother Teresa are forgotten about, because they didn't wear designer clothes and diamonds and weren't pretty! You Diana fans are even more shallow than she was.
3
-
@cjwilliams6668 You just defeated your own argument - as you stated, Doug Carter is in charge of the Delphi investigation. Exactly my point! He decides every investigative strategy, so of course his role is investigative!
And his disastrous strategic decisions from day one all the way to 5 years later - or as it's commonly known, 'cold case status' - reflect his failure. I know this from my long experience as a national news journalist.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any senior police officer (not connected with this case, so they've no reason to lie), and they'll tell you the reality. The chance of the Delphi killer being caught 5 years on is now extremely low.
Stranger killers like this guy are caught by excellent, proactive detective work early on while the trail is warm, and that did not happen in this case. Why do you think Supt Doug Carter decided to sit on the video footage of the killer for two whole years, instead releasing only a single, still image from it? Do you think that was wise?
It was not. It served no useful purpose and only helped the perpetrator stay undetected. That was one of many grave mistakes by Supt Carter, and in my view played a critical role in a highly dangerous child murderer remaining at large to this day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Brit_Toolmaker Bravo, excellent post! By any measure, the much-hyped, final episode of this popular BBC drama was a big disappointment. That it's been so widely praised, shows how readily people will defer to popular TV - even when it plainly fails to deliver! 'King's New Clothes' springs to mind.
As you rightly identify, the big supporting sub-plots around the central 'Catherine and Tommy' storyline, namely the abusive PE teacher Rob Hepworth (a brand new character, who hit the ground running as a fantastic villain to rival Tommy), his addict wife Joanna, and the corrupt pharmacist Faisal, were just left hanging, rushed and incomplete.
In the final episode, viewers suddenly realised the writer hadn't left enough time to tie up those loose ends, or reach any satisfying conclusion for those characters. A huge anti climax, not least because those sub plots held so much promise - and the three actors cast in the roles were so compelling to watch. Frankly, they were shafted!
The scene towards the end of the final episode on Catherine's last day before retirement, when as an afterthought she told her boss about some dodgy prescription drugs at her dodgy friend's house, was supposed to resolve the Faisal storyline and satisfy the audience. Not a chance! Faisal was guilty of Joanna's horrific murder, not just prescription drug dealing! It was totally inadequate.
I could probably forgive those weak supporting plots, had the main one - the much anticipated, final resolution of the 'Catherine/Tommy'/ hero/villain conflict - been satisfying, or even credible!
I had a nagging suspicion Tommy's surviving victim, rookie cop Ann Gallagher, and her billionaire businessman father Nev (played by the legendary George Costigan), would have pivotal roles in Tommy's ultimate downfall. That was my hope, anyway, they certainly had unfinished business with the scumbag! But those two fine characters - and actors - were entirely thrown away in Series 3. Madness!
The big showdown between goodie and baddie, was the worst let down of all. By Series 3, Sally Wainwright had much fantastic back-story material to work with, to create a surprising, profound and memorable climax. There were so many fascinating characters and relationship dynamics to play around with, that putting Catherine and Tommy head-to head (especially with such a weak script), was underpowered and unimaginative.
How about throwing Catherine's sister Clare into that confrontation? Or her drippy boyfriend Neil, who Catherine loathed for organising Ryan's prison visits to his murderer/rapist dad?
Catherine's daughter Becky was deceased throughout 'Happy Valley', but remained a leading character, whose suicide shaped the drama from start to finish. Surely her representative on Earth, and Catherine's reason for living - Ryan - should have had a starring tole in that final showdown between his grandmother and father? Ryan was the main focus of both Catherine and Tommy Lee's lives, and the perfect, high stakes 'prize' for them to fight over.
I'm still reeling that writer Sally Wainwright attempted to turn Tommy Lee Royce into a victim in his final scenes - and to elicit sympathy for him! Even more astonishing is that she tried to persuade us he had finer feelings, empathy - and indeed, the capacity to love - specifically his victim Becky and the product of his rape of her, Ryan.
It was made crystal clear to viewers from Episode One, Tommy Lee was a psychopath. As such, he's incapable of loving anyone! That kind of inconsistency and liberty-taking with characterisation is the hallmark of second rate TV drama. I expected better of Sally Wainright, and indeed of 'Happy Valley' star Sarah Lancashire, who as star and co-producer had major input on every aspect of the show.
A show as great as 'Happy Valley, deserved a fantastic finale. It's sad and baffling the standard plummeted so dramatically at the 11th hour.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Sassfire Spot on! I think that's an excellent point - the van life project only succeeded in exposing Brian to Gabby for the abusive loser he is. And at last (very belatedly), she realised she could not plan a long-term future with him.
Prior to her murder, Gabby had been living with Brian at his parents' house for around 2 years I think. This of course gave him even more status and power over her - it's crystal clear how his parents prioritise and perhaps idolise him, and how he became such a toxic narcissist.
I suspect living with Brian's parents kept Gabby in that bad relationship, and allowed him to extend his control and influence over her in that privileged living situation, longer than would be the case had she lived independently of him.
It's well known how abusers quickly set about isolating the victim from her support network of family and friends. Gabby moved many miles away from hers, to live with him in his parents' home. She was very vulnerable to his gas-lighting here. When the full details of this appalling crime are revealed I believe we'll hear her family and friends had deep reservations about her relationship, and had seen worrying changes in her behaviour.
I think Brian was rapidly eroding her natural spark, effervescence and confidence. She was quick to blame herself on the bodycam, for her behaviour - failing to see it was Brian who was making her so unhappy. That is classic abuse, the victim gets so brainwashed and confused by the perpetrator, they blame themselves for his nasty conduct!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EckerKyle My interest in this and other criminal cases is primarily professional, as a former court reporter for national newspapers. The law fascinates me, and custom and practice are of course different between the US and UK, though legal principles are broadly the same. In both arenas, I've often puzzled that juries can be inadequate to the task of navigating circumstantial evidence. Your increasingly clueless and unsophisticated posts, and fondness for that horribly broad term 'proof', have shed some light on that mystery for me - thank you.
I'll offer you a little riddle that might help you to better understand any future criminal trials you attempt to follow. The words 'assume' and 'deduce' are not interchangeable. They have subtle but distinct differences in meaning.
If a farmer sees a fox burying something, he might assume it's stashing recently killed prey. But if he witnesses the same scene close to his hen house after finding three chickens missing from it, he could reasonably deduce the fox is burying his birds.
The farmer's assumption is just that, a guess based on his general life experience. But his deduction is based on specific, personal knowledge, ie a conclusion he has reasonably reached by connecting the known facts. Which of course makes it circumstantial evidence.
When your Mom asked you if you'd been in the cookie jar as a kid and you said no, she knew you were lying. Did she see you take the cookie or eat it? No. But she knew you very well, and through experience could tell if you were being deceptive. She also saw cookie crumbs around your mouth. Yep - it's that circumstantial evidence again. Mom knows what happened, she'd stake her life on it and could no doubt persuade an intelligent jury of your cookie theft. But you would argue you shouldn't be convicted without a date-stamped photo of you eating the cookie!
Your understanding - or rather, misunderstanding - of circumstantial evidence, is that you dismiss it as pure guesswork. That shows real ignorance, as a fundamental misrepresentation of it. No jury can ever be 100% certain of its verdict, no matter how strong the evidence might seem. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.
The 'proof' you have such touching faith in doesn't, in real terms, exist. That's why the legal concept of 'reasonable doubt' has to exist. The truth doesn't come gift wrapped on a silver tray, with a ribbon tied round it. Juries must work hard to find the truth, hidden among the prosecution and defence narratives.
Unfortunately the rapid development of DNA and other forensic evidence over the last 30 years has dazzled some members of the public, and left them thinking circumstantial evidence is weak by comparison. That's a big mistake - as this trial shows. Besides, forensics are not always the irrefutable, 'slam-dunk' proof they're presented as. Forensic evidence can be manipulated, given undue emphasis or unfairly dismissed, and of course mistakes have been made before in evidence gathering and interpretation, resulting in miscarriages of justice. You might further your mind, if you could open it sufficiently to learn.
I hope my little legal lesson today will be of assistance to you. Though ignorance clearly isn't your only problem. You're heavily emotionally invested in this case for some reason. I've no idea why and don't want to know, that is a matter for you.
3
-
3
-
@jjones797 This was NOT a victimless crime! Smollett has made ALL black people victims of his outrageous, self promoting lies, and continues to bring disgrace on them by STILL playing the 'racial victim' card, 3 years after he was exposed for faking a hate crime. And unlike him, most people of colour are not protected by massive wealth and VIP status!
Jussie Smollet tied a NOOSE around his own neck, and claimed white supremacists did it to him during a racist beating, knowing he would incite horrific memories of the historic, racial lynchings of Black people in the US.
With that image of the noose alone, Smollett cynically lit a powerful fuse and inflamed public hurt and anger over racism - and why? All for his own career advancement!
He arranged that ugly and elaborate publicity stunt to promote himself as a heroic 'victim' of racism. Incredibly, the very averagely talented Smollett (who most people had never heard of prior to this scandal), was paid a staggering $2 million a year in a little-known TV series.
But rather than be thankful for his privileged position, pathological narcissist Smollett felt he deserved to be a black superstar like Denzel Washington or Samuel L Jackson.
Did he work harder to achieve their hard-won Global fame, or attend acting classes to improve his performances (as we've seen with all his terrible, hammy-as-hell, fake-ass speeches since he was caught red-handed, he is a decidedly poor actor!)
No - Smollett got scheming, and decided he could take a short cut to superstardom by starring in his own, self-penned and directed, fictional hate crime. The NERVE of the guy, thinking he would get away with it, shows exactly how much bad behaviour he has previously got away with in his life!
Smollett has set the cause of black people back by decades - and continues to sully their reputation with his immoral denials, protests and constant exploitation of his race. That guy never suffered a moment of racism in his privileged life! Born to a wealthy, well connected family (white father), he learned early his skin colour would let him play the underdog when it suited him. And boy has he exploited that over the years!
Instead of owning his crime and taking his punishment like a man, Smollett continued to fight for his own privileged position. Oh this guy does not see himself as any kind of underdog - he believes he's way superior to everyone else! It wasn't even much of a punishment - a mere 150 days, ie less than 5 months in custody - and not even in a real prison. Plus all prisoners were to be removed from the communal areas whenever he wanted to use them for exercise breaks, making phone calls, etc, so he was not being treated like any average black OR white prisoner but was getting the VIP service even in custody!
Except he's even wriggled out of that! I am raging about this crime because I am a decent person who believes the law should be applied evenly to all human beings, regardless of their wealth, privilege, status in society, sex, race or religion. Jussie Smollett has cynically wielded his fame, wealth and power to escape justice right down the line - and while he exploited his privilege, he claimed victim-status because he is mixed race. The hypocrisy and entitlement are off the scale - no wonder so many people of ALL colours are rightly angry about this abuse of power, abuse of the system and above all, abuse of his own ethnicity!
This is NOT a victimless crime - sadly, black people far less powerful that Jussie Smollett will pay a heavy price for his disgusting, egotistical and illegal conduct. Ultimately he will get justice though, thanks to the most important and influential court of all - the court of public opinion. For a celebrity, that's the one that REALLY counts.
Smollett is finished as an actor and as any kind of credible public figure. And the judge was 100% right - he can blame his miserable future life of disgrace and ignominy on whoever he wants - fact is, he did it to himself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HillbillyIslandLife You're tripping! Melody didn't need 'magic' to move her husband's body, just smarts, determination, and enough time - she had all three, plus a wide selection of farm vehicles and tools at her disposal. Adrenaline and the need to get away with murder are great energisers!
There were no 'drag marks' because she cleaned up - but unfortunately for her, not well enough to cover her attempts to remove Gary's blood (and a bullet fragment) inside the house. Police forensics, and specifically luminol, lit up the crime scene like a Christmas tree and showed exactly where she'd shot her husband dead. The bullet found in Gary's rib revealed he had faced Melody when she pulled the trigger - so he was fully aware of his cheating wife's final, horrific betrayal. Poor guy should have seen it through when he began divorce proceedings against her years before - it would have saved his life.
Melody was small but she wasn't disabled - quite the opposite, she was trim and fit from regular gym sessions. It speaks volumes about her guilt, that her best defence was 'I'm not strong enough to move his body'. Baloney!
There is zero evidence against Scott, he had a solid alibi. The defence were clutching at straws with that dumb trail cam schtick. People regularly erase trail cam footage, big deal. Fact is, Scott was not at the farm when his dad was killed - Melody was. That's why he wasn't charged with murder, and she was!
Scott had no motive to commit this murder - in fact he had everything to lose from his dad's death, as his father had given him a job and a home (his mean old mother sure didn't - she resented anything Gary did for their kids!)
Melody had a $4.5 million dollar motive to kill her husband. She wanted a new life with her lover Rusty, funded by ALL of Gary's money. A 50/50 divorce split wasn't good enough for her. She's an evil woman who murdered her husband out of malice and greed, and tore her family apart.
Not so long ago she was the woman who had it all - a loving, millionaire husband, a beautiful home, healthy children and grandkids, and a lavish lifestyle that was the envy of many. But Melody wanted more - and was ruthless enough to kill her husband to get it.
Now she has the rest of her life to dream about the dream life she threw away, when she chose murder over divorce. Melody isn't getting out. She'll die a lonely death in a cage, as she fully deserves. A fitting end for a despicable sub-human who stooped so low that she tried - and failed - to frame her own son for the murder she committed.
Either you didn't watch the full murder trial, or worse, you did watch it and are incapable of piecing together the compelling evidence of Melody's guilt.
If it's the latter, I pray you never sit on a jury.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Al Stauch has a lot to answer for. He didn't know his toxic wife was capable of killing his two, vulnerable children Gannon and younger sister Laina, but he had to know she was abusive and hated Gannon, when he left them in her sole charge. Gannon's schoolfriends' parents knew Letecia loathed Gannon - so there's no way Al didn't.
At the time of Gannon's murder by his stepmother, Al was pursuing an affair with a married work colleague, and finding any excuse he could to work long weekends to see his lover. He exploited his wife Letecia as an unpaid childminder, to give him the freedom to do that - he was, of course. away 'working' when his little boy was brutally murdered by that monster.
Al's marriage to Letecia had clearly failed after 5 years, hence his workplace affair.So why didn't he divorce her? It would have been straightforward, as they did not share any children, and Letecia's only biological child, daughter Harley, was 17 and almost an adult.. Al's growing indifference to Letecia enraged her - and she took that anger and frustration out on poor Gannon.
If Al had only prioritised his two vulnerable children's health and happiness over his sex life, he'd have kicked that evil witch out of the marital home and started divorce proceedings. And if he had, Gannon would be alive today.
3
-
BINGO! Great post. Covert narcs like Brian Laundrie are chameleon-like. They learn young that they are not like other people, with their healthy emotions and thought processes. So they learn how to fake the ability to love and care about others. And by faking it, they can successfully attract genuine, big-hearted people like Gabby and have close relationships with them. But because they care only for themselves, any such close relationship is a sham, and built on a lie.
You can see on the police bodycam Brian is a two-faced fraud, who treats people only in terms of what they can do for him. He would never do anyone a good turn unless there was something in it for him. The way he smarms up to the cops by playing the hapless 'nice guy', is utterly sickening. I can't believe they fell for it!
Those cops didn't even confront him about the independent witness who rang 911 to report he had assaulted Gabby that morning - the reason they were pulling the van over! No wonder he was laughing at the end of the bodycam footage, as he was driven off to spend the night in a comfortable hotel. He totally fooled them! Meanwhile poor Gabby was having to drive herself away (after saying she wasn't confident at the wheel), to spend the night alone in the van. Brian must have felt fully confident Gabby would be even more vulnerable to reconciling with him next morning, totally on his terms. Police only made a bad situation worse!
I read that the lead cop in the bodycam video is now off work while the footage is reviewed and a decision is taken by his bosses on his conduct. No doubt he'll face no consequences - cops look after their own. Meanwhile Gabby lays dead on a cold mortuary slab, aged 22. Police missed a golden opportunity to save her. If those officers received any training at all on domestic abuse, it was woefully inadequate!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cjosborne9430 Excellent post. It astonishes me how many people still buy into Princess Diana's manipulative, 'poor little me' victim act. Her marriage failed - that is all! She and Charles were not compatible. And all the indications are she committed adultery with assorted, unsuitable men (many of them married), before Charles returned to his old love Camilla.
Yet she had the nerve (and narcissism), to slyly collude with the Andrew Morton book demonising both her husband and Camilla, and the institution which made her a star and gave her children their lifelong privileged positions!
Worse, she secretly invited the BBC TV 'Panorama' crew into her Kensington Palace home disguised as tradesmen, to trash her husband in a bombshell, global interview that horribly embarrassed her children.
Diana came out of her divorce far better off than most women, with immense wealth, top VIP status, a Kensington Palace home and staff for life, and two fine children. The marriage had delivered everything she knew it would, and more than served its purpose. What the hell did she have to complain about? Some victim!
Diana only became a victim when she made herself one with her poor choices, and got herself a killed in a dumb accident just a year after her divorce. Choosing to put her safety and security in the hands of the shady Al Fayeds, and failing to wear her seat belt are what killed Diana. She was the architect of her own doom.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@deirdrejohnson9028 The critical difference is that you were small children - this crash partly occurred because a near-adult, ie a 16-year-old young man was in the hot seat, and he took some decisive actions on the controls that a small child simply wouldn't have done.
Also, had he been a small child, his father would have promptly turfed him out of the seat immediately there was a problem, and taken charge of the controls. Instead the crisis was not addressed immediately because the 16-year-old remained in the driving seat during the first stage of the crisis, and assumed the pilots were telling him to take certain actions on the controls - when obviously he hadn't a clue what he was doing and should have been hauled out without delay!
Disasters like this one are almost always the result of a number of unfortunate factors all coming into play together, creating the 'perfect storm' to tragedy. The age of the supposed 'child' playing pilot when the accident began to unfold is surely one factor.
I suspect the children's father the Captain was a dominant character, whose weaker colleagues didn't feel able to challenge him. So the Captain knew he could bring his kids into the cockpit without any resistance - the fact he took several liberties beyond that by a/ letting the kids sit in his seat and b/ allowing them to action certain controls, supports my theory there was an unhealthy balance of power that over-favoured the Captain in that particular cockpit crew.
An all-powerful, dominant Captain and weak first officer/engineer(s) is a dynamic that's been a recurrent contributing factor in air crashes. When there's a big discrepancy in status/perceived status between pilots, it can make for poor communication, poor problem-solving and ineffective time and control management.
It's a total outrage that one man thought he had the right to play fast and loose with the lives of over 70 unwitting people, just so he could show off to his kids and make them feel special.
3
-
@CrystallynRose I think you nailed it - there was clearly an innate reluctance on the part of the male officers to condemn Brian. The more I've watched this bodycam, the more obvious their wish to protect him from the consequences of his independently confirmed domestic violence becomes.
To any decent person their approach is baffling - it certainly warrants further analysis. Brian was in a very strong position here - neither his victim Gabby nor the cops wanted to blow the whistle on him for his abuse! His relief at the end of the video is obvious - he totally got away with it.
He must have checked into the hotel that night (on Gabby's credit card), feeling so massively entitled he was pretty much untouchable. Police refusal to confront him over his 911 witnessed domestic abuse only gave him a green light to escalate it. Two weeks later that escalation in violence reached its final, horrible conclusion - he killed her.
I agree, the high rates of domestic abuse among policemen are extremely concerning. You made some very insightful points. I guess cops are also men, and as the statistics so powerfully show, sadly a cross section of men from all walks of life, cultures and classes abuse their female partner behind closed doors. There's no typical domestic abuser - the one big factor they share in common is that they are male.
I think the predominantly masculine nature/demographic of law enforcement has to be significant. When men get together (or chat online), they can fast wander into 'locker room' territory from which females and their values are disrespected. Here in the UK, the recent shocking rape and murder of Sarah Everard as she walked home by a serving policeman, has uncovered ugly misogyny within the Metropolitan Police Force. The killer Wayne Couzens was exchanging misogynist chat and pictures with five police colleagues on 'Whatsapp'. When men get together the 'macho' comes out - and this can mean the disrespect, humiliation, persecution - and worse - of women. Even more shocking, is that it's come to light Couzens was reported to police at least twice for exposing his genitals to women, most recently a few days before the murder. Yet no action was taken against him - he wasn't even spoken to. Why not? Was this really an oversight as they claim - or do men protect other men, even those guilty of crimes against women? The Brian Laundrie bodycam, and the case of killer policeman Wayne Couzens, would support that view.
There's every reason to believe there is institutionalised misogyny within the British police force. There is now a huge crisis of confidence in the police by women, 50% of the public. The murder of Sarah Everard has left most females feeling they cannot trust the police. If ever a case warranted a full and transparent public inquiry, it's this one, just as 20 years ago there was such an inquiry into racism in the force following Stephen Lawrence's murder by a white gang. Yet no such inquiry has been launched by a government whose priority is not females, but keeping the police on side. In 2021 racism is rightly classed a hate crime, but misogyny which kills many more people each year is not. Women and girls are always society's lowest possible priority.
Abusive men have a public persona (the 'nice guy' we see Brian playing in this bodycam footage), and a private face their intimate partner knows is starkly different - and fears! Gabby's terror of Brian being sent to jail for even one night, reveals her fear of consequences from him. He isn't the passive, smiling, unassuming guy he's showing to police. In reality he's a violent, vicious, hair-trigger tempered, manipulative bully - and police should never have taken him at face value!
The bodycam in this case is invaluable as an educational tool both for the public and for law enforcement around the world. It's a textbook lesson to police in how NOT to handle an abuser and his victim. I sincerely hope lessons will be learned by the police, and far better education and training given to them as a direct result of Gabby Petito's homicide. But clearly the assumptions, prejudices and misogyny that made cops mishandle this so badly, are widespread and deep-rooted within society as a whole.
Femicide is a worldwide pandemic killing more women and girls than Covid. It must be prioritised globally, if the horrifying statistics are ever to improve. Clearly the way children are raised, is a critical part of the puzzle. The anti-social, over-protective conduct of Brian Laundrie's mom and dad provides some clue as to how he became so dangerously entitled and abusive that he killed his girlfriend. Parents must raise their sons to be loving and respectful boyfriends, fiances and husbands, and to treat all females with consideration.There is much to be gained across the board, from improving the lot of females. Studies have shown, when women are respected and their situation improves, there are positive knock on effects for all of society.
Alas improvements in human rights are always slow progress, and in the meantime fabulous, much-loved women like Gabby Petito are being lost to the world, suffering cruel, and totally unnecessary deaths.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arlettearlette9282 Agreed, I thought Amber Heard's make up at trial was quite extreme with all that light, shimmering highlighter on her cheekbones. Heavy make up like that is ageing too!
Heard has also clearly had surgical intervention at some point, with cheek implants (a cosmetic surgeon did an excellent YT video expose with 'Before' and 'After' pictures which told the story clearly).
The cheek implants were a terrible mistake. They didn't give her the beautiful, natural-looking high cheekbones of Johnny Depp (whose fine features are down to his native American blood), but instead look artificial and cast strange shadows under her eyes. That's the danger when you begin irreversible surgical adjustments to your face - it's like pulling a loose thread on a sweater, you may find that the whole damn thing comes apart!
Amber Heard is no longer the fresh-faced, pretty blonde who turned a superstar's head. She is 35 but in my view looks 10 years older and is pretty ravaged from her booze and drug habits (the hypocrisy of her crucifying Depp, when she has her own addictions!) Plus the toxic violence of her narcissistic abusive personality is emerging on her face, as a nasty character like hers always becomes visible in time.
The future looks bleak for A Turd - and she brought it all on herself. She has trashed her public image, become box office poison and effectively ended her future as a model or any kind of public 'influencer'. Many narcissistic abusers get away with their crimes, it's good to see one who finally got her comeuppance. In trying to destroy Johnny Depp with vile, malicious lies, Heard ultimately pushed the self-destruct button.
It's such sweet irony that she lost every dollar of the staggering $7 million payout she got from Depp for a 15 month, childless marriage - and has to pay him a couple more million, on top of handing that divorce settlement right back to him! All because years after they split she could not stop publicly slagging him off, to promote herself off his more famous and popular name. So as a result of her spiteful vendetta against the ex husband she'd treated like a punchbag, she wound up making no money from her divorce (cash was clearly her priority in bouncing Depp into a fast beach wedding with no pre nup agreement in place).
The British judge in Depp's failed libel trial of 2020 was fooled by her lies that she's no gold digger (perjury, anyone?), but the longer and far more thorough US trial of 6 weeks duration finally and fully nailed that lie. Amber Heard is a BLATANT gold digger of the lowest kind, who greedily pushed for millions from Depp in their divorce, pocketed all that cash, then heinously and repeatedly LIED to the media that she'd gifted it all to charity. And wasn't it fun watching her squirm on the witness stand when forced to admit her duplicity, with her dumb, "I use the terms 'Pledge' and 'Donate' interchangeably", BS! (Camille Vasquez' withering response: "I don't, Miss Heard!")
Johnny Depp has fully exposed the real Amber Heard on the world stage - a toxic, violent narcissistic abuser and pathological liar - in simple terms, a violent thug and a serial domestic abuser. Good for Johnny, his triumph is a triumph for ALL domestic abuse victims of both sexes, and was a disaster for bad lawyers and bad liars!
3
-
@amberparker9883 Very insightful analysis of Amber Heard's sister Whitney's evidence. I thought it was truly pitiful to see her supporting her abusive older sister through perjury like that, particularly when it was obvious she did not hate her former brother-in-law Johnny Depp at all, and had no reason to.
He had always been good to her, just as he was good to his wife and everyone Amber wanted close to her (even moving them into neighbouring penthouse apartments, rent-free - the polar opposite conduct of an abuser, who seeks to isolate their victim from their support network. Johnny literally surrounded his wife with hers!)
Had Johnny Depp been the violent monster Amber and her (coached) sister claimed, her attitude towards him in her evidence would have been very different. It was clear she was not talking about a man who had tried to push her down a flight of stairs, or indeed ever been violent or abusive to her. On the contrary, Depp welcomed Whitney into his privileged world with open arms, and treated her like she was his sister too.
It is a measure of how much abusive control Amber maintains over Whitney, that she was willing to betray and defame a decent man like that under oath - particularly in view of his many kindnesses to her over the years. Shameful behaviour, and like Amber, Whitney has brought a shit-ton of bad karma onto her own head!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The police absolutely should be blamed - they totally dropped the ball, treated domestic abuse victim Gabby like she was the abuser, and the real abuser her boyfriend Brian Laundrie, as though he were the victim! Misidentifying the victim and the perpetrator is about as basic as police mistakes get!
Police failed to recognise Gabby's vulnerable status, or to give her the support she needed as a victim of domestic abuse. They had two independent witness accounts from members of the public who had seen Laundrie hitting her on the roadside, and locking her out of her van. How much more evidence did those dumb cops need that Gabby was at risk from that creep?
Instead they treated Brian Laundrie with kid gloves, offering him sympathy and never once challenging him about the fact he'd been seen by two independent witnesses assaulting his girlfriend. That is an appalling dereliction of duty!
Police then drove the smug, smiling Laundrie to a motel to get a good night's sleep in a comfortable bed, and unbelievably sent the sobbing, emotionally fragile Gabby away to spend the night parked up somewhere in the van - a lone and clearly vulnerable female! Laundrie must have felt untouchable - he had got away with hitting his girlfriend, even with two corroborating witnesses. No wonder he felt confident enough to not only continue the domestic abuse of Gabby when they were reunited next day, but to escalate it to murdering her just 2 weeks later.
She was the one who needed and deserved a motel room, and the opportunity to clear her head, have a hot shower and call her parents. Maybe if she'd been given that opportunity by police, and a sympathetic talk from an officer clued up about narcissistic abusers like Brian Laundrie, she'd have spoken to family or friends on the phone and been persuaded to abandon the 'Van Life' trip - and her abuser. Had police only handled Gabby and her killer appropriately that day, she could well be alive today. Those useless police have Gabby's blood on their hands.
This tragedy should have prompted an announcement that police training on how to handle domestic abuse is to get a massive overhaul. A brand new programme of domestic abuse training should be rolled out across the US in Gabby's name - and it should use the police bodycam footage of her roadside stop, to show trainee officers exactly how NOT to do it!
3
-
3
-
In my fantasies I'm a six foot 4ins tall, skinny, blonde, 21 year-old supermodel.
I have more cause to tantrum at those who see me as the dumpy, middle aged brunette I am, than these MALES who outrageously demand that others also pretend they are FEMALE, to prop up their ludicrous delusions/sexual fetish.
The vast majority (well over 90%), of today's male, self-identified, so-called 'trans women', neither have not want any kind of gender reassignment surgery. They remain happily male-bodied and be-penised, and therefore do not have any kind of gender dysphoria.
In addition, most modern 'trans women' are heterosexual males, ie they are sexually attracted to females. The potential risk such males pose to the safety of women and girls when they insist on invading the single sex spaces allocated to females (eg female toilets, changing rooms, domestic violence shelters, women's prisons etc), is obvious.
Yet in 2024 these men are declaring they ARE women - exactly the same as biological women, with exactly the same lived experience as a biological female, and the same legal rights, and vulnerable status. It's outrageous, dangerous, female-hating nonsense, and anyone who cares a damn about the most basic human rights of females must stand up and be counted against it!
What these arrogant, narcissistic males actually have is a sexual fetish - and an appalling sense of entitlement. No one on God's Earth is obliged to collude in another person's sexual fantasies! What trans extremists pompously brand 'mis-gendering', is one person accurately and honestly observing and reflecting/stating the sex of another person. Human beings, in common with most mammals, have an innate and very accurate judgement of the biological sex of other human beings, within a split second of meeting them.
No mammal ever changed sex - or ever will. Dress however you like, and call yourself 'Brenda' every other Thursday if you wish. But sex is binary and immutable. There are Males and Females only. Biology is real!
#BiologyIsNotBigotry #TruthIsNotTransphobia #SexNotGender
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pamelabacker2420 Please link to the clip of Charles saying he 'never loved' Diana, the mother of his children, or indeed any internet source that confirms he said that that. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Even if Charles had been the villain Diana pretended (and her deluded fans still believe), he isn't stupid and would never have made such a crass statement as it would only have reflected badly on him!
I admire the imagination and sheer inventiveness of you Diana worshippers. But you really need to engage your brains before you put fictitious words into a real person's mouth. Because it makes no sense whatsoever that Charles would have said what you claim he said - even if that was his true, private belief!
The reality is that both Charles and Diana WERE in love when first engaged and married, and that is plain to see in their mutual, 'touchy-feely' body language on joint public appearances. Sadly love doesn't always last, that's life, and being royal is no guarantee of happy ever after!
Diana fell out of love with Charles, just as much as he did with her - their separation was entirely mutual. He didn't break her heart - Diana was bored stiff of him, and far too busy pursuing multiple, sexual affairs with unsuitable (often married) men in London, to care what her husband was doing, or with whom in their country home in Gloucestershire.
Diana cynically faked heartbreak over Charles and Camilla, to paint her husband as the villain and herself the victim, in public opinion. But the truth could not have been more different - as is crystal clear 25 years later, with the exposure of the Princess of Wales' umpteen affairs!
Before you post here again displaying your woeful ignorance on the facts of this infamous story, I suggest you do some much needed research on Diana's many lovers, among them Barry Mannakee, James Gilbey, James Hewitt, Will Carling and Oliver Hoare. Google is your friend!
3
-
@pamelabacker2420 Where did I insult you? Grow up! I told you you are foolishly repeating misinformation, which you are. You cannot cite any source in which Charles said he didn't love Diana, because it does not exist. As a national news journalist of over 30 years experience, I know this for a FACT.
I have repeatedly asked you to prove Charles ever said on the public record he 'never loved' his first wife Diana, Princess of Wales and you can't, because he didn't, and that is an end to it.
Yes Charles wrote (and collaborated) on many books in his lifetime. They were on subjects such as global warming, gardening and architecture, Unlike Diana, none was a bombshell, tell-all autobiography in which he discussed the intimate details of his private life! He was the future king of the UK, he simply would not do that.
You have been unable to provide any link to confirm your false claim on this. I now provide a link for you, to the full bibliography of Charles' published books. None of which contains any such comment on his first marriage! LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Charles_III
That you do not have the grace to admit when you got something wrong, sadly speaks volumes about you.
3
-
@pamelabacker2420 I will listen to anyone who writes truth, not misinformation as you do. Nowhere in Jonathan Dimbleby's 1994 book 'The Prince of Wales, A Biography' does Prince Charles state to the author that he never loved Diana.
You claim Charles said that, but you are 100% incorrect, he did not. Such a statement would not have reflected well on him, and would have immediately been headlines around the world. Of course he didn't publicly say he never loved the mother of his children. Charles isn't stupid!
That you won't admit your mistake with grace, is very unimpressive. I can't respect the views of anyone who displays such low standards in their own conduct!
Countless commentators have speculated on the possible feelings of the former Prince and Princess of Wales, but it is all merely conjecture. You cannot put words into Charles' mouth on that basis!
But while we're on the subject of the couple's feelings for each other, why do you assume Diana loved Charles? It's pretty obvious she married him for his title, not for love. They had only met 13 times before he proposed! It's what's known as an arranged marriage, and those are not generally founded on love.
The truth is that the couple grew to love each other, and were happy for a time. As Charles DID famously confirm in his TV interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, he resumed his old romance with Camilla Parker Bowles in 1986. And that same year, Diana had affairs, plural, with her married police protection officer Barry Mannakee among others.
She was not the innocent, heart-broken wronged wife she played. The truth is she couldn't care less about Charles and Camilla, because she had fallen out of love with him. The couple simply weren't compatible - by 1986 he bored her to tears, as she made very obvious on their joint public appearances when she was frosty to the point of rolling her eyes and yawning. That is not a devoted wife, heartbroken at her marriage breakdown!
Diana did very well out of the marriage, and on her divorce was set for a wonderful privileged VIP life, as mother to the future King William. But she threw it all away because she forgot about her young sons while she was having fun in Paris with a coke-addicted playboy, and failed to wear her seat belt. Diana self destructed. The End.
She will recede from memory even further, now there's a new Princess of Wales. Unlike her self-obsessed, hedonistic predecessor Diana, Catherine is a level-headed, loyal and loving wife to her Prince, a responsible mother to her children, and will make a wonderful Queen. Despite vindictive Diana's best efforts to damage it, the monarchy's future is in safe hands. Long Live King Charles and Queen Camilla.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Imagine giving birth to your own killer? Gail's final, horrific moments as the baby she had loved, nurtured, worried about and watched grow for 15 years, strangled her to death with his bare hands, are unimaginable.
Now Gregory will spend the next several decades/rest of his life locked up at the US taxpayer's expense, psychologists must study him like a lab rat. He is a prisoner, after all. Give the taxpayer their money's worth! More must be learned about how an innocent baby born full of potential, develops into a merciless, unfeeling sociopathic killer.
The fact he found two friends who shared aspects of his pathologically selfish personality, suggests the modern, supposedly 'civilised' world is going very wrong in moulding children into kind, empathetic, emotionally healthy adults.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mjmartinez3244 PS I hadn't thought of Colby in all this. You're so right, his mother could easily have had him killed - especially if there was money in it for her. Thank God he was old enough to have escaped her clutches - poor little JJ and even Tylee who was nearly 17, were not so lucky.
I am glad Colby sees his mother for the evil, self-serving and ruthless narcissist she is. Often kids are in denial when their parents commit terrible crimes - even if they killed a much-loved relative, as in Barry Morphew's case. He is being supported at his murder trial by his two daughters, even though he murdered their loving mother.
Those girls will need a lot of psychiatric help in future, for they can never heal from their mother's murder until they face up to, and accept the truth that their father did it. That's why I am glad for Colby, he has a much better chance of mental and emotional recovery because he sees his mother as she really is. I know he will never get over the murders of his siblings Tylee and JJ, and that tragedy will always be with him. Ruthless killers like Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell and Alex Cox create many more victims than the people they kill. I hope Lori lives a LONG life in prison, and is visited every night by the ghosts of the beautiful children who called her "mommy" - who she murdered in cold blood! How can she live with herself, never mind sleep?!
3
-
3
-
Great speaker - that this gender garbage can get you at 42, shows what a dangerous influence it is on children! No child is born in the wrong body! Utter garbage.
In the next 20 years there will be a de-transitioner explosion - and I hope the medics who pushed vulnerable people down irreversible routes to surgery, forever removing all sexual and reproductive function from them, get sued to Hell and back!
Meanwhile, today so many trans identified men are clearly not trans at all, but transvestites (and used to proudly identify as such - comedian Eddie Izzard was a famous example). The fact the vast majority of today's so-called 'trans women' won't lose their male genitals (and their ability to achieve arousal and orgasm) is a HUGE clue it's not about 'body dysphoria' but is in fact a sexual fetish!
And guess what - women and girls do not want males invading their single-sex public toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, rape crisis centres etc, who are turned on by wearing female attire. We don't want ANY men in our single sex spaces, however they identify/dress. And there's no reason whatsoever to think a trans identified male is any less of a potential threat to female safety, dignity and privacy, than a non trans man.
#SexNotGender #LeaveTheKidsAlone #WomensRightsAreHumanRights ♀♀♀
3
-
I'm reeling in shock that Denmark allowed bestiality until recently. It's hard to imagine much more cruel or depraved than raping animals without power, or any voice to say 'no', or to report their attackers.
It's high time the term 'Pervert' came back into vogue - society needs to bring back some consistent, unapologetic moral judgement FFS!
Thanks for defending single sex spaces for women and girls James. I'm horrified that young girls are being made to share toilets with boys in their schools. Being a girl, especially when puberty happens, is a terrifying, humiliating monthly ordeal.
I recall at my school the girls' loos were a safe haven, where we knew we'd at least have safety and privacy from boys, who at age 13 and older were often far too voyeuristic about our developing bodies. No way would we have wanted to share changing rooms with boys - as James rightly said, it was humiliating enough stripping off in front of other girls!
If my elderly, frail and vulnerable mother is ever on a female-only, NHS hospital ward and I see a trans-identified man in the bed next to hers, I swear I will blow the roof off the building!
God bless you James Dreyfus - your brave and beautiful decision to choose truth and decency has assured you a mighty future (and future legacy). #TruthIsNotTransphobia #BiologyIsNotBigotry #SexNotGender
3
-
@Justthollyy If she had male company the night before then he clearly did not leave her apartment with her, because he would have saved her from her abductor. Unless he WAS the abductor - but that doesn't really make sense if she was in a romantic relationship with him.
Two used, unwashed wine glasses and two empty cans of beer were found in her kitchen, which again points to her having a male visitor. Back in 1995 DNA testing was not as widespread - I wonder if forensic testing was done on those items for saliva and fingerprints?
It's recently emerged into the public domain, that around 10 days before she disappeared, Jodi had met a new man she was crazy about. They'd been on many dates - dinner, golfing etc. The man is known to police but not a suspect, which is why he's never been identified.
I believe that new boyfriend provides the motive for Josie's kidnap and murder by John Vansice, the friend 20 years older than Jodie who was clearly obsessed with her. He may have discovered Jodi had a boyfriend, or maybe she told him to make it clear she was not interested in him. Either way, it's a very strong motive for murder by an obsessive, possessive man.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Chilling. I pray this murder is solved at last! The young, healthy, happy and much-loved Jennifer no doubt caught the eye of a sexual deviant who took what he wanted from her, and then killed her.
This horrific crime strikes a chord with so many families. Jennifer was a young adult, living alone for the first time, holding down a successful career, and achieving many great friendships. Her independence brought with it vulnerability, which a predator who noticed her, fully exploited.
I feel the killer has to have been a builder working at her apartment block, who maybe spotted her days, or weeks before, and plotted her abduction, SA and murder. Police were far too slow to investigate Jennifer's totally out of character disappearance, and as a result, many clues were lost.
I pray, almost 20 years later, tar last hey are finally closing in on her killer. My heart goes out to Jennifer, her wonderful parents and brother, and all who love her.
3
-
3
-
Excellent post. Diana was very damaged by her childhood, raised by father Johnny Spencer who was abusive to her mother Frances (hence their bitter divorce - in which poor Frances lost custody of her four children, thanks to his power and connections).
Johnny blackened their mother's name to them, telling their children she had abandoned them - not true, she had no chance of gaining custody against him! This gave Diana a lifelong distrust of women, which may explain her shameless pursuit of other women's husbands. Diana was not the Mother Theresa figure she presented herself as, far from it. As she crucified Charles and Camilla in her ridiculous book and the sly BBC 'Panorama' interview, she was sneaking around sleeping with any man with a pulse (and frequently a wedding ring).
Diana was a toxic narcissist, vain, vacuous and totally immoral when it came to pursuing married man. That she had the nerve to slander her ex to the media, when she was hiding her own, multiple grubby affairs, sneaking lovers into Kensington Palace in the boot of her car etc, was blatant hypocrisy!
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LukeMosse I don't condone bad journalism. But the fact remains George Michael declared open season on himself with the press, by hiding in the closet for his entire career, then getting caught in a gay sexual encounter with a stranger in a public location.
You stated: 'Also his openness about his sexuality after being outed...' Hilarious! Like he had any choice about being open about his sexuality, after his arrest in a gents toilet had outed him as gay!
You only confirmed my point - George Michael NEVER came out, and that is not a positive message for gay people. He was a great musician and star, no doubt about it. But he did not handle this scandal - which however you dress it up, was entirely of his own making - with grace or integrity. Nor was he any kind of role model or champion for the gay community.
Everyone, including public figures like GM, is entitled to a private life. But when you express the most intimate aspect of that private life publicly, touting for sex in public places, you invade your own privacy, and you certainly invite the media to do so!
You say few people would have been openly gay prior to 1990. In fact there's a long list of stars who were openly gay at that time, among them Martina Navratilova, Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Elton John (both came out in 1988), Rupert Everett (1989), Marc Almond, Neil Tennant, Boy George, Julian Clary, Stephen Fry, Jean Paul Gaultier, Herb Ritts, Graham Norton, and Paul O' Grady. None suffered harm to their careers or reputations.
Among openly gay stars during the 1990s, were KD Lang, Nathan Lane, Alan Cumming, Ellen DeGeneres, Michael Barrymore, Sandi Toksvig, Richard Fairbrass, and Patricia Cornwell.
George Michael was only outed by his arrest for committing a 'lewd act' in public in Beverly Hills in 1998. Even if he had himself come out that year, after enjoying 16 years at the top as a global superstar, it would have been very late in the day. But at least he would have taken charge, owned his sexuality, and emerged as an out & proud gay man - not a secretly gay man who was hiding in the shadows, and got outed by the LAPD!
The fact he didn't come out, but was unintentionally outed by his fetish for high risk, public sex, suggests he intended to continue his double life indefinitely. That is not a positive message for the gay community! It's the elephant in the room during all his self-righteous, 'attack is the best form of defence', post-outing interviews. He didn't come out - he was outed.
Had he not been caught with his trousers down and forced out, there's every reason to assume he'd have been another Liberace, misleading the public and 'playing it straight' forevermore. So gay people were justified in feeling let down by Michael. He languished in the closet for sixteen years, cynically posing as a red-blooded heterosexual with supermodels on his arm, while conducting a very active, secret gay lifestyle.
Why? He did not have Liberace's excuse for deceiving the public- in his day it was not only socially unacceptable to be gay and a guaranteed image and career-killer, it was illegal! Rock Hudson, Anthony Perkins, Raymond Burr, Montgomery Clift, Roddy McDowall, James Dean and Cary Grant are just a sample of the famous men of yesteryear who had no choice but to deny all rumours of homosexuality, or face social and career suicide. George Michael had no such excuse, he was a powerful star in a tolerant age and profession.
1998 is not 'pre 1990'. It is so late to be closeted, it's frankly ridiculous and inexcusable. George Michael was far too big a star to worry about any affect on his popularity or record sales - he was immensely talented, with a fiercely loyal fan base. He absolutely would have been accepted as a gay artist, as was proven, ironically, after he was outed.
It's very sad he didn't unapologetically own his sexuality, hold his head high and make a brief, dignified acknowledgement he was gay by the mid 'nineties, at the very latest. He would have been universally praised for his courage, and that statement would have given a shot in the arm to all gay people. Instead the sensational way he was exposed and outed against his will, gave the gutter press a golden opportunity to mock him, and in turn, all gay people.
George Michael was right - he will be remembered for his fantastic music. But he could also have had a noble and enduring legacy as an out and proud gay man, who courageously announced he was gay of his own volition, and gave other gay people the courage to be their true, authentic selves too. How he must have wished he'd done exactly that, after his headline-grabbing arrest. But by then it was too late - George had blown it.
3
-
Useless guests tonight - and all spouting the same pro-Barry Morphew garbage. The DNA in her car is a random fluke and irrelevant to her murder - she didn't vanish in her car! And her lover's alibi checked out - he was many miles away, it wasn't him. Barry Morphew is the guilty man, no question. Get a more balanced panel Vinnie - Hell I'm a journalist (a real one, not a YouTuber), I'll come on and give the other side!
If you believe a lurking serial killer kidnapped Suzanne Morphew from the back yard of her remote house as she WhatsApp messaged her lover, just 4 days after telling her abusive hubby she wanted a divorce - Give me a call, I've a bridge I'd like to sell ya! 🙄🙄🙄
Why are people falling into the trap of "He couldn't have got to the burial site on the day she vanished, therefore he must be innocent'? Baloney! Even if that questionable statement were true, so what? All that suggests is that wasn't the original location of her remains. Her killer put her someplace else first.
That maybe wasn't the original location of Suzanne's body. Barry worried the heat was on, and his first hiding place wasn't safe enough - maybe it was too near the house. So a few weeks, months or even years later, he moved her body to the current location, a mere 45 minute drive from the former marital home.
People need to think more laterally about this crime and how it went down. There was no bike ride. Of course Suzanne was killed by her abusive husband, she wanted out of the marriage, and ending the relationship is the most common trigger for domestic murder of women.
PS Your guest Phillip's misogynistic: 'She wasn't mother of the year' shtick is garbage. Why - because she had a long distance affair with a childhood sweetheart, while she was enduring a second cancer diagnosis and a husband so abusive he threatened to withdraw her chemo?
Suzanne owed her abusive husband and her selfish, grown up kids nothing!
There's no reason to assume Barry was a doting, faithful husband, quite the opposite! Phillip is swallowing Barry Morphew's obvious lie that his wife mysteriously vanished on a bike ride. Her mountain bike and blue helmet were STAGED, thrown from a car, miles apart.
Barry had no reason to start work on a Sunday, on a job scheduled for MONDAY! He was getting his alibi together, and hiding evidence including her body - though possibly not where it was found this week. Suzanne was never on any damn bike ride that day - apart from anything else, she left her water pack and sunglasses in the car!
3
-
3
-
@cccpsovietunionisnothingbu2402 The Al Fayeds are a bunch of crooks - that Diana was flattered by their attentions and stupidly trusted them with her security shows how dumb she was. Al Fayed provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver who killed her and his son! If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
Of course one year earlier (on her divorce), the Queen had offered Diana a world class, Scotland Yard trained security team of bodyguards and driver for life. The Queen felt Diana's status as mother to the future king warranted that level of personal protection. But Diana peevishly turned down her former mother in law's generous offer. And she didn't even hire her own security team, with the £17 million divorce settlement she got from Charles. That was very foolish of her - and cost her her life.
It meant Diana, one of the most famous and high status VIPs in the world, went on that final, fateful holiday with fewer staff than the Al Fayeds, and so had to accept their security arrangements. Utterly ridiculous! She compounded that error by failing to think of her two, dependant children and fasten her seat belt. If she had, she'd gave walked away from the crash with a broken arm and bruising. Diana was the architect of her own doom.
3
-
3
-
@lsmith9249 Good Lord - people are very confused about this stuff! Diana was so fond of the Spencer family tiara that she hoped to keep it after her wedding - and I think she did hang onto it for some years. But her younger brother Charles, the next Earl Spencer, put his foot down and demanded she return it to Althorp the ancestral home. It's been seen on many Spencer brides since, most notably his own wives and his daughters.
That pearl tiara you mentioned from the royal collection was a special favourite of Diana's, she wore it a lot especially with her pearl encrusted, so-called 'Elvis dress'. And now it's a favourite of Catherine's and looks just as fabulous on her. In fact she's worn it with a pair of Diana's own pearl earrings which were a wedding gift to her from a Norfolk jeweller the Spencers patronised. So I guess William must have gifted them to her.
I read that William and Harry divided up Diana's jewellery between them on her death. Diana's will specified they have it, to be enjoyed by their wives. Two of her most personal and most worn pieces were of course her sapphire and diamond engagement ring, and a Cartier watch gifted to her by her father Johnnie Spencer. Initially Harry chose the ring and William the watch. But when William wanted to give the ring to Catherine for their engagement, Harry graciously gave it to him.
I've always felt very uncomfortable about William giving his bride a ring which symbolised an unhappy, failed marriage. If I were Catherine, I wouldn't have wanted that ring at all, it's practically a jinx! I think it would have been far more romantic if William had either let her choose an heirloom ring from the royal collection, or designed a new one for her, as Harry did for Meghan. He could also have gifted her Diana's engagement ring at a later date - perhaps for their first wedding anniversary - and it would then have been a special piece of jewellery she wore on special occasions on her right hand, that reminded everyone of Diana and got lots of media attention whenever it was brought out and displayed.
I think it was unfair to saddle Catherine with one of her late mother-in-law's signature items, the ring everyone associates with her still. Catherine deserved her own, signature engagement ring. But I think she was so thrilled to be marrying William, he could have put a ring through her nose and she wouldn't have argued!
I never much liked Diana's ring - as I'm sure you know, it was available to the public to buy in 1981 too, from the Garrards catalogue! Prince Charles' next wife got a much better deal - he gave Camillia a stunning, emerald cut diamond ring that belonged to his beloved Grannie the Queen Mother. I think it's by far the most stunning of all royal engagement rings!
The Queen Mum had a favourite pair of diamond earrings she wore practically all the time. They were huge, diamond set flowers, about 1 inch across, the circle of glittering stones hung from each lobe and glittered with every movement. I keep hoping to see them on a young royal like Catherine (or dare I say, Meghan!) but since the Queen Mum died they've been locked away, never to be seen again! Perhaps they'll become a favourite of little Princess Charlotte in 20 years time and get a new lease of life!
That's why I'm so passionate about jewellery - unlike clothes which date and age, it goes on and on, across the generations, never losing its beauty and glamour. If only people were the same!
3
-
@lang-ed3bk Sorry, but your opinion about royal jewels which never, ever belonged to Princess Diana or any other member of the royal family under the Queen, but remain the property of the royal family in perpetuity, is sentimental, illogical twaddle.
There's a huge collection of fabulous jewels which all the female royals can access and borrow for engagements - that's how it works. No one has any special claim on any particular item and once a royal by marriage divorces out of the family as Diana did, obviously their access to the royal jewels is over!
As the wife and consort of the Prince of Wales, it is entirely appropriate that Camilla now wear the Prince of Wales feathers necklace. It's not like Diana would have wanted to wear it, or anything else associated with her ex husband post-divorce, when she was no longer his wife. That would be weird!
So is Camilla never to live at Highgrove House, because her husband's ex wife once lived there with him? Is she never to sit on a sofa that Diana's backside once graced, or step on a carpet her predecessor once crossed? If you take your logic to its crazy conclusion, no one would ever marry a divorcee, out of respect for their previous spouse!
You need to be a bit more grown up about this. The marriage failed, as do many. It's not the tragedy Diana pretended it was to the media, to win herself public sympathy. They simply weren't compatible, and that was on both sides equally - Charles bored Diana to tears, as she made very obvious with her hostile body language on a number of late 'eighties royal tours!
She was not breaking her heart over him and Camilla, far from it. She was far too busy pursuing her own extra marital sexual interests.
Your understanding of their marriage breakdown is fatally flawed, because you are seeing it through Diana's twisted and inaccurate lens. The marriage was effectively over by 1985, when Charles picked up with his old flame Camilla and Diana began a sexual relationship with her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee - the first of many affairs she had behind Charles' back, often with other women's husbands!
One of Diana's later secret lovers, Oliver Hoare, was not only a married man, he was an old and close friend of her husband's! Classy huh? When Hoare got sick and tired of the princess nagging him to leave his wife, he ended their two year affair by letter, returning a pair of gold cufflinks she'd gifted him which had belonged to her father Earl Spencer. Enraged at his rejection, Diana turned stalker, launching a campaign of harassment against him in which she made a staggering 300 plus malicious, silent phone calls to his home at all hours of the day and night, from Kensington Palace, her own cellphone, and even from local public payphones she visited after dark in disguise. Sometimes she parked her car outside his marital home in the middle of the night then called from her mobile, watching with malicious glee to see the lights come on in the house as Hoare scrambled to answer the phone before his wife did. Diana turned very vindictive when men disappointed her!
It was foolhardy, high risk behaviour for a grown woman, and even more crazy for a senior royal. It backfired on her, big time. Hoare decided to come clean to his wife about the affair and his strong suspicion Diana was making the phone calls. Mrs Hoare forgave him and together they presented a united front, to report the princess to police, requesting discretion in their enquiries (a request in vain as it turned out, as the News of the World broke the story of the spurned, stalker princess in 1995).
Very soon police confirmed to Hoare that many of the calls had been traced to Kensington Palace. And that's how two embarrassed detectives called on the Princess of Wales at home, to tell her they knew what she'd been up to, and warn her to knock it off forthwith!
With typical immaturity, Diana refused point blank to admit responsibility for making the calls - until she was told many had originated from her home address! At this news Diana changed tack, and unbelievably, blamed her own son William, pretending he was behind it all as he was 'pranking' Hoare's son. William was only 13 at the time and away at boarding school - there was no way a child could or would launch such a prolonged and obsessive campaign of harassment.
What a wonderful mother Diana was, throwing her innocent child under the bus to save her own skin!
Had Prince Charles behaved as badly as Diana did, with her mud-slinging over their split, her shocking promiscuity, her sneaking about and hypocrisy, and her vindictive media manipulation, he'd have rightly been judged unfit to rule. But in fact all the Prince of Wales is guilty of, is marrying the wrong woman!
You assume Di was devastated about Charles getting back with his ex Camilla, but that simply isn't true. She was over it. The couple were living separate lives by 1986, Charles at Highgrove in Gloucestershire, Diana at Kensington Palace, where miles away from Charles she could get up to all sorts of sexual shenanigans. His love of peaceful, rural Gloucestershire and her preference for racy London was yet another of their major incompatibilities.
Her doe-eyed, "There were three people in this marriage", self-pitying 'Panorama' interview of 1995 was hypocritical hogwash. In truth there were considerably more than three people in the marriage - Diana 'forgot' to mention her own, very long and diverse list of lovers, and the marriages she'd weakened or actually ended, as in the case of Will and Julia Carling who divorced due to his casual fling with the princess!
Diana never found a man she considered good enough for her, and it's doubtful she ever would, had she lived to be 100. She was too damaged, narcissistic and needy - it's highly unlikely she could have been a supportive wife to any man.
Charles in contrast is happily married to Camilla - their relationship stood the test of time and proved it was not a grubby, meaningless sexual fling of the sort Diana indulged in, but the real thing. Charles and Camilla are a relationship of two compatible people who know each other's faults and foibles and love each other just the same.
Diana's death in a speeding car driven by a drunk, drugged and reckless driver, with a coke-addicted Arab playboy by her side and without her seat belt, was a sadly apt reflection of her life. Her much maligned ex husband Charles picked up the pieces for poor, devastated William and Harry, and more than proved himself as a father in their grief and pain.
Diana never gave Charles credit for being a loving, hands-on dad throughout her life, because again her overweening narcissism meant she had to be the 'best' parent, at all costs. She would even tell her sons she loved them more than papa did!
Diana failed in every good parent's first duty to their children - to stay alive to raise them to adults. Thankfully the boys' surviving parent Charles could be relied upon to be there for them, and provide the loving stability they desperately craved after losing their mother in a stupid and totally avoidable accident.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@juliettelex7597 The male 911 caller, an independent witness with no reason to lie, reported what he saw - a man 'slapping and hitting' a woman.
It's hardly surprising Brian Laundrie had facial scratches. Those kinds of minor injuries are commonly sustained by domestic abusers, during assaults on women. It's the obvious though sadly ineffective way females defend themselves from violent men. Those marks are also nearly always found and photographed on domestic killers, after they have murdered their female victim.
Instead of focusing on Brian and his minor scratches, police should have checked the victim Gabby for injuries and asked her if Brian had hurt her. Not only was she identified by the 911 caller as the victim and Brian the aggressor, as the woman it was she, not he, who was at risk of serious harm. Her murder by Brian less than 2 weeks later, tragically confirms this.
Domestic abusers are overwhelmingly male, and their victims overwhelmingly female. Police above anyone, should know that, and treat couples like Gabby and Brian accordingly. All they succeeded in doing was further isolating Gabby by sending her off to spend the night alone in her van, and endorsing Brian's abuse by telling him he wasn't in any trouble and being crazily pally with him. This '60 Minutes' report from Australia features excellent analysis of the bodycam footage from a criminal profiler. That professional's verdict is clear - police totally fucked it up! https://youtu.be/A4DeSl8QGD4
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The killer is a 23 year old man, but often both prosecutor and defence attorneys refer to him as a 'kid'. Bizarre! He was a man when he murdered his parents - but he behaved like an entitled man-child, and I guess that's what they're picking up on.
He was certainly old enough not to make the school boy errors he did in his murder cover-up! These entitled narcs always mess up after the murder, with a crappy cover up because they are so arrogant and deluded they assume they'll get away with it.
Unfortunately his parents raised him from a boy full of potential, to a useless, inadequate man. He had never had a job and was an academic failure, who demonstrated no desire to emulate his father, make a career, support a family of his own and in short, be a man. He's pathetic and will die in prison, but their over-indulgent parenting undoubtedly played a part in the tragedy.
3
-
Wow how prophetic was this video - BRAVO DEREK, great insight into the Smiths' toxic marriage. Less than 2 years later this rapidly deteriorating, abusive union imploded at the Academy Awards, on the night Will picked up his long awaited Oscar.
He has now ruined his movie career, forced to resign from the Academy and any future Oscar nominations by behaving like his wife's attack-dog at the film industry's biggest night of the year.
Will had clearly been a ticking time bomb of emasculated rage at his wife's narcissistic abuse and adultery. And he directed that anger in the most self sabotaging and inappropriate way possible - assaulting Chris Rock over a mild wisecrack about Jada's hair. DAMN how much of an out of control ego does that woman have? She has alopecia not cancer, and it was a GI Jane joke , not a crack about Kojak!
Even if Chris Rock had joked about her affair with their son's best friend (joking about 'sleepovers'), it would not have justified that physical assault. Will's an idiot - HIS bad choices got him into this mess, and he must take the consequences. Ironically, one consequence could be Jada leaving him, after all he will no longer be the A-lister she married now he publicly disgraced himself like that. And Jada clearly isn't in this marriage for love!
3
-
3
-
Well said - Diana's parents both had long links to the royal family, her father Johnny was an equerry to King George and the Queen, and her mother Frances was born on the royal Sandringham estate, and was a lady-in-waiting to Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip both attended Diana's parents' wedding at Westminster Abbey in 1954. Of course Diana knew exactly what she was getting into - she had played with Prince Andrew as a child! Her father told all three of his daughters he wanted one of them to marry Charles, the heir to the throne, and be the next Queen!
It makes me laugh that people suggest it was a terrible thing that Diana was expected to have children after marrying Charles. What else was she going to do - it's not like she had any qualifications, or career ambitions!
She left school at 16 without a single 'O' level, and worked as an unqualified mother's help and primary school assistant. She claimed she loved being a mother - another way to manipulate the media and grab positive headlines. But she didn't protest about her boys going away to boarding school aged 12 - no doubt she was happy they were no longer under her feet, so she could continue her multiple, extra marital affairs - many of them with other women's husbands!
Diana did not marry for love, at her father's urging (after her sister Sarah had failed to snag him), she set her sights on Prince Charles, and lonely and vulnerable, he fell for her youthful charms. Diana wanted the fame, privilege and wealth that came with becoming Charles' wife and future Queen. She was certainly no 'lamb to the slaughter', as she claimed! She got all the glittering prizes from that marriage she hoped for - and then some. And she did very well out of the divorce too.
Diana was set for a wonderful life of hedonism and mega privilege, but she blew it running round Paris with an Arab playboy, forgetting about her two dependant children, and failing to fasten her seat belt. If she'd only taken 5 seconds to buckle up, she'd have walked away from the Parish crash with nothing more than a broken arm and bruising. Diana's extreme narcissism is what killed her.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pinaytravels2789 Sentimental nonsense, Diana didn't love Charles before she married him. She set her cap at him and stayed a virgin (as required of his bride back then), because she wanted all the VIP glamour, privilege and fame of becoming the Princess of Wales.
Diana admitted when their engagement was announced, she and Charles had only met 13 times! They hardly knew each other.
It was an arranged marriage, and she went into it with her eyes fully open, not 'like a lamb to the slaughter' as she later claimed for sympathy. When she emerged from St Paul's Cathedral as a senior royal and future queen, she looked totally triumphant, like the cat that got the cream - she knew she was set up for life!
But she and Charles were incompatible in every way. It soon became clear she would not be a loving, supportive wife, willing to hang back and let him, the future king, shine, as Catherine does for William. Fame went to vain Diana's head big time, and she was soon competing with the prince, desperate to be more popular than him! No wonder he sought the arms of the down-to-earth, genuine and nurturing Camilla, a warm, reassuring presence in contrast to Diana's attention-seeking, egotistical tantrums and obsession with her own image. Camilla always was the better woman.
In 1997 when Diana had offloaded the husband who bored her so much that she'd spent 12 years cheating on him with a long list of men (many of them married), a wonderful life lay ahead of her.
Charles was generous in the divorce settlement. She got to keep her title Princess of Wales (all royal divorcees lose HRH - pathetic how Diana kicked up a fuss that people no longer had to curtsy to her), £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace home and top VIP status for life.
Her former mother-in-law the Queen also offered her a team of Scotland Yard trained bodyguards and driver for life - but Diana not only peevishly refused her generous offer, she failed to use some of her millions from Charles to employ her own security team.
That's how just one year after her divorce, Diana stupidly entrusted her personal safety to the notoriously disreputable Al Fayed family. They provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver - and she forgot she was a mum of two, and failed to wear her seat belt. The rest is history.
Princess Diana got herself killed in a totally needless accident, and threw away a life of unimaginable wealth and privilege, the envy of everyone the world over!
Face it - Diana was an idiot, as well as a failed wife and mother, and a malicious, narcissistic home-wrecker. But she's laughably presented as a saint by people even more shallow than herself, simply because she was pretty and died young. She achieved nothing of note in her life, beyond popping out two children. Her only legacy is her sons, the youngest of whom is proving to be every bit as spoiled, arrogant and entitled as she was!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mpreiss7780 Agreed, respect to the woman for not walking by, as most people did, but taking action when she saw an injustice - an elderly lobster from the deep, held captive under bright lights awaiting its killer owner.
Killing a magnificent creature who survived for 100 years just to make a few instantly forgotten meals, is sad. That lady is the best of humanity, someone who not only cares but puts her money where her mouth is to right a wrong. I wish fishermen threw back those enormous lobsters when they catch them - they don't even taste good! I think they are mostly exploiting them for display purposes, because they will get lots of attention at the fish market, which encourages people to stop and buy a smaller lobster.
I couldn't bear to keep a living creature like that in my fridge, especially not one as big as him - he might eat all my food lol! Seriously though, I could no more boil a lobster or crab alive than any other living, sentient being. Horrible! It's not even an instant/fast death, as chefs claim. The latest scientific studies suggest the unfortunate boy or girl takes 2-3 minutes to die, that's a helluva long time to suffer agony inside a scalding hot cauldron.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kathduncan9618 It really is the most unbelievably dark story isn't it? How a mother could kill both of her children, and pose at her beach wedding laughing and dancing just weeks later, defies human emotion. But she clearly has none, and never loved JJ or Tylee.
I read a very sad story recently about JJ's biological mother Mandy Leger. As you probably know, she and JJ's bio dad Todd Trehan both had substance abuse issues when they conceived JJ. As a result, he was born drug addicted, and ended up being adopted at age one by his great Uncle Charles Vallow, and the evil Lori.
Mandy's life had spiralled out of control at the time of JJ's birth. She had access rights for the first six months of his life and wanted to be a Mom to him. But after she relapsed and was ordered to attend rehab, she learned his adoption had been finalized. She never saw him again.
Over the years, Mandy always hoped she would some day be reunited with her little boy, and forge a relationship with him. When she heard he was missing in November 2019 aged seven, she investigated ways to get him back. Tragically, unbeknown to her, he was already dead.
When Mandy learned the bombshell news of JJ's murder and squalid burial in Chad Daybell's pet cemetery, she was devastated. Her dreams of a reunion were forever shattered. According to her loved ones, she never recovered from the tragedy.
In June last year, Mandy Leger died, aged 46. The coroner ruled her death was by natural causes, but her loved ones say she died of a broken heart. Mandy is surely yet another victim of that unholy trio, Lori Vallow, Alex Cox and Chad Daybell.
If you're curious, I've linked to the 'Daily Mail' article below. The photos of Mandy and a tiny, newborn JJ are very moving - and reveal he was the total spitting image of his Mom! The physical resemblance between mother and son is quite uncanny. This dreadful story holds so much sadness and loss, for so many!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11974927/Birth-mom-murdered-son-Lori-Vallow-JJ-died-aged-46-anguish-suffered-losing-son.html
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ebogar42 Who's 'gaslighting'? Gabby Petito's murder by Brian Laundrie is only too real - along with the countless other women murdered in similar circumstances by abusive males around the world every day. Domestic abuse is a deadly global pandemic for females.
The young woman you paint as an 'abuser' is dead by homicide (strangled - the favourite method of abusive males). Her boyfriend has now been found dead by his own hand, after hiding behind his parents and a lawyer, refusing to explain his missing girlfriend's whereabouts, and going on the run from police. It doesn't take Columbo to work out what happened, or the dynamics of this all too common relationship in which a woman was abused - and then killed - by a man.
Such relationships, and the behaviour of both perpetrator and victim, are all too predictable. So the police failings are shocking. Had those officers received proper training in domestic abuse, they'd have recognised the many red flags evident on the bodycam footage in both parties' behaviour. It was textbook!
The marks on Brian Laundrie's face were typical of the superficial defensive wounds female victims inflict on men who assault and kill them. During an attack by a physically bigger and stronger male, all a female can do is lash out the best she can, and her nails will often leave marks. Laundrie may have received a few more of those scratches soon after, during his final, fatal assault on her, when Gabby desperately fought for her life - and lost. Those marks were evidence of HIS abuse, not her's! This is very basic stuff and it's astonishing police misunderstood the true significance of those marks.
Alas ignorant misogyny like yours is widespread among the public, but we expect better of law enforcement officers. It's appalling that they branded Gabby the perpetrator, and treated the actual aggressor Brian Laundrie as the victim. WTF? They didn't even once confront him about the very serious 911 witness reports of him assaulting her. People don't call 911 for no reason!
Instead cops accepted Gabby's self-blame at face value (when they should know taking responsibility for a perpetrator's abuse and minimising it, is a typical victim response), and decided she was the problem. They also failed to see through Brian Laundrie's simpering apologies and smiles, putting on the 100% expected 'nice guy' act that is the covert narcissist's stock-in-trade (see Chris Watts' police encounters for further examples). Confusing the identities of perpetrator and victim was an unforgivable fuck up by police, and should be the subject of an independent public enquiry.
Police above all should know the basic facts of domestic abuse and homicide. The statistics are clear and unambiguous. Domestic abusers are overwhelmingly male, and victims overwhelmingly female. And the victims of domestic homicides, are almost exclusively female. It's extremely rare for a man to die at a woman's hands, but women are killed by men with depressing regularity. Therefore, of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito, it was her, not him, who was at significant risk of serious harm, or homicide. It was Gabby whose welfare should have been prioritised by police - as her death soon afterwards powerfully proved.
Gabby Petito was involved with a man so abusive, he killed her. Like the dumb police officers whose warped judgements paved the way for her murder by him two weeks later, you feel more comfortable viewing this not as a case of male abuse, but as two abusive people - which is plainly ludicrous. Policemen have got to do better than this, if they are to perform their duties appropriately and support the predominantly female victims of abuse. In not confronting Brian Laundrie about his abuse of Gabby, they effectively endorsed it. This made him feel more empowered and entitled to continue his abuse - and as we know, to escalate it to murder.
Why do some males have such difficulty calling out abusive assholes like Brian Laundrie? If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem! No wonder so many women suffer in silence and stay with their tormentors - sometimes with tragic consequences. The victim-blaming they get, even from the police paid to protect and serve them, is totally unacceptable.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Who remembers Jess Conrad, he isn't even a has-been! How embarrassing the Water Rats didn't have a better contender for the honour than him, whose biggest recommendation was he clung to the late great Diana Dors like a silent but deadly fart. A conceited nonentity, surrounded by equally unimpressive old waxworks. Barbara Windsor and Roy Hudd were the only class acts in this video.
As for the interviewer Lizzie Cundy - she typifies the 'famous for no reason' reality age. Once married to a long forgotten footballer, and that is her sole claim to fame! Jeezus Christ what's that sound... Morecambe and Wise, Ronnie Barker, Victoria Wood, Dave Allen, Caroline Aherne, Ken Dodd, Bob Monkhouse, Thora Hird and all the British greats spinning in their graves at this gathering of non talent masquerading as stars.
3
-
3
-
Agreed, it's a disgrace how this privileged actor spent 3 years fighting justice for his heinous crime, cynically exploiting his mixed race with a faked hate crime just to increase his own already huge privilege!
And now his expensive lawyers bring further shame on all black people, by laughably claiming their VIP client has been the 'victim' of racial discrimination, and that he was already punished at the time with a paltry $10 k fine and some BS 'community service'. That was no punishment at all but another fraud, every bit as fake as Jussie's staged hate crime itself, designed to make it appear justice had been served, when it hadn't at all.
'Double jeopardy' my ass! Smollett's first supposed 'punishment' was a total fraud, pulled off by his friends in high places. That $10k fine was peanuts to him - he was paid $2 million a year), and you can be sure the 'community service' was nothing that would inconvenience him!
Anyone who reads the full legal timeline to this case can clearly see Jussie Smollett has used his powerful contacts to get him off the hook - and that his defence lawyers are playing the race card to get him off now just as cynically as he used it himself with his disgusting publicity stunt!
Thankfully the public, police and prosecutors were outraged at Smollett's ability to escape justice with his corrupt connections. As the judge explained in his sentencing speech, some fantastic prosecutors worked hard to ensure he didn't get away with his outrageous fraud because of who he is, but was held accountable at jury trial. And that trial was the first and only real punishment he had faced - as proven by his hissy fits and temper tantrums after he failed to convince the jury of his lies (he's obviously a lousy actor), and didn't escape a custodial sentence from the judge (though 6 days later, he'd given that the slip - refusing to man up and put up with a less than 5 months in comfortable custody - and with good behaviour he'd have been out in just 75 days).
It is a travesty of justice, but whatever happens legally, Smollett now has zero credibility. He only succeeded in pulling a public relations disaster. He's finished as an actor and a public figure. And as the judge rightly said, he did it all to himself!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Very surprised 'Mentour Pilot' accepted without question, the unlikely explanation given for the pilots' 90 minute silence. This incident had to be the subject of a great deal of aviation industry gossip at the time and since - and a number of different theories must have circulated that don't include 'talking shop'!
The men could not possibly have forgotten about air traffic control or 'accidentally' missed their and others' multiple attempts to contact them, for an entire one and a half hours, purely because they were discussing work rotas. That just isn't credible.
Those two guys were up to something they wouldn't admit, when asked over the radio and afterwards in employer and police interviews. The fact their airline subsequently claimed to have 'lost' the cockpit voice recordings is also very suspect, and points to a conspiracy of silence - as does the fact both pilots were fired so soon after the incident.
So what REALLY happened that was so engrossing, it rendered two senior airline pilots mute for all that time? What kind of audio could be so damaging to an airline, that they potentially suppressed the CVR? And is it really likely fighter jets weren't scrambled to check out a commercial plane that had been up in the air, totally incommunicado, for an entire 90 minutes? After all this was America, post 9-11, it beggars belief the threat of terrorism wasn't a top operational priority at that time!
Isn't it far more likely fighter jets DID go up there and take a look, but that what they saw in the cockpit was so shocking/damaging to ALL commercial airlines, they colluded in keeping it out of the public domain? As others have commented, the most feasible explanation is that both men fell asleep. It's certainly possible, and would go some way to explaining their reticence in explaining themselves to ATC, their bosses, and the authorities.
But is it really likely two working colleagues would fall so deeply asleep, and for such an extended time, that they'd give themselves away by totally losing contact with the ground? We're told the two pilots had never flown together before, in which case it's harder to believe they'd be so relaxed in each other's company they would be unprofessional enough to nod off. They were not even sleep deprived or jet lagged!
We're told they'd never co-piloted together before, but that doesn't mean they hadn't met, or indeed weren't good friends - they may have known each other well. We're also told the Captain's wife met up with her husband the night before the flight, went out for dinner with him (while the co-pilot dined alone), and stayed with him in his hotel. Could there be a reason the Captain's wife has become a part of the official story? Is her role to ensure no one's mind turns to suspicions of homosexuality between the two pilots?
Because the unusual, total lack of contact from the cockpit for an entire 90 minutes does of course point to the possibility of sexual activity. Were the two men engaged in highly unprofessional, sexual acts that distracted them from their duties? Such a serious breach of discipline and professionalism could explain the missing cockpit voice recorder (a cover up by the airline, to avoid the global media headlines and scandal that could ruin their business).
Could a shocking scene have been witnessed by fighter jets sent to investigate - then covered up at the highest level, because of the damage such a scandal would do to public confidence in the entire aviation industry, still recovering after the Twin Towers attack?
The claim that the Captain's wife was with him the night before (so presumably she was also on that flight), raises another intriguing possibility. Was she actually present in the cockpit with her husband and his colleague - and a threesome occurred? Sounds far-fetched I know, but they say 'swinging' is a popular hobby among middle aged, middle class people!
Maybe the Captain and his wife had not sent his co-pilot off to eat alone the night before, but had invited him to join them at the restaurant for dinner? Did the three strike up a rapport in the relaxed, candlelit setting, formalities were dropped, and next day on that long flight, they took things much further than they should have done behind the secured door (gives a whole new meaning to 'Cockpit' lol!)? Who knows. The infamous 'Mile High Club' could well be a bigger fascination for airline staff, than for passengers!
The other, less salacious possibilities, are that laptops played a different role in the incident than the men admitted. Did the two colleagues get engrossed in watching porn and 'take their eye off the ball' (at least the ball that mattered - their jobs!) Or were they doing online gambling, in a very full-on, all-consuming way? They may have mentioned the laptops precisely because they knew an investigation would prove they had been using them. So they were then forced to come up with a more innocent explanation of what they were doing on the laptops, and so said it was work-related stuff.
It's doubtful the public will ever hear more details about this strange incident. I feel whatever truly happened during that mysterious, 90 minutes of non-communication between plane and ground, neither the pilots, their airline, nor the powers that be, wanted it to emerge. And decisive action was taken from on high to ensure that it did not emerge. The two pilots were speedily sacked without an enquiry, and the airline suppressed the cockpit voice recording and the findings of fighter jets that, in all likelihood WERE scrambled to investigate possible terrorist activity - but found something else entirely!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This YouTuber's repeated assertion that the survival hut was not heated because the inhabitants were 'too scared' to light a fire is total supposition on his part. In fact these men of limited intellectual ability may not have been thinking straight through stress, cold, dehydration/starvation, or a combination of all of those things. Fear may have had nothing to do with it!
There were paperback books in the shelter, which were an obvious source of combustible material to start a fire. But they were untouched. In addition, there was enough survival rations to feed them for many months, yet only a fraction of that food had been eaten and most lay unopened. This could have been a simple case of those items not belonging to them, so they decided they could not touch them.
Obviously in a life or death situation a person of sound mind would not be remotely concerned about taking what was not theirs, to sustain life. But these men were not typical, and didn't possess even basic common sense - the story about Ted staying in bed when his bedroom was on fire is a very relevant example here.
Too often people are hypothesising about the likely behaviour/assumptions of these men, without taking into account their limited logic and eccentric view of the world. They were not typical young men in their twenties and thirties!
This is further confirmed by the fact it wasn't even necessary to light a fire, because the survival shelter had a form of central heating. All that was required was the intelligence to locate the relevant valve, and turn it. The tragedy is there was ample food inside the shelter and an easy heating source, yet Ted was found deceased in bed, his emaciated, frost bitten corpse laying under a thin sheet, having starved and frozen to death over around 13 weeks (as confirmed by his beard growth). Known for his big appetite and chubby frame, his mummified remains weighed just 100 pounds.
The biggest mystery of this story IMO is why the authorities didn't organise a swift, effective search for these five unusually vulnerable men, methodically checking every survival hut within a 50 mile radius of their abandoned car. Had they only been found a few weeks earlier, then at least the two who made it to the shelter, Ted Weiher and presumably Gary Matthias, might have been saved. That would obviously have lessened the awful scale of this tragedy - it would also have answered many questions which with all of them dead, will forever remain a mystery.
I read that it was an especially bitter pill for Ted's family knowing how long he had been suffering and physically deteriorating in a bed inside that freezing cold hut, meaning there was a three-month window during which he could have been rescued. That rescue never came, is the ultimate tragedy.
3
-
Victoria's entire adult life was sad married to two abusive men, the second of whom murdered her when he met another woman and she became inconvenient. If only she had faced up to the source of her misery, her cruel, unfaithful husband, and divorced him years earlier.
Pretty sickening the way Victoria's perfectly understandable depression was cynically exploited by her killer, to get him off a life sentence. Thank God his 'she committed suicide and hid her own corpse' strategy didn't work!
Those who feel sorry for Curly 'cos he's jailed at 75, should save their tears for the wife he killed aged 59. Victoria didn't get to enjoy her retirement, die a peaceful, natural death in old age, speak to her loved ones, or have a proper funeral. He will get all those human dignities, he callously denied his wife.
James Prokopovitz is where he belongs, in a cage, just a shame he wasn't locked up 8 years ago. Respect to this smart jury for recognising the truth and finally ensuring justice was served for Victoria and her family, 'What's done in the dark, WILL come to light'.
3
-
Are you serious? Supt Doug Carter is a disaster - the hammiest bad-actor ever. All that melodramatic talking to the killer he did, and pretending to be holding back tears - UGH! He enjoyed the drama far too much. His strategies of holding back extended video footage of the killer for two whole years (a golden piece of evidence from courageous Libby, squandered in the crucial first stages of the investigation), putting out two starkly different artists' impressions to confuse everyone, and holding back every detail the public needed to identify the suspect and provide his name, showed exactly how useless he is!
This audacious, daytime murder of two children in a public place was the work of a highly motivated and dangerous, risk-taker. That the murderer has been walking free all this time to kill other females, is a serious public safety scandal!
What this high-profile murder case needed was a Sheriff Grady Judd at the helm. That man does the best ever media conferences and fully understands the importance of regular communication and public liaison, to solve crimes. As a senior police officer once told me (a national newspaper reporter), "The police don't solve crimes - the public do". But in order to solve crimes, the public needs the police to share some clues with them. To date, Carter hasn't even revealed the girls' cause of death. In my experience as a journalist, that information vacuum from the police is unprecedented, and inevitably resulted in an information vacuum from the public. Holding back far too many details/clues, has only helped the killer evade capture.
An inept investigation by inexperienced police officers took this high profile double homicide all the way to cold case status. What an insult to the tragic child victims of this heinous crime. Nearly SIX YEARS later and finally, at long last, there's a person of interest (note - we do not yet know if Richard Allen has been charged with these murders - unless and until he is, the Delphi killings remain unsolved).
It's more than ironic when Carter did his '...the killer could be in this room' schtick, he suggested he was a local man, quote "hiding in plain sight".
If Richard Allen is his man, he's been living within a stone's throw of the crime scene and serving the local community in a Delphi pharmacy - ie right under law enforcement's nose - the entire time! Police will have serious questions to answer, about how they failed to identify him for so long. Further evidence, were it needed, that Supt Doug Carter is as useless as tits on a bull.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Machiarta258 If your source of information is 'The Crown', a fictionalised and very inaccurate dramatisation of real events, it's no wonder you're so totally clueless about Charles and Diana's marriage! That show is a joke - I'm amazed you admitted your ignorance here in believing it!
Unlike the soppy Diana fan club, whose members are even more deluded and unhinged than she was, I know the reality of her marriage, divorce, and who she really was. I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties and privy to good, inside information on the couple from people who knew.
I don't have time to type out half the dirt I have on the Queen of Tarts. You wouldn't believe it anyway, because you've put her on such a crazy pedestal, you even swallowed a movie script which is widely acknowledged to be baloney!
You call me a 'piece of work' for telling the ugly truth about the manipulative, vindictive princess. You clearly don't know what 'a piece of work' is!
Diana was so bitter and twisted, she hurt her own children, just to publicly assassinate their father on TV. She didn't even want Charles! Five years into the marriage she was bored to tears with him, and throwing her knickers at any man with a pulse. She just didn't want him happy with Camilla, and exploited their genuine love affair to paint herself as the innocent, wronged victim of an adulterer. Some victim - Diana had countless, meaningless sexual affairs with unsuitable men, to Charles' ONE, genuine relationship with the woman he would marry. It's not like Diana could accuse her husband of being promiscuous - that was her, not him!
When police called on her for making over 300 malicious, anonymous phone calls to her married lover Oliver Hoare after he dumped her, Diana not only denied her creepy harassment, she blamed the phone calls on her son William! What kind of woman tries to get herself off the hook for stalking her ex boyfriend, by framing her innocent child (then only 13 and at boarding school)? That is not a good mother by any standard! Police saw through her lies, and warned her to desist from her bunny-boiling activities.
The truth about Diana is out there - but there are none so blind as her soppy, dim-witted fans.
3
-
@vasanthathangavelu695 Thankfully Prince William is a decent, intelligent young man with decent morals. He takes after his dad Charles, not his mother.
Diana had the morals of an alley cat, chasing married men and having umpteen affairs to Charles' ONE relationship with the woman he loved and would marry.
It was a rare moment of honesty, when Diana said she was as thick as a plank. Despite her expensive private education, she left school at 16 without a single qualification, and no career ambition beyond marrying a rich man. And boy did she hit the jackpot when she got her hooks into Prince Charles!
Despite claiming she walked down the aisle like 'a lamb to the slaughter', Diana went into the arranged marriage with her eyes- and legs - wide open. Her virginity was a small price to pay for the unimaginable wealth, stardom and VIP status that came with life as Princess of Wales.
And five years into the marriage, bored to tears with her husband (as she made blindingly obvious to everyone on their joint public appearances), she enthusiastically entered into countless casual flings with unsuitable men, many of them married. Diana had no scruples about seducing other women's husbands. She was a mistress many more times than Camilla, though the sly hypocrite brazenly painted herself as the innocent victim of adulterers. Some victim!
Diana only became a victim when she stupidly put her personal safety in the hands of the shady Al Fayeds, and failed to think of her kids and fasten her seat belt. If she'd spent 5 seconds fixing her seat belt like a responsible parent, she'd have walked away from the crash with a broken arm and bruising.
Just a year before her death, she'd won a generous divorce settlement from the husband she'd waged war on. A glittering future lay ahead of her, thanks to her marriage to Charles - he generously gave her £17 million, a Kensington Palace apartment, global fame and top VIP status as Princess of Wales. And on her divorce the Queen offered her a top team of bodyguards and driver for life, Scotland Yard trained, no less - but Diana churlishly turned down her kind offer.
What a wonderful life of rare privilege Diana threw away that night, with her recklessness and lousy decisions! Her sons must be so disappointed in her. Thankfully they had a loving, responsible father, who picked up the pieces for them when their mother got herself killed running around Paris with her coke-addicted playboy lover. Diana would never admit it, but Charles was a great father.
3
-
Vile, pitiful excuse for a man. Same old story - it's OK for him to cheat, disrespect his wife and do whatever the hell he likes, but he thinks he owns her, and demands total control of her.
After Ana dumped the bum and blocked him on social media, he started stalking her through her friends' online accounts, and bugged her home to spy on her through an app he activated on their daughter's ipad. He was climbing the walls with frustrated rage, because she ended their romantic relationship and wanted a divorce, as she was fully entitled to do. She took away his power.
Abusive males like him refuse to accept rejection, it bruises their fragile egos, and they cannot bear having losing their power over the victim. She has effectively pulled the plug on him and his abuse. The most extreme abusers will take back their power in the most barbaric way possible, by ending the victim's life.
Ladies, be alert that after you end a relationship with an abuser, the chances of his violence escalating to murder multiply many times. Stay safe, get yourself to a secret address and end it by phone. Take steps to ensure you are never alone with him again, however briefly. If you must have ongoing contact due to kids, finances etc, enlist the help of third parties, family and friends, to act as go-betweens. If you have to meet face to face, choose a busy, public location where there are lots of people around, and bring supporters with you.
Unfortunately Ana could not cut all contact with her abusive husband, because he was also the father of her kids. Many women have died due to access visits over children shared with their abuser. More must be done to protect women out there in Ana's situation. She and her friend should not have died at the hands of her estranged husband. Two vibrant, much-loved young people brutally executed, and a little girl left motherless, thanks to one man who refused to accept rejection, or hear the word 'No'.
Rejection is one of the hardest things human beings have to deal with in life. But deal with it we must! No one owes you love or devotion, people only stick around because they want to. As we go through our first teen break ups, and suffer this uniquely painful hurt for the first time, we learn that you do get over it, life moves on, and other people and experiences lie ahead. You cannot lasso the Moon, nor can, or should you try to put chains on another human being.
If a love ends, then it simply was not meant to be. Respect the other person's right to not love you, and move on, with acceptance and gratitude for what was good in that relationship., and what it taught you. We are all changed, even slightly by our relationships, make it a change for the better. Take time to be alone, reflect and get to know yourself. Don't bounce from one affair to the next, using sex like sticking plaster. There is strength and peace in solitude.
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy.
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise.
WILLIAM BLAKE
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@onemuckypup9823 I fully understood your point. But it must be said, in the year 2023, it's a strange one!
Are you seriously saying in the 21st century people (including King Charles), must adhere to medieval rules on marriage and divorce, or be forever condemned as 'non Christian?' Do you really think he and the late Princess Diana should have been forced to stay in an unhappy marriage? An arranged marriage between two people who were equally, disastrously incompatible - and equally tired of each other? Now that really would be hypocrisy!
Christianity has represented all kinds of barbarity in it's time, including horrific violence, bigotry and injustice. Do you believe for example, that adulterers should still be stoned to death, as in Biblical times? And let's not forget, it was only unfaithful wives who were executed in this sadistic way - men's adultery didn't warrant punishment!
So let's apply your 'Christian' values to the Prince and Princess of Wales' failed marriage. The late, promiscuous Princess Diana would have been among the first to be buried up to her neck and brutally stoned to death. Hard-faced Diana enjoyed umpteen, meaningless, adulterous affairs, frequently with married men - and had no conscience whatsoever about their wives or families.
I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties, and talked to some of the women whose husbands she bedded. I have seen up close with my own eyes, the misery and pain she caused with her nasty, home-wrecking conduct. It was adultery of the most casual and cruel kind, seducing men she cared nothing for, just for sexual thrills and an ego boost. And she felt not one moment's remorse for the marriages left in tatters as a result.
By comparison, her estranged husband Charles had only one extra marital relationship, a genuine love affair with the woman he is now happily and faithfully married to. Unlike his ex wife Diana, he did not sleep around after their marriage broke down. Yet apparently your condemnation is for him alone, because back in the less enlightened 'seventies he was forced into an arranged marriage to a blue-blooded virgin, that simply could not last. Thank goodness his son William was allowed to choose his bride!
Diana showed breathtaking dishonesty and hypocrisy, crucifying Charles and Camilla to a BBC 'Panorama' TV crew and playing the innocent, 'wronged' wife, while all the time she was sneaking around behind the scenes bedding literally dozens of unsuitable lovers. And working very hard to keep her sexual adventures out of the headlines!
What a nerve she had talking about 'three people in the marriage' - if she'd multiplied that number by five it wouldn't have covered all the secret lovers she had! The marriage was considerably more 'crowded' than she ever admitted to the media!
It's hugely ironic that had Diana lived just another 5 -10 years, started to age and lose her looks, and been exposed to the relentless scrutiny of the internet age, her true colours and shocking duplicity would have been exposed. Her shallow fans would inevitably have faded away, along with the youth and sex appeal they really admired her for! Leaving the world stage, still young and beautiful at 36, before she had fallen out with her sons and their wives and shown her true, spiteful nature, was a smart career move.
How curious that in 2023, you take the view King Charles should be regarded as the anti-Christ and unsuitable to be head of the Church of England, purely because he is divorced. Even Christianity must move with the times and forgive human mistakes. Or would you return to the days of stoning adulterers?! 'To err is human', etc.
You cannot even accuse Charles of being a womaniser - only of having a failed marriage. Along with many others! The 'higher standard' you feel he should be held to, is a standard only half of the population achieve - 50% of all marriages end in divorce!
His divorce only makes him human, and relatable, to many of us who have also suffered the pain and disappointment of a failed marriage. Unlike his ex-wife, who never achieved a successful, long--term relationship with anyone, and died in a squalid car wreck alongside a playboy lover, he HAS found love and achieved a happy, settled marriage second time around. That too is a positive example to many people, that life can give us a second chance at happiness.
You may hold him to a 'higher standard' (whatever that means), but today most people take a more reasoned and realistic view.
3
-
3
-
@sarahhayse-gregson689 How refreshing to read an intelligent comment here, where the crazily deluded Diana fans have taken over!
You are spot on in your analysis of Charles and Diana's arranged marriage. Arranged marriages rarely work out, and theirs was no different.
Diana went into the union with her eyes wide open, determined to win the role of Princess of Wales/future Queen, with all the glamour, glitter, VIP status and world fame that brought. It's highly questionable she married for love, as she claimed - she admitted she and Charles met only 13 times before their engagement was announced!
She wanted that marriage badly - she did not walk down the aisle 'like a lamb to the slaughter' as she later claimed - she was triumphant as she emerged from St Paul's Cathedral!
And she fell out of love with Charles just as much as he did with her, yet she wanted the public to blame Charles. You only have to look at the joint appearances and tours they did together from the late 'eighties after their relationship had broken down. Diana didn't hide her boredom with Charles, she was positively surly, telling the world exactly what she thought of him!
Diana emerged from her divorce wealthy, famous, a senior royal, retaining her title Princess of Wales, and with Kensington Palace for a home. She was also mother of two healthy sons, one the future king, guaranteeing her future position on the world stage.
Her failed marriage had given her a glittering future - which she stupidly threw away that fateful night in Paris. Handing her security arrangements to the shady Al Fayeds, and failing to wear a seat belt, are the reasons she died aged 36, breaking her little boys' hearts and losing a privileged life that was the envy of most women! As I've said before, she was the architect of her own doom.
Good to 'meet' someone smart here who sees through the narcissistic, self pitying Diana's lies and manipulations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ls-l1518 Diana would never admit it because she couldn't give Prince Charles credit for anything - but she remained grateful he married her till the day she died.
Why would she regret a marriage that gave her global fame, top VIP status for life, a Kensington Palace apartment, a team of staff on call 24-7, and of course, two fine sons?
Without Charles, Diana would have been just another aristocrat's daughter without an 'O' level to her name (despite an expensive education), hoping for a wealthy husband to rescue her. She hit the jackpot when Prince Charles proposed!
It's unfortunate after just a year as a free woman she was making crazy choices that would ultimately lose her her fabulous, privileged life aged just 36. No one is responsible for Diana's stupid, avoidable death but Diana.
A glittering future lay ahead, all thanks to her marriage to Charles. But the threw it away when she refused to accept the proper royal protection team and driver to which she was entitled as Princess of Wales, fell in with the shady Al Fayeds, and forgot she was a mother and left off her seat belt.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tenderandmoist5011 It's an interesting discussion. Seems to me you may be second-guessing the Yuba Five as though they were a typical group of young men aged 24 - 32. But they were not, their combined issues, spanning mental illness, intellectual disability and a spectacular lack of common sense, means they were extremely untypical, and very vulnerable.
Two had some survival training from time spent in the military, but none of the men were independent. All still lived with their family and were supported by them to varying degrees, even to the extent of having their clothes laid out for them each morning. I don't believe we can assume they'd have responded in logical, predictable ways to any unexpected crisis, threat, or indeed to stress generally.
The first big mystery is why their car ended up in that location at all. They had taken a big detour from their route home, and it's not thought likely they could have got lost. I seem to recall Gary Mathias had a friend who lived in that general direction, and one theory is that in high spirits after their favourite team won the college basketball match, he persuaded the others to drop by and visit his pal on the way home.
But obviously like so much else, that's pure conjecture (the Yuba Five case reminds me how much more information we have today about much mysteries thanks to cellphones - and obviously had cellphones been commonly carried in 1978 as they are today, the guys may have been able to call for help, and might never got into trouble).
You're right, a typical group of young men might not be scared of 'an old drunk guy' like Joseph Schons (in fact he was only 55 at that time). But I feel it's totally feasible the Yuba Five were intimidated by him, if he was belligerent and threatened them with a weapon (his criminal history, with two convictions for assault, should not be overlooked here).
There are many reasons to suspect Joseph Schons was not fully honest in his evidence, and that alone throws up a red flag to me. I'm troubled by his claim to have seen an unidentified group of people, including a woman with a baby, when he needed help in the throes of a heart attack after his car broke down. He said he called out to them for help, but the group fell silent and turned off their flashlights. So he said he was forced to walk through the snow to find assistance - seeing Jack Madruga's abandoned car, en route.
Schons' story strikes me as a possible attempt to distance himself from the boys. He claimed to have seen their car but not them, maintaining he had no personal interaction with any of them. In addition his account introduced other potential suspects, in the form of the mysterious group of strangers he said had failed to help him. Those people were never traced, and obviously may not exist.
Incidentally there's no evidence the Yuba Five's car was irretrievably stuck in snow (police judged they could easily have pushed it out of any snowpack it was in), and that's another major aspect of the mystery. The car was not stuck, had not broken down, and had sufficient gas in the tank to get them home.
The two, $64,000 dollar questions in the 'Yuba County Five' story are why did the men wind up driving to that location, and why when they got there, did they leave the safety of that vehicle, to embark on what turned out to be a kamikaze 12 mile trek in sub-zero temperatures none would ultimately survive?
There's a huge clue in the fact the driver's window was left open. Jack Madruga loved his 1969 Mercury Montego - his parents said it was his pride and joy, and there's no way he'd have left it unlocked, least of all with any windows open. For the car to have been left like that suggests some kind of emergency, an unexpected event or a crisis they had to escape, without delay.
I get the feeling both the baffling location the vehicle was left in, and the group's decision to abandon it, point to them fleeing from someone - logically, another motorist who had first pursued them in a vehicle, and then confronted them face to face/on foot. But obviously none of them survived to tell the tale, so all any of us can do 46 years later is speculate and throw theories around.
If there was a confrontation, the location of the men's bodies some considerable distance away suggests they survived it. It was the harsh elements that killed them, and the biggest tragedy of all is surely the failure of the organised search efforts. Ted Weiher lay starving, freezing and frost-bitten in that survival shelter for an estimated 13 weeks, as his beard growth confirmed. That's a hell of a long time to wait for rescue!
The five men were reported missing promptly by their parents, the very next morning, February 25th. And a ranger found their car on February 25th too (though he realised its significance and reported it to authorities on February 28th). So the alarm was raised early that the five were vulnerable missing men, whose disappearance was out of character. They were playing an important basketball match for their team 'The Gateway Gators' the following day, February 25th, it was so important some had asked their parents to be sure to wake them early to prepare. They would not have missed it.
The failed search for the men is troubling. Surely a prompt and methodical organised search of the relevant area, and crucially, all the survival cabins in it, could have at least located Ted and Gary Mathias inside the hut well within three months - ie in time to save them? The survival hut Ted and Gary took shelter in was just 12 miles from the abandoned car.
Ted's poor family were obviously devastated to learn he had been alive for all that time, but rescue never came. Ditto Gary, who it appears left the shelter and walked to his death at some point, probably after Ted died. Presumably Gary was suffering swollen and painful, frost-bitten feet like Ted from their gruelling, 20 mile hike to the shelter in sub-zero temperatures, which would explain why his own shoes were found, but Ted's larger shoes were missing.
Neither Gary's remains nor Ted's shoes were ever found, which has led to all kinds of conspiracy theories blaming Gary in some way (some even speculate he murdered the others and survived). I don't think Gary harmed any of his friends, an assumption based on his schizophrenia and some previous incidents of violence. But the longer he went without medication for his condition, the more mentally unstable and unable to make good decisions he'd have become.
Perhaps he experienced escalating paranoia, and believed the food rations in the hut were poisoned, so stopped himself and Ted from eating them (only a fraction were used, with many months worth of food that could have saved them, left unopened). Though his autopsy proved Ted had contracted blood poisoning through infected frostbite wounds, and may have simply been too sick to eat.
The hut even had a form of central heating, which merely required the correct valve to be turned - but it seems even Gary, with his average IQ and army/survival training, was unable to master it.
The three men who almost certainly died first, exposed to the elements, arguably got the better deal. Ted and Gary's extended ordeal over 13 weeks in a freezing survival hut, awaiting rescue that never came, is utterly horrific to contemplate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ashleybenson8688 Everything you've written is factually incorrect. I know - I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties and interviewed people who knew Charles and Diana very well, and had the inside track on their marriage.
You are parroting verbatim Diana's false narrative of the early-mid 1990s (promoted in the sensationalist Andrew Morton book and her vindictive 'Panorama' interview, both of which she slyly colluded with), which only confirms YOU are the naive one!
I have no loyalty to anyone involved in this notorious story. I certainly couldn't care less about Charles and Camilla. As a journalist my one interest is in truth and accuracy. Your version of events only repeats the malicious lies of the Princess of Wales, who had the gall to point the finger at Charles and Camilla while she committed adultery with multiple men - in many cases caring nothing that they were married.
Diana was photogenic, had great charm, and died young. That's why she still has deluded fans like you. Had she lived, inevitably been exposed as a promiscuous liar, and lost her looks with the passing of time, idiots like you would have abandoned her decades ago! Truth is, you are just as shallow as she was.
3
-
3
-
TRUTH! Holly Willoughby is another simpering, self-serving FAKE, acting like butter wouldn't melt. She continues to lie that she knew nothing about Schofield's affair - it's clear everyone on the 'This Morning' production crew knew! She takes the public for mugs.
Now we've seen the real woman behind the air-brushed image, Holly Willoughby's 'brand' is fatally damaged.
Eamonn's right - Holly is as authentic as a six pound note. She couldn't give a damn about her 'This Morning' colleagues, who arrive at the TV studios hours before her, and work hard every day to make her look good. She doesn't even bother to find out most of their names. She couldn't give a toss!
If Holly was telling the truth about not knowing of Schofield's affair with a 33-years-younger teen, and genuinely felt she'd been hoodwinked and disrespected at 'This Morning', why does she want to remain working there?
Surely a person of integrity and honesty would not want to work in such a sleazy, toxic environment for another moment. If what she claimed was true, she'd want to leave.
But of course it wasn't true - she's just as bad and dishonest as the rest of 'em - that's why she's desperate to cling onto her 'queen bee' job on that show like grim death!
She needs to go and so do all the guilty ITV execs who actively enabled and protected child groomer Schofield, and like Holly, continue to lie about it. The whole thing stinks of corruption - the 'This Morning' brand is over..
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Agreed - you need strong, calm leadership in an horrendous crisis like that. I hope the two men in charge have been able to provide that for the others - but they too must be terrified. Your idea to lay down is very sensible, for many reasons, chief among them to conserve oxygen, stay calm and stave off panic attacks, which are a very real possibility.
Even with the 'Titan's' carbon-fibre exterior, it will be very chilly down there at that incredible depth, surrounded by miles of pitch black, freezing cold seawater. I hope there are some kind of blankets/foil wraps available for them. The state of that toilet (a bucket behind a curtain), after 5 days use by 5 men, must be horrendous.
My heart goes out to all of them, but I keep thinking about the father and 19-year-old son in particular. There's no way that man would have taken his boy with him on a trip of a lifetime to see Titanic, if he thought there was any real risk to life involved.
OceanGate's 61-year-old CEO Stockton Rush is one of the five. He has a confident - some may say too confident - manner, which I believe has given the public the mistaken idea this is low-to-no risk. Tellingly, in an interview last year, Rush said his biggest concern was the submersible not surfacing, for whatever reason. It seems a prescient comment today.
That poor Dad must be going through such fear, guilt and anguish, trying to reassure his son they will be rescued - and wishing to God he had never handed over half a million dollars to put them both in mortal danger.
We are hearing there may have been safety concerns about the 'Titan' for a some time. Five years ago a former OceanGate employee entered into an acrimonious legal battle with the company (settled out of court), after he claimed the carbon structure, window, and various aspects of it and the general safety ethos, were weak. One of his criticisms was that there were flammable elements within the vessel, one of many issues he said paying customers were unaware of.
I fear OceanGate has been doing these Titanic trips for so long, they've become complacent about safety. The 1912 Titanic disaster is the ultimate cautionary tale about man taking on the might of the ocean. It's a battle we can never win. We disrespect nature and the natural world at our peril. I pray one hundred and 11 years later, the Titanic is not about to claim another five victims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
That gal is a legend for saying her would-be killer is a 'pu**y, but let's not forget, that pu**y stabbed her in the neck because she rejected him. And inadequate 'pu**ies' like him murder females every day of the year, in every country of the world, in similar circumstances. It's an outrage.
Male-perpetrated domestic violence is a global pandemic deadlier for females and far more common than Covid. Society has got to address this toxic weakness in some males. Why the hell did that 17-year-old Incel think he had the right to break into her house and stab her, because she turned him down - as she and every other girl is fully entitled to do? No one owes you friendship, love or sex buddy! The arrogance and entitlement of his crime is extraordinary.
Sexual/romantic rejection is one of the toughest things human beings ever have to handle. But handle it we must - it's all part of growing up, and becoming stronger, more resilient and better people. It also teaches us we cannot control the behaviour of other people, and we shouldn't try to. Yes, people can hurt and disappoint us - even break our hearts. There's nothing we can do about that, it's life. But we can control our reaction to those events, and mature and grow up, as a result.
He showed his true, ugly misogyny to police at the end of the video, when he said he'd have got away with his murderous attack if he's been a, quote: 'cute white girl'. His earlier concern over the phone to the cop about never being able to own a firearm again if convicted of the attempted murder, is also concerning.
It's terrifying he will be released in a mere 16 years from now, aged just 33. Still a young, strong man, and still a virgin - and probably angrier than ever about it!
What will the prison system do with this Incel over the next 16 years of his incarceration, to educate him about adult relationships, a woman's right to say no to/expect basic respect from males, and to ensure he's no longer a danger to females? Because frankly, there's every reason to suspect prison will only intensify his vile misogyny.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The erasure of gay women is one of gender-cults most heinous crimes. Many girls grow up to be gay. They used to be known as 'Tom Boys' - girls who weren't into girly dresses and playing with dolls, but preferred jeans and riding bikes, climbing trees etc.
When some of those 'Tom Boy' girls became teens and began to recognise they were not sexually attracted to males but females, they faced confusion and terror at being different. This is a vulnerable time in every human's development, as they change from child to adult.
The last thing confused, vulnerable teens need is a fashionable, totally fake 'Trans' diagnosis slapped on them! Being given the fake, pseudo-medical diagnosis 'Born in the wrong body' is horribly negative. NO ONE is born in the wrong body!
Developing kids' self-hatred should not be encouraged with that 'wrong body' garbage! They should instead be encouraged to love that amazing, natural body that fulfils so many miraculous functions for them every second of the day, without even having to think about it!
De-transitioners are a ticking time-bomb about to BLOW. Over the next several decades we will hear many more heartbreaking stories like this of teens confused, lied to, medicalised and mutilated in the name of a fashionable, now discredited gender ideology. There will be many law suits against medical professionals who raked in millions thanks to gender-bollox. I hope every last one of them who steralized boys and girls, and removed healthy breasts, wombs and testes, is sued to HELL and forever RUINED.
#TransWomenAreConMen #SexNotGender #LeaveOurKidsAlone
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Trump and his slimy henchman Vance ambushed Zelensky, a democratically elected leader, and treated him with appalling disrespect in front of the world's media. It was a disgusting spectacle, in which they showed their true, shabby colours.
They would not have dared speak to Putin, a dictator and warmonger, in that tone. But it is now 100% clear the US has got into bed with Russia. God help us all!
Trump just conclusively proved he is NO peacemaker, and doesn't know the meaning of the word diplomacy. He has bitten off more than he can chew with his absurd, desperate attempts to force a legacy for himself by meddling in foreign conflicts. He'll have a legacy alright - and this is it! The man's an egomaniac and a buffoon, too stupid to know he's stupid.
Zelensky maintained his composure and dignity throughout this appalling display by the President and Vice President. He was right to leave the White House without signing any documents. Trump & Vance are the 21st Century's Laurel and Hardy. They won't recover from this mess.
Megyn is going to look pretty damn stupid if she continues to fawn over Trump, after this almighty F-Up!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Bryan Kohberger's strange conduct since these 4 murders, gives every indication he's a ruthless psychopath, entirely capable of the cold blooded premeditated homicides of four defenceless, sleeping younger people with bright futures, who he no doubt envied.
He is of course entitled to a fair trial - and the prosecution must pull out all the stops to prove his guilt. That is the hallmark of a fair, and correct, justice system.
That said, in my opinion his Not Guilty plea is as fake, as his attorney's lumpy hair extensions!
Good to see the transparently honourable, class act lawyer who defended the heinously persecuted Johnny Depp - Ben Chew - bringing his A-Game judgement to this case. Ben Chew is a superb defence attorney of great integrity, who ALL lawyers should look up to and learn from! If only even half of them were the thoroughly decent and honest human beings that Ben Chew is.
Bring on justice for the much-loved and missed, heinously slaughtered MADISON MOGEN (21), KAYLEE GONCALVES (21), XANA KERNODLE (20), and her partner ETHAN CHAPIN (20). These impressive, charismatic young people were only just beginning their exciting adult lives, full of promise, when an inadequate, envious loser plotted and carried out their murders.
This crime was anything but random. It reeks of premeditation, and pre-planning. It was the evil, twisted act, of a twisted, evil mind. Let justice prevail.
3
-
3
-
@looking4things669 Amen. You're absolutely right, Sheriff Grady Judd is a fine example to all cops. One thing is certain, the Brian Laundrie calamity would never have happened on his watch!
Law enforcement must learn lessons from this monumental F-up. Thank God the bodycam video exists to expose it, or there would be an even bigger cover up than it appears is happening now, with the re-writing of one witness statement. Seems the shit's hitting the fan big time for the cops in that bodycam footage, as it absolutely should!
Unfortunately there is an historic culture of men protecting other men, when they make mistakes. That warped culture thrives in macho organisations like the police, and goes some way to explain those officers' inappropriate support for domestic abuse suspect Brian Laundrie.
Decent, strong men with nothing to prove (and no skeletons in their own closet), call out substandard males like Brian Laundrie. We've seen that in the no nonsense condemnation of both Laundrie and the police, from Sheriff Judd and from commentators like Vinnie Politan and Derek Van Shaik.
Predictably, we've also seen the opposite - excuses for men like the idiot who keeps spouting bullshit in this thread. Misogynists, Incels and inadequate males generally, will try any ruse however ridiculous, to defend killer Brian Laundrie and the cops who let him off the hook. There's no point in responding to those losers - they don't believe their own illogical, misogynist garbage, any more than anyone else does! They're ridiculous.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How can that dumb lawyer say there's no motive? There's clear motive - Chandler Halderson shot his father Bart dead moments before they were due to attend a meeting he'd set up at his college, where his lies would finally have been exposed! He then waited for his mom Krista to return home from work, and did the same to her.
The defendant had been going to elaborate lengths to live a lie, pretending he was studying and about to graduate, pretending he was working from home for an insurance company, and pretending he'd got a better job working for Elon Musk in Florida. But his dad was getting suspicious and had been on his tail for a while, asking why he had no money and wasn't paying them rent.
Chandler faked emails to himself from his supposed employer, explaining the lack of payment as a payroll problem that was being sorted. He also bought himself a cheap burner phone and rang his dad pretending to be a college employee! He must have thought his dad was stupid, but he was wrong. Bart wrote a note to his mom afterwards, saying the voice on the phone sounded suspiciously like their son Chandler.
They were onto him, and his web of lies was about to be exposed. He was 23 and still living at home rent free, a pathological liar with no qualifications and no job, wiling away the hours playing violent video games (one with an online friend who would visit and gift him the murder weapon and ammunition). Or hanging out with his girlfriend Cat, who he was allegedly cheating on.
Chandler's an entitled man-child and the polar opposite of his older brother Mitchell who'd left home, got engaged and was doing well in his career. In his evidence Mitchell described their childhoods, with a workaholic, largely absent father, and an over-indulgent, stay at home mom who molly-coddled them both way beyond childhood. Criminologists long ago identified that absent fathers are a major factor in males becoming criminals. Without a strong male role model to set an example and lay down consistent boundaries and expectations for good values and behaviour, they get only praise from an indulgent mother. And this is not good for their development to men.
Sadly in their youngest son Bart and Krista unwittingly created a dangerous narcissist so ruthless, he would even kill in his own self interest. He believed murdering his folks would get them off his back so he could continue his lazy lifestyle, and bring him a sizeable life insurance payout and inheritance to boot. People who knew the couple liked them. They were typical of so many hard working, middle aged people who raised kids to adults, and were looking forward to retirement. But it would all be stolen from them in the most brutal way imaginable, by one of the two children they'd given so much to in every possible way. Absolutely chilling.
And how that evil runt-of-the-litter's allowed to waste taxpayers' money with this farce of a trial, I don't know. The evidence against him is overwhelming - as evidenced by how little his lawyers have to say!
3
-
3
-
Agreed - you can tell Eamonn was raised by a great mother who loved him dearly, but also taught him good values, integrity and the right way to treat people. He genuinely likes and respects women. She did a great job, God bless her.
The real and loving relationship between him and his wife Ruth Langsford is a joy to see. They both have a great reputation in the business precisely because they are real and down-to-earth and treat colleagues as they should be treated. It speaks volumes that Phillip Schofield threw that poor young boy to the wolves, but Ruth is still in touch with him and supportive.
I could never understand why ITV passed up the chance to have Eamonn and Ruth, a real husband and wife team host 'This Morning' (in the Richard and Judy tradition), but instead chose the simpering and blatantly phoney 'fake marriage' of Holly and Phil.
Though as it turned out, 'TV husband and wife' Holly Willoughby & Phil were more authentic than Schofield's real marriage to his poor, cheated-on wife / 'beard' Stephanie. My heart goes out to that poor woman, she has been horribly betrayed by that creep of a husband. I hope she decides to divorce him, he's toxic. With her multi million pound divorce settlement she could have a fantastic life of freedom and who knows - maybe fall in love with a straight man! I wish her all the very best - in the words of Sinatra 'The Best Is Yet To Come!'
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ksc743 She is extraordinary for almost 90! She's lucky with her genes of course (sister Jackie was beautiful too), Joan always had that pretty, heart shaped face which has aged well (a few subtle nips & tucks done judiciously helped maintain it), and she's always looked after what God gave her.
She brought out some fab beauty books over the years, all of which I bought and studied religiously! She's a big believer in healthy eating and regular, gentle exercise, and she doesn't overdo the booze or ciggies.
I recall her being almost evangelical about avocados and how good they are for your skin, due to the good oil they contain. She tries to eat half an avocado every day. I think she's very sensible - for example, she decided after she left 'Dynasty' and started getting older, it would be more flattering to have a little more weight on her. So she's approx 7lbs heavier now than in her 50s, but she's careful not to gain more than that.
I think she's right - it can be very aging to be skinny when you're over 60!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tremonti4ever You entirely missed my point. The original post is lame, because it's ill-informed. That poster raised the question of Vinnie Politan's marital/family status, pondering whether he was on TV so much because he's single. They didn't do the most basic homework, before typing - that's lame and lazy.
A quick Google search provides the low-down on Court TV's lead anchor. Born February 4th 1965, Italian-American Vinnie Politan (58), is the son of a federal judge, and younger brother of a corporate attorney, and was himself a prominent New Jersey prosecutor before entering journalism in the late 1990s.
Politan is very much a family man. He shares 3 children with Dolly Politan, who he married in 2002. This and plenty more information on Vinnie Politan is in the public domain, and readily available.
YouTube comments would be far more interesting if people only took a moment to do the most rudimentary research on their subject, and write from a position of knowledge not ignorance!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GRMLS5 I don't remember her, but I can well imagine the BS she came out with, to support narcissistic psycho killer Jodi Arias. I'm British and it stuns me that the defence and prosecution in America hire 'professional witnesses' to essentially prop up their client's story and help them win.
It feels very contrived to me. I hope juries approach their evidence with caution, and bear in mind they are being paid to present a narrative brief which is clearly explained to them in advance, by the lawyers who hire them!
Dr Hughes' testimony that Depp was a domestic abuser was an utter farce. Not only had she never met him, she could support her 'conclusion' with no evidence whatsoever, beyond Amber Heard's wholly unproven and questionable claims!
As has become abundantly clear in court over the last 2 weeks, all the evidence points to Amber Heard being the violent, out-of-control abuser. She put Depp in hospital and crapped in his bed - and that's just for starters, before we discuss her physical and verbal assaults on him. Assaults she stupidly, secretly recorded, that now backfire on her, as they reveal exactly how vile and abusive she is when her mask comes off.
Dr Hughes also laughably quoted Heard's psychotherapist as some sort of 'independent, impartial' corroborating witness - when a therapist is anything but objective. Therapists are not trained to contradict their clients, but to blindly accept everything they tell them!
So Dr Hughes' testimony was blatantly biased for Amber Heard, and had zero evidentiary value, despite vilely slandering Johnny Depp as a rapist. Dr Hughes presented as an arrogant know-all with a big chip on her shoulder - and not even half as professional, insightful and generally impressive as Dr Curry, the psychologist who did Heard's damning psychiatric testing for Depp's team.
Frankly Dr Hughes' cynical character assassination on Johnny Depp utterly sickened me and I'm sure ALL decent people watching. It's more than ironic as an expert (and expensive) witness for Amber Turd, Dr Hughes ended up performing way better for Johnny Depp! 🤣🤣🤣
3
-
@Peace2humankind Nope, this was a smart jury with sufficient critical thinking skills to navigate a primarily circumstantial case, join the dots and correctly deduce the defendant killed his wife.
What could this set of circumstances possibly be, but a domestic homicide? The defence claim of suicide was preposterous. The total absence of a body was in itself a powerful indicator of foul play. Suicide victims' remains are found, murder victims are not, because their killer males damn sure of it!
James Propokovitz had means, motive and opportunity. No one but him, had reason to want rid of Victoria. When the defence cannot produce a single, solitary witness to back its claims, and the defendant (previously so emphatic to police that he didn't kill her), declines to appeal direct to the jury, the writing's on the wall!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@itstheweather642 There's no question Camilla was an old flame of Prince Charles and remained a close and trusted friend and confidante after her own marriage to Andrew Parker-Bowles, and his to Diana. That's not a crime! There is no evidence they resumed their old affair after he married - that was a lie perpetrated by Diana to discredit him. She didn't like him being friendly with an old flame (that tired and much repeated incident of him gifting Camilla a bracelet before his marriage, for example).
It's clear you're not interested in the truth, and have swallowed the manipulative Diana's lies wholesale. But I'll give it to you anyway. Charles went into his marriage in good faith, and was faithful to Diana for the first 5 years. Diana was unfaithful to him first, sleeping with her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee and a selection of old friends including James Gilbey (a recording of a phone conversation between them made it crystal clear they were lovers).
Diana had many affairs, and absolutely no conscience about sleeping with other women's husbands. Ask Susan Mannakee, Julia Carling and Diane Hoare what they think of the women who shamelessly pursued and bedded their husbands! She was the big adulterer and home-wrecker.
Charles had just one affair after his wife had made it clear she no longer loved him or wanted to share his bed (she moved into Kensington Palace full time, leaving him at Highgrove the home he had designed and planned for them as a family). Is it surprising Charles turned to Camilla, his former love and a trusted friend, in that situation? Camilla's husband was a terrible philanderer, so she and Charles had a lot in common!
Diana was never the innocent, wronged wife she pretended to the media, to win public sympathy and destroy her husband's public image. It's a great shame she got herself killed at 36 before the internet age shone light on her true, spiteful character and vile promiscuity.
3
-
Libby was incredibly brave to secretly film the creepy guy stalking her and Abby, Richard Allen. This case would not have been solved without her securing that footage of the killer for police. Because when a still image of the man from her video was shown on TV news on 15th February, it freaked Allen out and prompted him to come forward and tell authorities he'd been there that day.
He was trying to 'get ahead' of police, and pose as an innocent witness, rather than the guilty child killer he was. He even described wearing exactly the same clothes as the killer in the video - he identified himself as 'Bridge Guy' - and Bridge Guy is the killer!
All the witnesses from the day of the crime reported seeing ONE MAN and one man only - that man was, by his own admission, Richard Allen. Police could and should have arrested and charged him within one week of these murders! Instead they dropped the ball, and did no further investigation after he came forward.
It is an outrage they allowed Allen to walk free for FIVE YEARS when he had approached them just two days after the murders! Supt Doug Carter was wrong when he said the killer was, quote, 'Hiding in plain sight'. He wasn't hiding at all! Indiana Police and Supt Carter must be held fully accountable for their multiple, huge mistakes, of which that was the biggest.
It took far too long, but Libby's video of Richard Allen is what smoked him out and ultimately solved the case. I believe after they were abducted by him at gunpoint, the girls worked together to conceal the phone from him (it was found under Abby's dead body). Both girls deserve huge respect and recognition for the key role they played in solving their own murder. Without that video being recorded and preserved. Richard Allen would not have come forward, and would almost certainly have killed other victims.
3
-
3
-
It's not a 'trans ban', it's a MAN BAN. Men do not belong in female only spaces intended for women and girls, however the men dress, or 'identify'. What's so hard for the trans lobby to understand??? RESPECT WOMEN ffs!
Kudos to the Conservative Party under Rishi Sunak for defending the 51% of female citizens against this threat to our safety, dignity and privacy. Female spaces have existed for many years, and were hard won, in recognition of the unique vulnerability of women and girls.
Gender-cult would trample all over female spaces, making every public space mixed - including toilets and changing rooms for the especially vulnerable - eg children in schools, and sick women and girls in hospitals. This is not acceptable!
The safety of women and girls is paramount. We see time and again that male sex predators will go to elaborate lengths to access female and child victims. Yes - they will 'identify' as female to enter ladies toilets, changing rooms, and other female-only spaces/facilities it's already happening!
We don't want men muscling in on female sports either, stealing the places and prizes intended for women, not men. It's not fair. Men retain a huge physical advantage over women, regardless of any artificial hormones they take. Men can also pose a danger of injury to sportswomen, if pitting their greater physical size and strength against us in contact and other sports. If trans identified males are allowed to continue this nonsense, women's sports will literally cease to exist!
The Labour Party has swallowed gender-cult politics wholesale, and thrown the hard-won rights of women and girls under the bus. If you are female, or give a damn about women's rights, you cannot possibly vote Labour right now. As a lifelong Labour voter, it pains me to say that. The Conservatives will get my vote in the general election, as the only one of the three main political parties to defend women against dangerous, misogynist, anti child safeguarding gender cult.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Amen, that man is pure evil. The little boy is now being raised by one of the detectives who investigated the murders, it's the first time he's lived in a home without Ronnie O' Neal's abuse.
It is so sad he's had 3 years to heal physically and mentally from his father's violence (when police arrived, his intestines were hanging out from the knife attack), and the loss of his mom and sister. And then the court makes him face his would-be killer, and the killer of his family, and answer his questions. It's wrong - just the sound of that murderer's voice could traumatise the child and set his recovery back!
That PoS is pretending his girlfriend attacked the children, and he killed her in an impulsive crime of passion. Unlucky for him one of the children survived to tell the true story! He'd been abusing his girlfriend for years, and even fathered a baby with another woman. If only she had been able to escape him with her children, she and her daughter would be alive.
More must be done to protect women and children from scumbag domestic abusers like him! And more must be done by courts to protect child victims of crime from ever having to interact with the defendant again. O' Neal could have given his questions to a defense attorney, to ask the child. I think having to speak to his dad direct will inevitably bring that terrible night sharply back in focus for him, and be a very damaging experience.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ronnie O' Neal's claiming his girlfriend attacked both children, killing the 9 year old girl and repeatedly stabbing the (then) 8 year old boy, who by a miracle survived. He says he only killed his girlfriend after she attacked the children, in an impulsive (ie not premeditated) act of self defence.
Obviously that's garbage. But if he could persuade the jury that story's true, it would serve two crucial purposes for him. It would take the child killer label off him and slap it onto his dead girlfriend, and it would lessen his murder from premeditated, first degree murder, to the lesser charge of an impulsive act of self defence.
It's the same BS fairy tale told by family annihilators since time began. Usually all witnesses have been killed by the accused, so there is no reliable witness to contradict his lies. Unluckily for Ronnie, his son survived to tell the jury that his dad, not his mom, stabbed him! How strange Ronnie missed out that part of his son's courtroom testimony, in his summing up!
Fuckwit has an imminent appointment with a lethal injection. I pray his son can break the cycle of what is almost certainly a family history of male domestic abuse going back generations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@barbaranoel3186 Oh yes she could - and she did! Melody was small, but she wasn't disabled. Quite the opposite, she was strong and fit from regular gym sessions. She was smart too - she had an array of quality farm vehicles and tools at her disposal, and made sure she had ample time to get the job done by telling family not to visit.
Melody was the only person at the house with Gary that day - of course she did it! Police fast established Melody was there, but son Scott was not. People need to quit parroting the defence lie that Scott had anything to do with his father's murder. He did not - that's why he wasn't charged, and Melody was! His emotion on the stand when speaking of his beloved dad was genuine.
Bad enough she murdered her husband, the father of her children, out of malice and greed, but she then tried to frame her innocent son for her vile crime! Thankfully Melody didn't get away with any of it, and the world now knows exactly who and what she is.
Gary was always generous to his wife, but she treated him like dirt, enjoying the lavish lifestyle his money gave her, while flaunting her affairs in his face. Killing him at just 58, robbing him of his golden retirement years smelling the flowers and watching his grandkids grow, was Melody's final, horrific betrayal of her husband.
She deserves every miserable day she spends behind bars, dreaming of the dream life she threw away when she chose murder over divorce. I wish that evil woman a LONG life!
3
-
3
-
Poor Tylee's story is clearly a pack of lies. She's been coached by the killers, her mother and uncle. She can't repeat a single word of the supposed argument between the three adults. She just says "My stepdad was yelling", over and over.
Lori and Alex decided Tylee's role in the fake fight, was to provide a weapon (the baseball bat), for Charles to take from her and threaten Alex with - justifying shooting him dead! It was plainly an ambush of the unsuspecting, unarmed Charles, which of course is the reason Alex was there waiting at Lori's house - with his loaded gun!
Why didn't police charge Alex and Lori with Charles' murder? Incredibly, they swallowed the murdering siblings' 'self defence' lies, and let them go home to enjoy a celebratory pool party! Neighbours heard them laughing - mere feet from the crime scene (Lori wrongly assumed she would soon receive $1 million from Charles' life insurance policy).
Police missed their golden opportunity to stop the murder spree. If they'd only charged Lori and Alex with killing Charles, Tylee, JJ and Tammy Daybell, might well have been saved.
3
-
3
-
What we are seeing is a defence team taking advantage of a bungled police investigation. Supt Doug Carter's strategic mistakes - like the two totally different sketches released 2 years apart - are now coming back to bite him on his arrogant, incompetent ass!
How many ritualistic cult murders are there each year? And how many sexually motivated murders? Cult killings are rare, sex killings are not. I don't buy the theory that multiple male 'Odinists' lay in wait for a victim to sacrifice in broad daylight, on a sunny February day, and happened upon teen friends Abby and Libby.
This crime has all the hallmarks of a lone wolf attack by an opportunist sex predator. The fact Libby was naked confirms it - a few branches laid over the bodies to disguise their location before the killer fled, proves nothing. Nor does a bloody palm print on a tree.
Richard Allen was, by his own admission, 'Bridge Guy' - the stalker Libby was sufficiently concerned about to film with her Smartphone shortly before she and Abby were abducted. In the days after the murders, when the world knew police possessed video of the killer following the girls over the Monon High Bridge, guess what? Richard Allen came forward and told a marshal he was at the crime scene that day, walking alone for no good reason at exactly the same time as Abby and Libby, and wearing exactly the same clothes as the stalker on the video. Though predictably, he denied having seen the girls (of course he did!)
There's no question Richard Allen is 'Bridge Guy'. He's pretty much admitted it. And that admission looks very much like a man establishing an alibi and trying to get ahead of the police, because he knows he was caught on camera. After his confession, Allen must have been nervously awaiting the police knock on the door. But he needn't have worried, because incredibly, it never came!
The Keystone Cops failed to complete the most basic police work and interview (and eliminate) everyone who was at the Monon nature trails that day - including Richard Allen, clearly the prime suspect since he is 'Bridge Guy'. Frankly if police had done their jobs, he'd have been arrested and charged with the murders within a week!
The bungled police investigation left this notorious double child murder unsolved for five years - and has allowed the defence the opportunity to come up with this off the wall alternate story, based on the multiple theories and suspects police chased to fill that five year information vacuum!
The defence would have us believe their client happened to be at the crime scene that day (walking alone for no reason), happened to follow Libby and Abby across the Monon High Bridge (the scene of their abduction,) and happened to be filmed by them. And yet, the defence maintains, the girls were killed by someone else entirely - or to be precise, more than one killer.
It simply beggars belief! Their claim that one person could not have overpowered and killed two terrified children, armed with a gun, is ludicrous. Of course that's entirely possible. The poor girls were taken by surprise, terrified and in shock, their instinct was to obey the armed abductor, in hopes he'd soon set them free. They, like everyone else, didn't realise what he was capable of.
Many killers are 'boring' - BTK, Crippen, etc etc. too many to list here. Being boring is not a defence!
3
-
@Ryan Scri You wrote an essay on a dead woman you never met, whose only legacy is two children and umpteen images of herself in eye-wateringly expensive (and now badly dated) designer outfits, accepting bouquets from children.
Why do you care so much about a celebrity who, were she alive today, wouldn't care if you lived or died?
I'll tell you why you're so emotionally invested in a total stranger, since you probably haven't worked it out for yourself - Diana was photogenic.
Yep, that's the overriding reason, unsophisticated, provincial people like you still worship at her shrine. She was pretty! Your feelings for her are as shallow and non profound as the woman herself.
By getting herself killed at 36, she will forever remain young and good looking, and thus be deified by idiots. She may have thrown away her glittering VIP life and robbed her poor children of a mother, but she did the best possible PR for herself by dying.
If she'd lived and lost her looks, her fans would have lost interest in her and moved onto younger, more attractive female celebrities long ago!
You couldn't care less about genuinely special, selfless people like Mother Theresa, who devoted her life to the sick and poor, because she didn't look good in a swimsuit. You're a joke!
3
-
3
-
@riner9 Probably - it's well documented abuse victims frequently have one abusive partner/relationship after another, for the reasons I touched on in my earlier post. The cycle of abuse is complex and insidious, and invariably very hard to break.
That said, I'm an optimist and a great believer in the human spirit's potential for self improvement. I hope this high profile murder case, and the compliments Erika won from the public and the Judge (who singled her out for praise in her sentencing remarks), will be an opportunity for her to break with the past and launch a far better future.
I believe the judge hopes so too, and that's why in addition to Brooks' multiple life sentences, she imposed a lifetime ban on him contacting Erika ever again. Along with so many who watched that courageous young woman's dignified conduct under cross examination by the despicable Darrell Brooks, I wish her the very best for a happy, fulfilled, abuse-free life.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If a dodgy internet search history indicated guilt in a high profile murder, the world's prisons would be full of innocent armchair detectives! The fact Kegan Kline looked up details of the Delphi murders online says precisely nothing about him, except he had a morbid curiosity about it - like countless other people!
Kline may have had extra reason to be curious about this double child homicide, if he'd previously cat-fished/communicated with Libby online (as has been suggested). Again, that doesn't mean he had any connection with her death - the internet is full of online perverts like him, targeting young women and girls. Most of them do not murder anyone.
Why are so many YouTubers/commentators deciding the new suspect Richard Allen must have known/or be linked to the Klines? I don't see that at all. First off there's no evidence Libby and Abby had arranged to meet anyone that day. On the contrary, from the start, cops said they did NOT believe they'd arranged any rendezvous. Libby's older sister Kelsi who drive the girls there that day in her car said the same, she didn't sense they were meeting anyone, only going for a hike.
In all likelihood the girls were targeted by an opportunist predator they'd never met before. That's why Libby took secret video of him following them over the bridge - he was a scary stranger. And stranger killings are the hardest to solve. Even so, bearing in mind Supt Doug Carter always said the killer could be local man and 'hiding in plain sight', if it IS Allen it's shocking he lived a stone's thrown from the crime scene - right under law enforcement's noses - yet they didn't catch him for the best part of six years.
We shall see - but I'm not getting excited about tomorrow's police media briefing just yet. We've been led down the garden path by Supt Carter and the Keystone Cops too many times before!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A barrister once explained the difference between a forensic and a circumstantial case to me like this: He said a criminal case predominantly featuring forensic evidence eg fingerprints, DNA etc, is regarded as gold standard, irrefutable evidence, and a very strong and sound case. He likened a forensic evidence case like that, to one single, thick, incredibly strong steel cable.
But if you have enough circumstantial evidence, all pointing to the defendant's guilt, he said that could be likened to a steel cable made up of multiple thinner strands of steel, all joining together - and with sufficient strands of circumstantial evidence, of sufficient quality, they can form a strand that's just as strong - and sometimes even stronger - than the 'single steel cable' of a predominantly forensic case.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dame Caroline McCall - what a total joke that woman is. Her appearance at the select committee was just more pi$$ and wind, and no substance - ditto the ventriloquists dummy little Kevin Lygo (I think she had her hand up his arse throughout).
McCall may want to 'reassure' the public, but she doesn't, because we're not as stupid as she thinks. We know we've been taken for fools by ITV and 'heterosexual family man' Phillip Schofield for YEARS.
The only reason ITV continue to pander to a former runner, is the power he has to expose them and tell the media about his long affair with Schofield - and ITV's long history of enabling and supporting it. It is utterly laughable McCall expects us to believe they are still in contact with an ex runner for his benefit, because they are such caring employers! Pull the other one!
Ditto ITV's shameful, ongoing support of Phillip Schofield (paid £1.2 million a year by them and given 6 months salary on his departure), whose expensive psychotherapy they are now paying for. You couldn't make it up!
The creep is a celebrity predator who pursued a 34-years-younger junior colleague for sex - a clear abuse of power - and was 'let go' ie FIRED for it. On what planet would such a dishonourable, disgraced man be deemed worthy of any support after parting company with them? Again ITV's motives are transparent - they're scared of repercussions for themselves if they aren't seen to be supportive of that controversial, self-serving narcissist. Would the BBC have paid for serial sex offender Jimmy Savile's therapy sessions after his workplace sex offending was exposed?!
ITV executives didn't give a damn about poor Caroline Flack, fired at the first sign of trouble in her private life - not even her workplace behaviour - and judged guilty by her TV employers before any trial. She was thrown to the wolves by ITV over far less sinister allegations of a domestic assault on her boyfriend (which by the way he denied, and did not want to press charges over).
Caroline's alleged sins were not on anything like the same level as Schofield's, an exploitative, five-year workplace affair with a star-struck kid, conducted in colleagues' faces, and actively supported by an ITV top brass conspiracy of lies and silence.
The same ITV execs who pandered to Schofield's every demand for years - and made him so arrogant and entitled he felt he was untouchable enough to sh*g an 18-year-old male colleague - unceremoniously dumped Caroline Flack, and gave her beloved job as host of 'Love Island' straight to Laura Whitmore! Where was their duty of care to Caroline, a popular and loyal ITV presenter for years?
ITV executives worshipped Phillip Schofield, but treated Caroline Flack abominably. She understandably felt her career and public image were trashed, and her mental state rapidly crumbled. Soon Caroline could see no future for herself, and her suicide was the (almost certainly inevitable) result. I believe there is more than an element of misogyny in the starkly different treatment ITV gave Caroline Flack and Phillip Schofield.
After that shocking indifference to a much-loved and very high profile female presenter, it's not remotely surprising ITV washed their hands of Jason Gardiner and didn't call to enquire how he was feeling after they'd kicked him in the teeth. Dame Caroline McCall kept talking about ITV caring about staff on a 'human level'. Total garbage - They couldn't give a damn!
It's utterly disgusting sex predator and pathological liar Schofield tried to align himself with Caroline Flack's persecution and tragedy. How dare he exploit her memory like that. The two situations, like the two people, bear no comparison to each other!
How did Dame Caroline McCall get that job as head honcho at ITV - and a staggering annual salary of £3 million - with absolutely no broadcasting history or experience? She came from budget airline Easyjet! What the hell does she know about television, or handling celebrity egos? The entire set up at ITV is a total bloody farce. Ridiculous how honours and lottery-sized salaries are thrown at such unimpressive, ineffectual people. McCall should have resigned over the Schofield scandal - she allowed it to go on for years!
And predictably, MPs failed to hold those overpaid, arrogant TV executives feet to the flames today. So many open goals - and they missed every damn one! The woke spin from Dame Easyjet waffled on and on - how caring and sharing ITV are, and how they couldn't find any 'evidence' of the affair between Schofield and the runner (and they weren't likely to - because today they finally admitted no proper enquiry was conducted!) Yada, yada, BS!
The Schofield scandal stinks to high heaven of a conspiracy and cover up at the highest level - the manufactured 'coming out' stunt on the 'This Morning' sofa alone proves it! That was 2020 - which indicates the high level cover up to protect Schofield's position at ITV was happening for at least three years. Did MPs point that out today???
Why were Schofield's agent, senior representatives of The Sun newspaper, and ITV bosses watching from the wings that day when Holly Willoughby hosted Schofield's tearful gay 'confession'?
MPs failed to identify the smoking gun of that sudden and suspicious coming out stunt, failed to put the executives on the spot and didn't even identify the obvious similarities with the Jimmy Savile serial rape scandal of just a few years earlier. Did ITV learn no lessons from Savile's seismic criminal sex scandal - like Schofield's, conducted on TV premises, another predator hiding in plain sight as a family entertainer?
If ITV was the responsible, 'human' employer McCall claims, they'd have suspended Phillip Schofield pending an inquiry into his relationship with the runner. Instead, they looked the other way and protected their 'golden boy' over and over for at least EIGHT YEARS, enabling his exploitation of that star-struck boy - and no doubt others - to continue! Why is Schofield the only fat cat to have fallen on his sword? The ITV executives who presided over this mess should follow Schofield down the toilet!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'It's called Vigil'. And it's laughably bad!
Series One was cliched, achingly woke, low-budget BBC drama, with 'Poundshop' special effects and cast, headed by Suranne Jones (whose acting spans a range of emotions from A to B).
Jones is destined to join that list of British 'talent' (along with Thandie Newton, Dougray Scott, Rosamund Pike, Dominic West etc), who are just talented enough to know they're not talented enough to join the ranks of iconic British stars like Jude Law, Gary Oldman, Ewan McGregor, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins etc, etc.
This clip confirms Series Two will be a second helping of utter shyte!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Excellent, comprehensive documentary. There was no compelling DNA or other forensic evidence of an intruder on Jonbenet's body, clothing or anywhere in the house, for the simple reason that there was no intruder.
Today, confident he got away with it 27 years later, John Ramsey tours TV studios talking garbage about non-existent DNA he claims will unmask the killer - knowing full well it can't, and that he sees the killer every morning when he looks in his shaving mirror.
The two most compelling pieces of evidence in this case are the ridiculous, three-page ransom letter, and Jonbenet's autopsy report, revealing her, quote, 'chronic, long-term' sexual abuse. And those are the two subjects John Ramsey never wants to talk about in interviews. Go figure!
Jonbenet's autopsy confirmed beyond doubt she was subjected to a long-term campaign of heinous sexual abuse. Internally, she had multiple abrasions to her cervix and hymen at various ages/stages of healing, the most recent inflicted 24 hours before death (did the supposed 'intruder' pay her a visit on Christmas Eve too?) and the oldest abrasions going back many months, and likely years. Her hymen was also torn, injuries indicating systematic vaginal penetration with fingers and objects.
In addition Jonbenet's vaginal canal was inflamed and bleeding, and her vaginal entrance was TWICE the size of a normal, unmolested girl of the same age.
The Ramseys often wheeled out family doctor Francesco Beuf (also a family friend, and firmly in their pockets), to confirm his view Jonbenet was not sexually abused. In reality he could not judge one way or the other, as he had never investigated the possibility with an internal examination, despite her repeatedly presenting at his clinic with chronic bed-wetting, vaginitis, cystitis/UTIs and yeast infections - all highly suspicious symptoms in a young child.
Fact is, Dr Beuf had missed Jonbenet's sexual abuse, an appalling failure on his part as a paediatrician. As the late, legendary forensic pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht observed, if Dr Beuf had only done an internal examination on Jonbenet during one of her frequent visits to his clinic, he'd have found the internal injuries exposed at autopsy, been duty bound to report them, and John Ramsey would have been arrested and taken into police custody the same day.
Ultimately Dr Beuf stopped being a spokesman for the Ramseys and withdrew from them, painfully aware his medical colleagues had identified chronic, long-term sexual abuse post mortem, that he should have found when she was alive - and could potentially have been saved. No doubt that little girl haunted him to the end of his days.
The prime suspect in this sexually motivated crime was always the sole adult male living with her, with round the clock, 24-7, unsupervised access, her father John Ramsey. Sex offences and violent crimes generally are overwhelmingly committed by men, which makes her mother Patsy, and her sexually immature, pre-pubescent and young for his age brother Burke, highly unlikely suspects.
One reason people are so confused about this case is that it's (understandably) classed a murder. But in all likelihood Jonbenet died unintentionally, from sadistic sexual abuse involving asphyxiation torture by ligature. That night John Ramsey's sexual abuse featuring an elaborately-knotted, home-made 'garrote' went too far, and he found he could not revive her. He threw himself on wife Patsy's mercy and she agreed to collude with him in the cover-up.
Patsy stayed up all night with him, staging the crime scene, writing the ludicrous ransom letter and getting their 'intruder' story straight, before answering the door to police just after 5.30am in yesterday's clothes and make-up. Facing cancer, the tragic loss of her daughter and the imminent media storm surrounding the crime, Patsy could not handle life as a single parent without her powerful husband and protector by her side. Patsy chose to protect John to keep him out of prison, and preserve her privileged life as Mrs John Ramsey.
It's possible Patsy partly blamed herself for Jonbenet's death at her husband's hands. John began sexually abusing their daughter after Patsy's devastating diagnosis of stage 4 ovarian cancer in 1993, when she was 36 and Jonbenet was three. Her invasive medical treatments inevitably ended their sex life, and he began exploiting Jonbenet as a sex surrogate. The long list of ailments Jonbenet presented to Dr Beuf with go back some time, and are clearly linked to her father's ongoing sexual abuse.
Patsy may have known or suspected what was going on, and looked the other way. But it's possible she was entirely ignorant of it, while groggy on strong painkilling drugs and sick with chemo.
People struggle to believe a wealthy, white, respectable, churchgoing millionaire like John Ramsey could be a child abuser. But the dreadful truth is, paedophiles come from every social, economic and ethnic background, right across the board.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When Stockton Rush made that disparaging remark about not wanting to work with '50-something white guys', guess what? He was himself a 50-something white guy! Go figure.
Rush was the king of spin, and presented that statement as wanting to work with young, dynamic, diverse people. Bull-Crap! The truth is, he had two very obvious reasons for not wanting to work with engineers in his own age and ethnicity bracket. First of all, those middle aged guys have a ton of invaluable experience and expertise, and are therefore EXPENSIVE!
It's clear he was doing the 'Titanic Expedition' on a budget - and desperately trying to recoup his investment by charging the super-rich $250k a pop to join him on those deep sea trips. Newly qualified, 20-something engineers are inevitably cheap. And I bet Rush charmed those youngsters, and negotiated the lowest possible salaries by selling them the experience of working for him at the 'cutting edge' of submersible exploration as something exciting.
The other, equally important reason Rush did not want to employ his peers, is just as obvious - he didn't want confident, experienced colleagues on his own level, who would challenge and contradict him without hesitation! Stockton Rush was a big-league narcissist who didn't respond well to the mildest criticism or resistance. 'My way or the highway' was his daily mantra.
Rush paid the ultimate price for his arrogance. But unforgiveably, so did 4 other people!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think Richard Lester's first two Muskateer movies of '73 and 74 (which are practically one film as they were made simultaneously with the same cast and released just 6 months apart), were by far the best made by anyone. That Charlie Sheen '93 version was an abomination!
It's impossible to match the quality of the all-star cast Lester assembled for his first two Muskateer movies - Oliver Reed, Christopher Lee, Raquel Welch, Faye Dunaway, Michael York, Frank Finlay, Richard Chamberlain, Simon Ward and the rest, were all in their sexy, dynamic prime, and all turned in fantastic performances.
Unfortunately Lester made a third movie in 1989 'Return of the Muskateers', which did not come close to the high quality of the first two, 15 years on, the cast looked much older, especially Oliver Reed who was rather booze ravaged. The plot and script were not a patch on the two originals either - the slapstick had become predictable.
Tragedy marred that third movie too. Beloved British comedy actor Roy Kinnear, reprising his role as the Muskateers sidekick Planchet, died after falling off a horse while filming in Spain in September 1988. The movie was dedicated to him as a result.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cdemots123 Diana certainly was photogenic, but accomplished? Her legacy is her sons, and not much more.
People who judge others by shallow things like looks and clothes are drawn to the equally vacuous Diana, so your trying to insult my looks is no surprise! Diana had the morals of an alley cat, was narcissistic, manipulative and self serving, and got herself killed because she failed to fasten her seat belt - despite being mother of two dependant children. That is not a human being I admire, no matter how pretty or well dressed!
And your predictable 'If you don't like it don't watch/comment' is beyond lame. This is a public forum for all comments, good and bad - it isn't a Princess Diana fan site! Some people see through the self styled 'Queen of Hearts/Tarts', a woman whose favourite pasttime was slipping her phone number to married men within sight of their wives. YUK!
Diana hated other women - Camilla however is a girls girl, big hearted, down to earth, and unlike Diana, isn't obsessed with her own image! I do however wish Diana had been a better mother, given her poor sons a thought that night in Paris, and fastened her seat belt. Because then she would have lived, and become more and more ridiculous as she aged.
All Diana had was her youth and beauty - losing them would have devastated her! She'd have been as jealous as hell of her sons' younger, more beautiful wives as they inevitably stole the limelight and headlines that used to be hers by default. Kate and Meghan dodged a bullet there - she'd have been the mother-in-law from hell!
By now Diana would be on her second or third facelift, among multiple other surgical procedures, and resembling Michael Jackson more every year. Oh Diana would have become a joke, had she lived. She did the best possible PR for herself by dying before she had time to lose her youth and looks - because apart from her sons, that was the sum total of her appeal.
I sincerely hope you don't have daughters or granddaughters, you obviously judge other women primarily on their looks, a very nasty trait.
2
-
@Icon_of_Design I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties, privy to authentic, inside information on Diana and the people in her immediate orbit. I'm not taken in by the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts' cynical media manipulation, as you clearly are. Diana was the embodiment of cruel and vindictive!
I've met some of the people whose lives she ruined - Julia Carling among them, whose marriage to rugby star Will Carling Diana ended before it even reached its two year anniversary. Diana would not leave the newly married Will Carling alone - Why? She was never in love with him, seducing a celebrity was merely a twisted ego trip for her. I have it on good authority they never even had full sex. Their affair (if you can call it that), amounted to Diana inviting Carling to her private Kensington Palace apartments to give him oral sex.
Unsurprisingly, Will Carling has never spoken publicly about his short lived sexual relationship with Diana, which prematurely ended his marriage with bitterness and acrimony. But after a few drinks he would tell his rugby pals with a smile: "I'll never forget looking down at the top of her head and thinking - the future Queen of England is giving me a blow job".
That's how Diana, the supposed innocent, 'wronged wife and wonderful mother', behaved when the TV cameras weren't on her! However she got caught out big time when she stalked and harassed Oliver Hoare (another married man she had ruthlessly pursued and ), after he dumped her.
I covered the scandal for a famous Sunday newspaper, and was only allowed to publish a fraction of the true, terrible story because it reflected so badly on Diana as a woman and a mother. Even the much maligned red top tabloids held back on Diana's true, deeply unpleasant character. I will tell the Oliver Hoare story here, most of it has never been published.
Oliver Hoare knew full well Diana was behind the over 300 malicious silent phone calls to his home, day and night. It was an extreme 'woman scorned' response to him ending their affair. Diana took his rejection badly - as extreme narcissists do. When he returned to her by post a pair of her late father's gold cuff links she had gifted him as a love token, she went nuclear and the obsessive silent phone calls started up, 24-7.
Hoare decided to call her bluff by coming clean to his wife Diane about his infidelity, and reporting Princess Diana to police.
The couple presented a united front to do this. Police investigated and sure enough, the calls were traced to Diana. Soon two rather embarrassed plain clothes detectives called on the princess at Kensington Palace to warn her off harassing Mr and Mrs Hoare. They told the princess the calls had been traced to her phone line at KP, plus her private cellphone and a few public payphones (she told friends she had sneaked out to the payphones disguised in a headscarf in the wee small hours, to call Hoare's home).
Her reaction to the police ticking off? Incredibly, she totally denied she made the calls and instead blamed her innocent, 13 year old son William! Detectives knew it wasn't credible a child had made so many nuisance calls around the clock - besides which, William was at that time away at boarding school! Needless to say, after Diana's ticking off by police and the threat of a humiliating public prosecution by Oliver Hoare, the malicious phone calls immediately stopped.
As a journalist I was not allowed to tell the full story of her obsessional stalking campaign against Hoare, the married lover who spurned her. My editor would not tell our readers that Diana, with her back against the wall, refused to admit her guilt and instead, shamefully, tried to blame her own child for her appalling behaviour.
Diana's self-created myth of the 'spurned wife' and 'devoted mother' was still being protected by the press before she died, despite the fact we frequently heard credible reports of her spite, cruelty and breathtakingly self-serving behaviour. Her frequent, determined pursuits of married men were especially unpleasant. However history is the final judge of every public figure, and more than two decades after her death I see no reason to protect the myth.
Princess Diana was a woman who captivated the public with her good looks and charisma. But behind the pretty facade was a covert narcissist at the extreme end of the scale, capable of some very dark and self serving behaviour.
I don't have time to share all I learned about the princess here - and her fans would rather not read it anyway. They want to go on believing in fairies and unicorns! Nonetheless, like it or not the truth will out, and history will be Diana's ultimate and final judge. I am content with that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rong3378 Wanting to stab someone to death, and actually doing it, are a million miles apart. If the average person could be prosecuted for their evil thoughts about others, we'd all be wearing stripey suits and sitting on Death Row! Most people resist acting on their worst impulses for a whole spectrum of reasons, from morality to fear of consequences.
I doubt this woman will get any sympathy from female jurors, even if they too have been cheated on. She's very unappealing and unsympathetic. Her motive for the murder really isn't clear.
If she had brain cells in double figures, she'd pretend the girlfriend had cruelly taunted her about her romance with her husband, in the lead up to the murder. Even though her husband had left her, she WAS still his wife and people are generally sympathetic to that. Her only hope to save her skin, was to murder the victim's character in court and make the jurors hate her too. This she totally failed to do.
It's clear the only 'provocation' for butchering 'the other woman', was that she and her estranged hubby were in love. And that really doesn't explain such an extreme and horrific act of violence.
Her problem with the crime of passion claim, is that her actions were clearly premeditated. She stalked that woman, threatened to kill her, and then did - hunting her down, pursuing her and producing a knife, before stabbing her to death WEARING LATEX GLOVES! It doesn't take Columbo to know it wasn't an impulsive rage and loss of control.
God knows why she was so possessive with that guy anyway, he's no prize. Prize loser - as sexy as last week's limp lettuce, the type that could easily send you comatose mid-sex. I'm only surprised they split - they look perfectly well matched to me!
2
-
@kate_m_k88 A Thorpe is correct, context is all. Most people know the meaning of the term 'narcissistic' and it does by definition apply to a lot of killers. What could be more narcissistic - ie self regarding and vain - than feeling fully entitled to kill a human being who displeases you, for whatever reason? That certainly applies to Michelle Boat, who murdered her victim in a coldly premeditated (NOT impulsive) ambush, purely because she and her estranged husband were in love, no other reason.
'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' is obviously a specific, clinical diagnosis and it too applies to a lot of killers. In fact the diagnosis has proved very helpful in understanding the motivations and the MO of dangerous abusers. I believe the famous 'Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse' should be taught to teens at school. It's a very useful template to measure abusive behaviour by, and escape anyone displaying it!
The conduct of abusers in romantic relationships follows a very predictable pattern. That's why it is so important people know that pattern - forewarned is forearmed.
Perhaps the narcissist word is overused now but I am glad the phenomenon is finally being widely recognised. The excellent YouTube channel LIVE ABUSE FREE, run by a professional in the field of psychology, has many useful videos on narcissistic abuse. It's crucial people understand that a narcissistic abuser does not necessarily present as cocky or dominant. Covert narcissists like Chris Watts wreak havoc on people under the radar, because they have perfected a totally false persona as a decent, passive, maybe even submissive, 'nice guy'. After he murdered his pregnant wife and two children, everyone who knew him was shocked - especially when it became clear his murders and the elaborate way he disposed of his family's corpses was pre-planned for at least weeks. This was no hot-headed loss of control - the three murders were executed in a with cold, premeditated ruthlessness.
I would argue covert narcissists are the most dangerous of all, because they are so skilled at manipulating victims' perceptions of who they are, when the fatal attack comes they are totally unprepared and defenceless to it.
2
-
2
-
Exactly right, there is no way that a book about Capt Tom would have raised anything like £1.4 million, or even half that amount, had the public known every single penny it raised was not benefiting charity but was solely going to his already wealthy daughter and son-in-law!
The family cynically promoted it dishonestly, giving the public the entirely false impression it was published to benefit charitable causes. Yet they donated not a single penny from its profits, and instead trousered the lot, an eye-watering, almost one million and a half quid, themselves. This was clearly fraud!
This was no oversight, as confirmed by the fact the daughter and son in law were invited to make a belated charity donation not once but twice, and both times declined to do so. They obviously care more about the cash, than dragging Capt Tom's name and legacy through the mud, and that is shameful, shocking and very sad. Thanks to his grotty, money-grubbing daughter, Capt Tom will now be doing circuits for all eternity - spinning in his grave.
His rich daughter, who lives in a mansion, is not any kind of charitable cause - and neither is the luxury health spa for private use she built in their expansive grounds with public money unwittingly donated thanks to her father - which was subsequently ordered to be demolished. as they had not sought planning permission.
The arrogance, greed and entitlement of this couple is off the chart! However they will undoubtedly find that ill-gotten cash is cursed, and profoundly regret ever scamming the late Capt Tom's name for personal profit. Karma is real!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darlingdeb7010 LIES! Chad Oulson was never physical with Curtis Reeves - as proven by the fact Reeves had no injuries whatsoever! The aggressor was the 71 year old, big, burly bullying ex-cop. Reeves took a loaded gun to a movie theatre, spoiling for a fight (and btw, Chad was looking at his phone during the trailers, NOT the movie!)
If he was really so upset he should have moved seats. But Reeves has form as a bully - many witnesses came forward to speak of his aggressive, belligerent behaviour. No doubt he got away with many abuses of power when he was a serving co
Reeves' wife has seen it all before. That he caused trouble like that with a total stranger in front of her shows he has no respect for her whatsoever. She's as weak as water, and has enabled his vile behaviour all their married life. Partners who shut up when they see their partner being a bully are fully complicit in their crimes. Mrs Reeves also has Chad Oulsen's blood on her hands.
That said, she will face some punishment - she has to live with the scumbag for however many years they have left together. That's a life sentence of sorts - she made her bed, and she deserves to lie in it with that murderer. Ditto their spineless children who stook the stand for their evil father and exaggerated his supposed physical frailty - everyone could see what a big, burly, intimidating presence he still is.
Seems you fell for Curtis Reeves 'frail old man' act - that walking stick of his was sure worth the money! You're just as dumb as the ill educated, ignorant jury that delivered this appalling miscarriage of justice. I hope next time you're going about your daily business assuming you are safe, you have a similar encounter with a gun-toting bully like Curtis Reeves. Karma is coming for him and his supporters!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brian's parents Roberta and Chris Laundrie, spoiled and enabled that gutless little creep his whole life. They have a daughter too, but they clearly care nothing about her - their scrawny son, the golden-child Brian, was always their number one priority.
The Laundries created a toxic, inadequate, highly dangerous monster, who had zero respect for females. Brian was a ticking time bomb!
After Brian murdered Gabby and dumped her lifeless body on waste land, angry crowds gathered outside his parents' house, where he had fled in Gabby's stolen van. But they also demonstrated outside his sister's home - and his sister was entirely blameless in his despicable crime. She had always liked and been supportive of Gabby, and (unlike their parents), she had absolutely no idea Brian had murdered her.
Search YouTube and you can find videos of that poor woman, outside her house pleading with the protesters to leave, as their noise is waking and frightening her child. No doubt she has suffered far worse fall-out since then, from her late brother Brian's heinous decision to murder Gabby. Her life will forever be tainted by the stain of her dead brother's disgusting crime.
Roberta and Chris Laundrie betrayed the late Gabby Petito in the worst way imaginable - and also betrayed their daughter horribly. They deserve lengthy jail time for all the pain and misery their son has caused.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Karamarika Glad you've heard that saying before, though your interpretation of it was so literal and dismissive, you apparently didn't understand it!
I've heard your tired arguments for the death penalty a million times before, and they still don't hold up. But I would rather hear them, than spurious analogies about totally unrelated subjects like abortion. Abortion is always an unhelpful diversion here, because you cannot compare the life of an as yet incomplete, still forming human being in the womb, with the life of a fully formed, independently functioning adult human being. Ditto the other examples you gave of 'killing' - eg euthanasia, again a totally different context, as is self defence, so not at all useful in this context.
You are muddying the issue we're discussing which is specifically crime and punishment and the morality of the state ending the lives of the most violent/dangerous criminals. It's a complex enough debate, without bringing in umpteen unrelated issues!
I'm not religious. But I see a fundamental problem with one human being playing God and killing another because they have broken a society's laws. That is open to both wilful abuse and to dumb human error. And it will inevitably result in innocent lives being taken, from time to time - which rather defeats the object. Perhaps you think a few innocent lives ended is a price worth paying to empty prisons?
No point in prolonging this since we won't agree, but there's a really important principal at stake which you've overlooked. If you live in a society which can legally kill you if you break its rules, whatever its rules happen to be, you no longer live in a democracy. That is always a primitive and oppressive system and not one I want to live at the mercy of.
The present legal and penal system is far from perfect and needs radical reform. In my view the primary purpose of justice is protection of the public and to that end life sentences should be just that. I notice you didn't suggest the death penalty is any kind of deterrent which is quite right, it isn't. Countries which have the harshest sentences eg the death penalty and various violent sanctions such as public floggings have just as much if not more serious crime as those that do not. In terms of sentences there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't been tried somewhere before, and none of it has any effect on criminal behaviour or crime rates.
What's really needed is a comprehensive assessment of the bigger picture, the worldwide crisis of male violence (the vast majority of perpetrators of violent crime have always been and remain, males). Yet time and time again we either ignore that fact or we collectively accept that a percentage of the male population is dangerous, as though it's inevitable. What a terrible slur on ALL men that is!
I believe we are too often focussing on the wrong end of the problem, punishment, when we should be giving equal focus to prevention of crime through multiple different approaches. I don't pretend there are easy answers, but I do think more lateral thinking is needed. This means greater research into how and why so many men become a danger to society, and a much greater regard for educating potential victims of crime so they can better protect themselves, eg from domestic violence situations. It simply should not be possible for a high risk prisoner like Ted Bundy to escape a high security jail, that was an outrage which meant he killed again.
But incarcerated killers like Bundy are in my view a woefully under used resource. These most extreme criminals should be studied like lab rats while the tax payer is funding their bed and board. If experts can learn more about how such criminals are formed, their M.O. and behaviours, priceless data and better understanding can be gained from them. This could have positive future implications for both potential perpetrators and potential victims.
I had to smile when you talked about the death penalty being a 'punishment'. How is someone punished if they are humanely euthanised? That's no punishment at all, if anything it's merciful! Many killers request death for that very reason - it is infinitely preferable to life locked in a cage!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is infuriating - dumb cops! Take the poor guy to the damn hospital without delay, like he's begging you from the start. This was clearly a genuine medical emergency, but a mental one. If he'd been stopped speeding to the hospital with heavy bleeding, they'd have put him in their patrol car and rushed him to the ER immediately, no questions asked!
I felt his pain during the sobriety tests that went on and on - what was the damn point? A self confessed drug addict (experiencing an episode/crisis), can't perform one of those tests with zero alcohol in his system - because he's a drug addict! And he could have later challenged the legitimacy of the test anyway, due to the mental health crisis he was experiencing at that time which they were well aware of!
The man was clearly mentally very vulnerable. Better police officers would have read the situation more accurately and prioritised getting him to hospital. Once there, they could have arranged a blood alcohol test - which is foolproof and doesn't put him through all those crazily inappropriate sobriety tests.
This is one police bodycam where the officers got it wrong, and the member of the public deserves every sympathy. He clearly had a partner somewhere who loves him, so it's disappointing he was subsequently booked for domestic violence. That changes my view of him somewhat.
Remember my friends, when you've hit rock bottom, the only way is UP!
2
-
That so-called body language expert just made a total fool of herself. Wendi Adelson's wide-eyed, bad acting in the police interrogation room and on the witness stand SCREAM Guilt. But hey, her palms were facing upwards, so she must be innocent?!! Gimme a break!
Wendi is a highly qualified attorney and law professor, why wouldn't she know the basics of body language - and especially the classic gestures indicating guilt or innocence? It's perfectly predictable she'd have researched it before the murder of her estranged husband, to ensure she presented well as a devastated, innocent ex-wife on the interrogation room video. It seems at least one body language expert was taken in by her performance!
Wendi was always the Adelson family's golden girl. Her indulgent parents and brother Charlie agreed to keep her out of the planning and arrangements for the hit on her ex-husband. They agreed keeping her in the dark would give her the best possible chance of escaping justice. A decade on, their efforts to protect her have worked, and she still walks free. Clearly as the mother of Dan Markel's two sons, and fighting a vicious custody battle over them, she stood to benefit from his murder more than anyone else! (She also gained financially from his death, receiving among other payments, substantial monthly death benefits to the children).
Make no mistake - Wendi was fully behind the assassination of her husband Dan, by her closest family members. It simply beggars belief she knew nothing about it - or did not explicitly approve the plot. They would not have gone through with the murder of her children's father, without Wendi's express agreement.
Circumstantial evidence of her guilt is compelling. She had a solid alibi - her Mom had sent a TV repair man to her home at the very time of the shooting (how convenient). Soon after, Wendi was witnessed driving near the crime scene to check it out. She let slip to a boyfriend that Charlie had offered to hire a hitman to 'solve the problem' of her ex-husband.
Within months of the murder, she had re-located with the children to Florida near her family, the move she'd been blocked from making by Dan. She also changed the boys' surname from Markel to Adelson - a devastating blow to Dan's grieving parents and extended family. She was obstructive about allowing the Markels access to their grandsons for visits, even at holiday times. Wendi's conduct after Dan's murder was at best troubling, at worst damning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wow, fantastic, gripping opener that brought these historic people and events vividly to life. I do believe Oceanliner Designs, 'SS Morro Castle' documentary has surpassed it's usual high journalistic standards and artistic brilliance, yet again!
Meticulous research, top quality production values, and sublime storytelling combined for an enthralling ride. The attention to detail is remarkable, the archive and period music selections were perfection.
The passengers playing deck games in stylish, 1930s leisurewear brought to mind my late Grannie (born 1909), and photos of her as an elegant young woman of those times dressed similarly in wide brimmed hats, halternecks, and Mary Jane shoes.
I loved every minute, BRAVO! Bring on Part 2 - Asap, please! 👏👏👏👏👏
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
OMG what the hell happened to the feisty, fabulous Joan Collins? I am SO disappointed she zipped her lip and let herself be cowed by trans cult extremists! What the hell happened to her backbone?
In 2022 women face a bigger threat to their basic rights than the Suffragettes fought over 100 years ago, trying to get the vote. Today women's very identity is under threat! Bearded, be-penised men are calling themselves women - and if you call it out as the offensive nonsense it is, you're branded a bigot! Ricky Gervais just said exactly the same thing in his stand up act, and got a backlash from the trans cult (but unlike Joan, he doesn't care what less than 1% of the population say!)
It's misogynist madness that's got totally out of hand. Politicians like Labour leader Keir Starmer won't say what a woman is (a woman is an adult human female, in case you too are unsure!) Women do not have a penis, any more than men have a cervix - yet Starmer won't be drawn on any of it, for fear of upsetting the tiny minority of trans identified people (bugger the 50% of WOMEN). Starmer's late mother, an NHS nurse, must be spinning in her grave at his biology-denying disloyalty to females!
I'm certain Dame Joan doesn't welcome men using the hard-won, single-sex public spaces designated for females, just by claiming to be women (eg loos, changing rooms, female hospital wards, etc), which is an obvious attack on women's privacy, dignity and safety. I doubt she thinks it's fair that big burly men like swim cheat 'Lia Thomas' are thrashing women at their female competitive sports either.
I have never known Joan Collins hold back on her political views before - she is usually very forthright. This, ladies and gentlemen, is PROOF of how toxic and totalitarian the trans lobby is - they've even silenced the usually indomitable Joan Collins, who you KNOW does not believe women have a penis or men have a cervix!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shawnswife8330 It's a great shame Diana died before the internet age, which would have fully exposed the vindictive, lying, narcissist and hypocrite she was.
Her death in 1997, just before she'd have faced the relentless glare of global online scrutiny, was the best PR move she could have made! Her nasty vindictive habits, petty feuds, and pursuits of married men would soon have shown the public she was far from the 'butter wouldn't melt', sweet and innocent 'queen of hearts' she played. She could not possibly have continued to hide her true nature in the internet age!
There would no doubt have been tears, tantrums and fallings out aplenty with her long-suffering sons over their choice of wives, among other imagined slights. Catherine and Meghan sure dodged a bullet, as did William and Harry, truth be told.
Perhaps the greatest irony of her death at 36, is it guaranteed her fan base. Had she lived, aged and lost her physical appeal, fans like you would have lost interest in her years ago. You are just as shallow as she was - as the nasty comparisons between hers and Camilla's looks here prove. If being photogenic made people decent humans or great spouses, a person's looks might actually matter. Diana was ugly inside - where it actually matters. Once her exterior aged and matched her unsightly interior, her vacuous fans would have run for the hills.
Though I must say it would have been very entertaining to watch Diana desperately trying (and failing) to stay young with multiple face lifts, in a doomed campaign to take the headlines and media focus off her younger, sexier daughters-in-law. It's really sad we won't get to see that! 🤣
2
-
Seriously?! ! 'A sick person'?! That's way too vague! This killer is not 'sick' or insane' - just BAD.
The guilty man in this case (and whoever committed this crime IS a man), knew exactly what he was doing throughout. He knew what he was doing when he planned these heinous knife murders, and when he carried them out. He still knows what he's doing now he succeeded in taking 4 lives, and spent 6 weeks successfully escaping justice for his evil crimes.
This was the highly premeditated and pre-planned, vicious and sadistic mass murder of FOUR people in their own home, at their most defenceless. The targets were laying horizontal, undressed, unarmed and probably unconscious, totally vulnerable in their beds. This murderer's crime is as evil, sadistic, cowardly and appalling as homicides get.
If Bryan Kohberger is the killer, he isn't mad - He's bad.
Whatever Kohberger's mental issues, be it a personality disorder (eg Narcissistic Personality Disorder), psychopathy, sociopathy, etc, etc, he 100% knows right from wrong. There are clear indications he was raised within a loving, supportive family, with social, economic and academic advantages that MANY people do not enjoy.
After this multiple murder, Kohberger's elderly father flew a huge distance on a commercial flight, just to keep his son company and drive cross country by car, back to the family home with him. Bryan Kohberger had obviously asked his father to accompany him. That favour shows just how devoted and supportive, his family were!
Bring on the release of the arrest affidavit. That is a public document, and the public is fully entitled to know the evidence police.prosecutors have against the suspect in this shocking quadruple homicide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This YT channel is the ONLY one providing intelligent, insightful videos on this very well-trodden subject - excellent work, BRAVO! It is great to hear you state clearly Chris watts is a psychopath, a severely warped individual whose narcissism and total lack of empathy not only allowed him to murder his family - it allowed him to believe he would get away with it, without making any effort! Too many people are STILL being fooled by Chris Watts, ie they are believing his 'loving family man' act and that the murders were some spontaneous, out of character act. WRONG! This video explains the man's psyche clearly - as demonstrated by the cold, premeditated manner of the murders, and his conduct afterwards in believing he could con Shanann's friends and family, cops, TV news reporters, sniffer dogs and even a lie detector, that he was still that great, regular family man he had been play acting successfully for years. Poor Shanann and the children never knew who Chris Watts, husband and father, really was - until he was murdering them with his bare hands. People really need to understand the truth - many people were fooled by a dangerous man who convinced them he was a good guy for many years. You think Chris Watts is the only psychopath out there - the only wolf in sheep's clothing leading a respectable life, having no criminal record and appearing in the words of one friend that he 'wouldn't hurt a fly'? Think again!
2
-
What injustice? Diana fell out of love with Charles too - she was shagging her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee a mere 4 years into the marriage! She might have been a virgin o her wedding day, but she soon made up for it.
Diana didn't marry Prince Charles for love but for the glittering prizes attached to becoming Princess of Wales and a future queen. It was an arranged marriage she entered into with her eyes wide open - she'd only met Charles 13 times before their engagement was announced, how could she love him? She was using him to get what she wanted.
Dopy Diana fans forget that she came from an aristocratic family with close links to the royals going back generations. The Queen was a guest at her parents' wedding! Diana was part of the system of privilege she married into, she knew the rules and was happy to play by them for the huge rewards of position, fame, wealth and every other glittering prize she greedily grabbed when she became a senior royal.
Diana didn't want Charles, he bored her to tears - as she made perfectly clear on royal tours from the late 'eighties, when she didn't hide her hostility to him. The sour faced, hypocritical madam! Acting like the innocent, wronged wife, when all the time she was living the life of a sexually liberated, single woman at Kensington Palace, London (hubby safely out the way at their country home Highgrove). She got her butler to smuggle her various different lovers to her in the boot of her car. Many of them married men - she regarded a wedding ring on a man's hand as a challenge.
Diana was a mistress many times more than Camilla - and they were just meaningless notches on her bedpost, when Camilla loved Charles and went on to marry him.
The Queen of Tarts threatened several marriages, and ended the 2 year marriage of Will and Julia Carling. She was never in love with him - she was flattered a celebrity flirted with her, so invited him back to her bedroom a few times and performed a sex act for him that men usually have to pay for. She broke up a marriage for the cheap thrill of kneeling at the feet of a sports star. What a cheap, nasty, self-serving tramp.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lidia Thorpe is a total disgrace to her country - she looked ridiculous crawling away across wet grass in mini skirt and heels, after police had rugby tackled her to the ground! How dare she harass Posie Parker at a lawful women's rally, defending women's rights? The NERVE of her!
The woman is a penis-pandering, trans handmaiden, grifting for woke points and male acceptance. She's certainly no friend to females - she would happily hand all our hard-earned women's rights, eg single sex spaces, female sports etc, over to men in dresses. Even the very name Woman!
It's disgusting Thorpe gets away with that kind of shabby behaviour, simply because she is a politician. If she had a proper job, she'd be out on her ear, and rightly so, the woman is totally nuts!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ronnie O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked their children, killing their 9 year old daughter and stabbing their (then) 8 year old son multiple times. He says he only killed her, impulsively and unplanned, in self defence because she had just killed the kids. Unluckily for him one of the kids survived to contradict his lies - he attacked everyone, his mother is a totally innocent victim.
Even if she had killed the kids, he chased her to a neighbour's house shooting at her, then when the rifle jammed he beat her to death with it on their front doorstep, so how was she any threat to him - she was running away! Also, if he only killed her in self defence, why did he set fire to the house? It's obvious the prosecution is right - he killed his partner and daughter and attempted to kill his son in premeditated attacks, then set fire to the house to destroy evidence. He's headed to death row. I only hope they cuff him before the guilty verdicts are read out, because he's clearly batshit ctazy and capable of attacking the judge and jurors!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
John Sutton's final analysis is all about blame and condemnation of his son - who was adopted and raised by him and his late wife from a tiny, days-old baby. Yet there's no self-reflection on what he and his wife possibly did wrong, to mould an innocent infant to become their killer/would-be killer. Clearly Mr Sutton isn't willing to own a single bit of it!
They gave that child their name, and promised him a loving, supportive home, and the perfect springboard for a happy and successful life as a productive, well-adjusted citizen. But today Christopher Sutton's life lays in ruins, locked inside the maximum security prison he will only ever leave in a body bag. Considering he started out as the much-wanted, adopted child of a well-to-do, wealthy couple, that's an extraordinary reversal of fortune!
Yes, Chris Sutton is an adult, and he bears full legal responsibility for his adult crimes. Many rightly talk of the killer's faults, and the wickedness of his hiring a hit man to kill his parents. But this crime undoubtedly also represents a huge parental failure. John Sutton's narcissism and his total lack of accountability for his train-wreck son, do not reflect well on him.
Just because a couple is wealthy, does not mean they will automatically be good parents! What were Christopher's angry teen outbursts about? Did the Suttons really love their adopted children, or were they merely the accoutrements of a successful, respectable lifestyle, 'items' they felt the need to check off a list, along with a beautiful home, nice cars and Barbados vacations?
I believe sending their son away to a remote island boot-camp with other disturbed/depressed teens - and extending his stay there by a year - was an unforgivable parental betrayal. Christopher's worst suspicions were correct - he had become an inconvenience to his mom and dad, a problem they wanted rid of. That is not the unconditional love parents should feel for their children.
But that 'boot camp' ordeal could be the tip of the iceberg, in a catalogue of poor parenting. One expert interviewed in this documentary, diagnosed Christopher a sociopath. The jury's out on what creates sociopathy. But a leading theory is that it results from abuse or trauma in childhood. There is undoubtedly far more to this true crime story than meets the eye - or than we'll ever know.
If the Suttons had only prioritised their two adopted children over a high powered career, material rewards and status, and at least one extra marital affair, there's every chance Christopher could have turned out very differently. You reap what you sow.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kimberlyplayer The only time Diana 'put her life on the line' was when she made the foolish, reckless decision to hand her security arrangements to the shady Al Fayed family. If she'd had sufficient brain power, she'd have realised the Al Fayeds were only fawning over her because of her royal connections. She was so dim-witted and vain, she was actually flattered by their attentions and thought it was all about her! And her silly vanity spelled her downfall.
As mother to the heir to the throne, Diana was entitled to world class Scotland Yard protection for life. There is none better. On her divorce, the Queen offered her such a team - driver and bodyguards - to protect her for life. But Diana , with typical petty idiocy, refused the Queen's offer. The rest is history.
Your attempts to re-write history by presenting Diana as some sort of champion of the poor and sick, is laughable! That empty-headed hedonist never risked anything for anyone. She was entirely self-serving, her whole life. Her own hedonism got her killed at just 36, leaving her poor children motherless.
The ultimate in narcissistic behaviour is to make reckless choices which risk your life, when you have dependent children who need you. Diana failed in every parent's first duty - to stay alive to raise her children to adulthood. She was a disappointing human being, and an even more disappointing mother.
2
-
@jms855 Yes, it was proven over 20 years ago Diana was killed in an accident. The cause of death was a reckless drunk driver, and her failure to wear her seat belt.
Diana was a wealthy woman who should have hired herself a top protection team and driver on her divorce. Instead she put her personal safety in the hands of untrustworthy people - the crooked Al Fayed family. It cost her her life.
But dumb Diana fans want to believe this fantasy she was somehow 'murdered', in a car crash of all things. That simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Had she only worn her seat belt, experts judge she would have survived. So how did the 'killers' make her fail to fasten her belt? I've even heard lies that the seatbelts were deliberately sabotaged - not true, they were all checked and all were in perfect working order. Front seat passenger Trevor Rees Jones fastened his just before the crash, and it saved his life!
Diana wasn't smart enough to be a threat to anyone, there was no credible motive for her to be murdered. But Diana fans are a gullible bunch, to be fair. They buy into all her self-serving 'Queen of Hearts' nonsense, and think she loved her husband. She had umpteen extra marital affairs to his ONE, and back-stabbed him in a book and TV interview, trying to stop him becoming king. She was as spiteful as hell!
Their marriage failed on both sides, as arranged marriages often do. She didn't want to be with Charles either! Yet she was eaten up with bitterness that he loved another woman. It was real 'dog in a manger' stuff - she didn't want him herself, but didn't want anyone else to have him.
It's a great shame Diana, whose fans claim was such a devoted mother, failed to give her two, dependant children a thought and fasten her seat belt. If she had, she'd have lived to raise them to adulthood, instead of putting them through the trauma of childhood bereavement. A selfish, air-headed woman to the end!
2
-
2
-
@jamesneeson9825 Tell it to the gullible Diana fans posting here, who swallowed the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts' Oscar-worthy portrayal of victim hood wholesale!
Diana was no victim. She was a woman whose marriage failed. So what? It happens to many women, especially those who willingly enter into arranged marriages as she did.
And most women don't emerge from their divorce with £17 million (equivalent to £32 million in 2019), a luxury pad in Kensington Palace, and top, VIP status for life! Some victim.
Diana's shameless self-pity party, exposed her supposed empathy and concern for society's most desperate and disadvantaged members as a sham. Like so much in her life, Diana's hand holding and hugs for the public were only a self-promoting, tabloid photo opportunity. Diana cared about Diana. She wasn't even devoted to her two little boys - if she had been, she'd have made sure she fastened her seat belt on every car journey, like responsible mothers of dependent children do!
If you've been taken in by that utterly brazen, long-dead narcissist, you'd be taken in by all the living, breathing ones out there. Be careful - it's a mad world, as the crazy Diana worshippers prove!
2
-
2
-
@Dmdirmrjr33 False accusations of rape are actually rare, but when they do happen they get huge publicity which further discourages sex assault victims from reporting their attacker.
Rape is a woefully under reported, violent crime. When a victim finds the courage to endure the terrible ordeal of a trial, during which her rapist's attorneys will humiliate and tear her character to shreds, the odds are that the rapist will walk free at the end of it. No wonder women are so reluctant to prosecute!
Just look at this trial. The jury was faced with a man who was clearly a serial rapist and sex offender. That number of totally unconnected women, telling strikingly similar stories, revealed the ugly truth about the sports star in the smart suit. Yet they could not agree on his guilt on most charges, resulting in a mistrial! Why are juries so damned reluctant to call a rapist, a rapist?
The scandal here is not false rape reports, but the fact that most rapists walk freely among us, never even accused, least of all convicted, of their horrific crimes. And when an extreme, serial rapist like Kellen Winslow gets just 14 years jailtime, you know the crime of rape isn't just under reported - it is under punished too!
That evil predator will be just as dangerous when he leaves jail in 14 years as he is today. High time this highly dangerous, violent sex offenders got proper prison sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. And castration needs to be looked at as a sanction for convicted rapists. Castration is an option in many civilized European countries. Without their testosterone-producing testes, the sexual threat males present is lessened. You've only to see how neutered animals from bulls to dogs calm down after the snip, to see that it would also improve the behaviour of male humans too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
100% Barry Morphew killed his wife Suzanne, no question. He had a long history of vile, twisted, narcissistic domestic abuse (and adulterous affairs), and for decades used controlling, manipulative, horribly abusive behaviour on his poor wife. His long-term marital abuse inevitably seriously damaged their two, vulnerable, gullible young daughters.
Everyone who met Suzanne, both men and women, were charmed by her. She was a genuine, loving, kind and big-hearted woman. When Suzanne finally faced the sad truth that her marriage was toxic and intolerable (the catalyst was a long-distance, mostly 'virtual' /online affair with her schoolgirl crush Jeff - long after she'd suffered her husband's multiple sexual flings), and bravely expressed her wish to divorce him, Barry murdered her.
t's a story as old as time, sadly. Dangerous males like Barry Morphew will not allow a woman to leave a committed romantic relationship with them, alive.
When Barry Morphew knew Suzanne would not forgive him this time (after umpteen years/incidents of forgiving him for horrible domestic abuse and sexual affairs), he decided murder was a much better course for him, than divorce. His motives for killing her were entirely ruthless and cold-blooded. This was no 'crime of passion', but the opposite - a man who would not be a gentleman and accept his wife's right to end their union, and take half her money with her.
Barry Morphew is a malignant narcissist at the most extreme end of the scale. He did not want the humiliation (as he saw it), of his beautiful, big-hearted and much-loved trophy wife Suzanne, publicly rejecting him by ending the marriage - as she was fully entitled to do.
And as a greedy, money-obsessive, Barry would not allow Suzanne to exit the marriage taking half her rightful financial investment with her. If you want to know more about this crime and its central themes, follow the money. Suzanne inherited huge sums from her parents - Barry had his greedy eyes on that lavish inheritance. He even bullied Suzanne into borrowing a large sum from her father to buy the marital home he occupies to this day, a macho, 'hunter's home' clearly chosen by him, with no feminine input from Suzanne or their daughters.
2
-
2
-
This is classic narcissism, taken to an extreme. Dr Dirk Greineder made a ruthless, self-serving decision to murder a wife who had become an inconvenience to him. He plotted, and then carried out her murder, taking only one dog on their daily walk to the park, to simplify the immediate clean up/cover up.
Once he struck the first blow to the back of May's head, a cowardly ambush from behind, he realised she would not die without a fight. May had a life to live, three children she adored, who adored her, and many other good relationships. She was not going to simply lay down and let her husband kill her - she fought back.
Dirk decided he had to see the plan through, and rid himself of her once and for all. Once he got her on the ground, he switched weapons and continued his violent onslaught with a knife, viciously cutting her throat and stabbing her repeatedly to her body. He told police they might find his skin under her nails, because she had given him a massage that morning, a chilling alibi confirming she had fought to defend herself during his knife attack.
In killing his wife, Dirk Greineder devastated their three children, and everyone who loved her. This is powerful narcissism - just because he no longer valued or needed May, he felt he had the right to permanently remove her from those who did! He refused to take responsibility for his wicked act, and put his own children through the ordeal of a harrowing, high profile murder trial. His Not Guilty plea was a final roll of the dice to try and get away with murder. Like the worst narcissists, he is pathologically self-serving, and has no shame.
He killed the woman he made marriage vows to, merely to avoid a divorce and the fair division of marital assets. All he achieved with his sickening crime, was the devastation of a family, ending his wife's life and effectively his own. Now aged 83, he has spent over 20 years behind bars. During that time, the three children May bore him, have only seen him within prison walls, with uniformed security guards and cameras ever-present.
He missed out on his own, beautiful family, didn't get to play with his grandkids - and his violence to the family matriarch, cast a permanent, black shadow over the Greineders forevermore. What a loser!
2
-
@ilduce5874 You nailed it! Diana fans talk such rot about her She was a spoiled young woman who had never had to work or support herself (in fact her fabulous, three bedroom apartment in exclusive central London was her extravagant, 18th birthday, coming of age present from her mother Frances).
Despite a very expensive education, Diana left school without a single qualification. She had no career ambition at all - marrying well was her only goal. And she saw Charles, the future king, as the ultimate trophy husband. He certainly was! No way did she want to back out before the wedding, as she later claimed - you could plainly see as she emerged from St Paul's Cathedral. she was the cat that got the cream!
Her marriage to Prince Charles delivered the lifelong VIP status and celebrity she craved. She was always a vain, vacuous attention-seeker. and it was clear from the earliest days of her honeymoon she loved the media spotlight!
She was no victim as she pretended for public sympathy. She cheated on husband Charles with a long list of men - some of them married. Her public attacks on Charles and Camilla were rank hypocrisy. Diana's sexual adventures make Camilla look like a virgin!
Ironically Diana was never a victim until she made herself one, hanging out with the Shady Al Fayeds (sleeping with coke-addled playboy Dodi and accepting the patronage of his corrupt father Mohammed), and failing to take care of her own security arrangements.
Diana was a grown woman and a mother of two - but behaved like an irresponsible teen. Her own lousy choices are what ultimately caused her totally needles death at 36.
2
-
PREACH MEGYN! It's high time journalists did their damn jobs and spoke TRUTH on misogynist, anti child-safeguarding, homophobic gender-bollox. When this poisonous cult is fully exposed and discredited - and it will be because the truth will out - the public figures who first spoke out against it will be recognised as heroes. The majority of cowards who did not, will also be called out - the 'receipts' are everywhere!
Dylan Mulvaney is a transparent grifter and blatant MAN! How dare he advertise tampons, a product he will never use, because men don't have a womb, periods or a female body/biology! Bore off misogynist MALE!
Dylan Mulvaney won't get his penis cut off - no way. He's a gay man who enjoys sex with other gay men. Like Eddie Izzard and over 90% of trans identified men (so-called 'trans women), he won't have 'bottom surgery' or sacrifice his male genitals to the cause, proving he's not trans at all - he's just a transvestite man with a sexual kink for female attire.
Transvestites have always existed, but now they call themselves 'trans women' and force their fetish on others, instead of doing it discreetly behind closed doors. Trans is now such a ridiculously 'inclusive' term anyone can claim it - you don't even need to have gender dysphoria
#SexNotGender #MenAreNotWomen #TransWomenAreConMen #AdultHumanFemale ♀♀♀♀♀♀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Arrogant pig showed total disrespect to the court, and again committed PERJURY right after the judge had condemned him for it in his sentencing speech! That was clear Contempt of Court, and should have immediately been shut down, and got him a longer jail term.
Smollett's temper-tantrum, throwing his toys out his pram and playing to the cameras with that "I am not suicidal" schtick (and a lousy ham actor and a dumb one aligning himself with deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein!), only proved he has no remorse whatsoever, and fully expected to go straight home to his mansion for champagne with his indulgent family, without any custodial sentence whatsoever. rather than be relieved he was only sentenced to a paltry 150 days for such a serious, premeditated crime, he was ANGRY. His entitlement and arrogance are off the chart!
However, regardless of today's soft justice, Smollett has been sentenced to a Life term in the court that matters most to any celebrity - the court of public opinion. He's a pariah now, a bad taste joke. Any actor who values their reputation will avoid him like he just farted. In his shocking greed for greater fame, privilege and money, Smollett flushed his public image, career and reputation down the toilet - the three things that matter most to him. And he is never emerging from that sh1tty U-bend again!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
57:14 DAMN! Not that urban myth about Samantha Koenig's ransom photo AGAIN!
The photo serial killer Israel Keyes took of deceased, 17 yr old murder victim Samantha Koenig has never been seen publicly, because it was never released by Canada police, out of respect for her and her family.
That ransom photo is not in the public domain, it never was in the public domain, and it never will be in the public domain. No one but Israel Keyes, the police detectives involved, and Samantha's family, have ever seen it, or ever will see it.
However a mocked-up version of the photo, using an actress pretending to be the corpse of Samantha Koenig (like the real image, with a newspaper in shot to confirm the date of the supposed 'proof of life' image), IS available online - and so many people who find that mocked-up image online, stupidly think it's the actual photo. Including murderer Troy Driver, who according to his girlfriend Zulema was also fooled by the faked ransom picture, and got a sick thrill from viewing it!
The faked photo comes from a TV series on serial killers called 'Dark Minds', which tells true crime stories using actors to reconstruct real events (LINK to 'Dark Minds' Israel Keyes episode: https://youtu.be/eo9OTAnjsAo?si=Rss9TNaHeFcCyyKH).
So the actress depicting victim Samantha Koenig in the TV reconstructions, also played her dead in that infamous posed picture, which was reconstructed for the Israel Keyes episode. In fact the actress who played Samantha Koenig both alive and dead in that TV show, did not much resemble the real Samantha at all - a big clue to the fact the image, so frequently mis-described in YouTube true crime videos as the actual photo, is bogus! The actor who played Israel Keyes looked nothing like him either!
Keyes put the ransom photo into an envelope (it was actually a black and white photocopy of the original Polaroid picture), and attached the envelope to a physical, community noticeboard, with a written ransom demand for $30,000 on the back. He then text Samantha's boyfriend from her cellphone, with directions to find the photo/letter, in hopes of getting a large payment out of her father by fooling him his daughter was alive and currently being held hostage. The ruse worked, and he received the $30k payment.
Keyes deliberately made the image poor quality to disguise the fact Samantha was dead, by taking it with an instant Polaroid camera (lower resolution/sharpness of Polaroid images), then taking multiple photocopies of photocopies, with each photocopy slightly less defined than the one before. The final result was a very low definition, black and white image of Samantha's corpse, which could pass for a photo of her alive - even though she had been dead for two weeks when pictured. In fact Samantha had already been strangled to death by Keyes, when her family first reported her missing.
A macabre fact Zulema omitted to mention, is that Israel Keyes told detectives he had sewn the dead Samantha's eyelids open with fishing line, to make it appear she was looking into the camera. The mock-up is too clear an image to be the one Keyes produced to be deliberately poor quality. He had also braided her hair in the genuine ransom photo, a detail the 'Dark Minds' reconstruction omitted. Another clue to the fact that picture is a fake!
2
-
2
-
@deborah8887 I respect your view on that, and understand why it is shared by many. I'm not a religious person myself, and feel we must move with the times regarding church doctrines on divorce.
Had the PoW been held to those rigid rules, he and Diana could not have divorced and would have been trapped in a loveless marriage for the sake of their future roles as King and Queen. That seems to me a ridiculous and unacceptable situation, in a civilised modern society.
If you recall, when the then PM John Major first announced Charles and Diana's separation to parliament, he presented it as a 'nothing much will change/they have no plans to divorce' proposition. Of course that was nonsense. The media frenzy that had reported every detail of their estrangement (of which I was a small part as a tabloid reporter in the 'nineties), would have constantly undermined such an arrangement.
Charles' relationship with Camilla would have come under greater media scrutiny - as would Diana's many, far more salacious casual affairs, many with married men and one or two celebrities to boot!
Diana's own determined media campaign against her estranged husband (her sly collusion with the Andrew Morton book, and the disastrous BBC Panorama interview), ironically brought about the thing she did not want - a divorce. And arguably the divorce set in motion the circumstances which led to her death in a needless accident, a mere year after the decree absolute was issued.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mssaleha3273 Bless you, you sound like a kind soul. But your sympathy for Diana - in life and in death - is badly misplaced. She actively sought publicity when she was alive, and her vindictive and dishonest media campaign against Charles and Camilla is still getting them unfair criticism today. As a journalist I respect the truth, and don't like to see lies and misinformation stated as fact, as we see in so many of the comments here.
Diana brazenly presented herself to the media as an innocent, wronged wife, pretending she was heartbroken over Charles' relationship with Camilla PB. That simply wasn't the case. In reality Diana committed adultery before Charles, having casual sexual flings with a string of different men (some of them married, like her bodyguard Barry Mannakee). Yet she slyly hid her own affairs (getting her butler to drive her lovers into Kensington Palace in the boot of a car for example), so she could play the innocent, injured party in the marriage. Charles turned to Camilla, his old flame and trusted friend, and resumed their old affair after Diana had made it clear their marriage was over. Who can blame him? He didn't sleep around as his wife did!
Princess Diana was deeply dishonest and manipulative, and had she lived into the internet age and faced deeper scrutiny she undoubtedly would have been found out!
Diana is long dead, and cannot he hurt by anything said about her now. However the slanders she spread in life against her estranged husband - and others still living - can hurt them. That's why it's so wrong that Diana's deluded fans continue to repeat her toxic nonsense as though it were gospel truth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@karlypearl9701 How was the jury not impartial? It was selected in the right and proper way, and comprised 6 men and 6 women. It WAS impartial!
Murder is always a contentious issue - if a jury was totally unmoved by the seriousness of it, they would not be equal to the job asked of them. But recognising the gravity of a murder charge, does not mean a jury would jail a murder defendant on a whim!
A primarily circumstantial murder case like this one requires a smart set of jurors capable of navigating the evidentiary puzzle pieces, and finding the truth. A not so smart jury requires a ton of forensic evidence to convict, because they are dazzled by DNA and the like and wrongly assume circumstantial evidence is worthless by comparison. That is a big mistake. Thankfully it's not a mistake this jury made.
Any intelligent person who watched the whole trial, as I did, would have reached the same verdict as the jury. James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity to murder his wife Victoria. The defence had the difficult task of persuading the jury there was sufficient evidence she had killed herself. There was not! Her own children knew she hadn't killed herself, and had a gut feeling their stepfather was behind her sudden, total disappearance. When they asked police to look into it, they agreed, and provided a compelling dossier evidence which also convinced a jury.
How could Victoria have got rid of her own corpse so successfully, that exhaustive professional police searches over 8 years failed to locate it? She was more likely to have been abducted by little green men from Mars, than she was to have killed and disposed of herself!
Today's guilty verdict in the strikingly similar Donthe Lucas murder trial, was another triumph by a smart jury. Lucas killed his pregnant girlfriend 8 years ago, and like James Prokopovitz, thought he'd get away with murder because he managed to get rid of her body.
Like the Prokopovitz trial, the defence could not produce a single, solitary witness to support his claim of innocence. And like Propokovitz, Lucas declined to take the stand and put his case direct to the jury. These are not innocent defendants, wrongly accused. They are ruthless domestic abusers and killers, and this year justice finally caught up with both of them.
2
-
2
-
@simonel2928 No hard feelings at all. I believe many of the people who admire the late Princess Diana and champion her are good and decent, and are motivated by their good hearts. I'm sure you're one of them.
In my view they've been taken in. My experiences of researching and writing about the Princess for British national newspapers in the 'nineties (and interviewing people who knew her well - some of them intimately), indicated she was very different to the selfless, heroic person she so successfully presented to the media and public.
I don't want to bore you and repeat myself, just want to share that knowledge! As you know (!), I've stated more than a few times that Diana's conduct was manipulative and self-serving, and at times malicious, and harmed people. I have interviewed individuals (on and off the record), who were profoundly hurt by Diana's cruelty and selfishness. She ended at least one marriage and tried to break up others. She certainly wasn't a 'girl's girl'!
Was Prince Charles perfect? Of course not! They were a terrible mismatch and the union was doomed from the start. But I honestly can't see how Charles and Camilla are crucified to this day over an affair which became a happy marriage, while Diana had umpteen extra marital affairs yet is still regarded by some as a saint.
Many people who knew Diana well, have starkly different feelings about her than all the fans who didn't know personally.
Naturally I see her appeal - she was young, photogenic and had great charisma. It's no surprise she became a global superstar. But in my opinion that appeal was shallow and did not reflect any deeper, positive personal qualities such as genuine humility or sensitivity to the rights and feelings of others.
Diana could be positively feral in her own self-interest. No doubt this goes back to her sad, motherless childhood raised by the distant, abusive Johnnie Spencer and a succession of young 'nannies'/au pairs. I think it warped her adult view of relationships. Charles too suffered a lonely childhood with a distant mother and a cold, bullying father. Most of our adult issues start in childhood. Charles and Diana were both looking for something the other simply could not provide for them.
Had she lived into the internet age and aged beyond 36, I suspect Diana's popularity would have waned as she became less physically appealing. But more to the point, I feel her public appeal would have plummeted because her more unpleasant character traits would have been exposed by the greater scrutiny of the internet. Believe it or not, I'm sad she died. I think she would have become much more entertaining into middle age and beyond, as she fought a losing battle to maintain her positive public image and the real woman emerged. Reality is always far more fascinating, surprising and satisfying than fiction!
As I say, people who see her differently and still buy into her self-styled 'Queen of Hearts' act are not necessarily bad people. I believe they've been conned. That might be OK if they weren't unfairly repeating her 30 year old lies as though they were gospel truth. As a journalist, fairness and accuracy's important to me.
Anyway, thanks for reading this far. I didn't post this as any kind of argument with you, just wanted to make my position clearer. I've always wanted to visit Canada, you've inspired me to push it higher up the bucket-list - thank you! Take good care, wishing you and yours the best of everything in 2022. X
2
-
Superb Judge, respect to her for keeping her cool day in day out. After this disgusting, unrepentant killer's shenanigans throughout the trial, tantrum-ing about every last thing to delay the inevitable, it's good to finally see him removed to a separate, empty courtroom where he can be immediately muted at the Judge's discretion.
It's also good to see him faced with the ugly reality of what he did that day, brutally ending and ruining the lives of so many people, because he was angry about his own inadequacies. That wasn't even his own car - it was his momma's, and he was sleeping in the vehicle at nights because he was not only homeless aged 40, but was not permitted inside his mother's residence due to his past abusive conduct. What a loser! His mom says he wasn't right from the age of six. Had she known how to parent, and been supported by a decent man who was a positive role model, he may have developed differently.
Darrell Brooks is a pitiful excuse for a man, who was always going to wind up dying in a jail cell. Thugs like him usually get there by killing a partner or family member. He committed a mass murder after fighting with his former girlfriend. That young woman is very lucky to be alive. I hope she will seize the rest of her life with positivity and do wonderful things, knowing she not only escaped Brooks with her life while so many others did not, but can no longer be terrorised by him for even a nanosecond. He's caged like the rabid freak he always was, and will stay behind bars forevermore. She is free at last. I imagine his mother is relieved about that too, though I have considerably less sympathy for her as she put that evil man on this planet - and the consequences were multiple innocent lives destroyed.
It's ironic the creep's living conditions have improved as a result of his horrific crimes that day - a jail cell is a step up from sleeping in a parked car! But rest assured, Brooks won't see it that way. Depriving a narcissistic abuser like him of his liberty is his ultimate punishment. He's been publicly exposed as a cowardly murderer and will now be locked away forever and forgotten about, exactly as he deserves.
The Judge deserves a long beach vacation after her exhausting encounters with that fool. My sympathies go to the prison staff who will no doubt be greatly inconvenienced by his toddler tantrums. I predict it won't be long before a way bigger psychopath takes a shine to little Darrell, and gets medieval on his ass. Justice? He hasn't even begun to experience it yet - but he will. Happy days!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diana was the home wrecker - she ended Will Carling's 2 year marriage to Julia Carling by repeatedly bedding him at Kensington Palace, and did her damnedest to finish lover Oliver Hoare's marriage too, making 300 malicious, silent phone calls to his family home after he ended their 2 year affair.
Her first affair in 1985 was with her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee. She was utterly ruthless and shameless about seducing other women's husbands!
Diana was a real bunny boiler, and slept with more married men than Camilla ever did. Diana's exploits with umpteen different men made Camilla look like the blessed virgin!
Charles and Diana were totally incompatible, and would have split regardless of any third parties on either Charles or Diana's side. They just weren't compatible! Arranged marriages like her often fail.
Do you seriously think they'd have lived happily ever after if it weren't for Camilla? Grow up! Diana couldn't care less about Camilla, she only pretended to for her own PR. She'd fallen out of love with Charles and was living it up in glamorous London, while he lived quietly in his Highgrove home in Gloucestershire. The Waleses were living separate lives from 1986.
Diana only crucified Charles and Camilla to play the innocent, wronged wife, win public sympathy, and distract attention from all the men she'd been sleeping with behind her husband's back!
Diana was a manipulative, lying, scheming hypocrite. But people are still taken in by that covert narcissist and her lies today - all because she was pretty.
If Diana had lived, and aged, her fan club would have dwindled now she'd reached 60 and was a grandma. The soppy Diana fans only like her because she was photogenic, and frozen in time aged 36. They are even more shallow than she was!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The most 'horrible fate'' of all was Tillikum's, a magnificent Orca born free, stolen from his family and Icelandic ocean home as an infant, and enslaved by man in fish tanks for the rest of his miserable, enslaved life.
In the wild Orcas never leave their mother. They live in large extended family groups of up to four generations, led by the oldest matriarch. They leave their family only fleetingly to mate or to forage. Males will only mate with females from other pods, ensuring there is no in-breeding. Their complex social behaviours confirm just how cruel their lives in captivity are.
Forced to entertain baying crowds in concrete & chlorine clown shows, you bet Tillikum was angry at humans. Who can blame him? Orcas are highly intelligent, they fully understand they are living cruel, restricted, totally unnatural lives as humans' prisoners.
The two older female Orcas who bullied Tillikum were both pregnant, a time when they are known to be hormonal and aggressive. He should never have been sharing their space with them, and as this report states, he was eventually removed to a small, single tank for his protection. However it's said he was regularly bullied by other Orcas over the years, bearing injuries across his body from their teeth at different ages/stages of healing. This too could undoubtedly have fuelled aggression in him.
Wild Orcas can live to 90 years. Tillicum died in 2017 aged 35, of a bacterial lung infection. He outlived seven of the 21 calves he fathered over his lifetime, some through a controversial artificial insemination programme. In 2016 'Seaworld' announced the end of its captive breeding programme, which signifies the last generation of Orcas in captivity in their care. May this barbaric practice soon be ended for good. Orcas are too large, and too intelligent, to be imprisoned like this.
2
-
@vasanthathangavelu695 I can't wade through your endless, horribly inaccurate, sickeningly sentimental broken English I'm afraid.
There are so many factual errors in what I did read, I don't have time to correct them all! But for starters, Diana did not 'attempt suicide', any more than the similarly narcissistic and attention-seeking Meghan Markel did!
The report of Diana supposedly throwing herself down the stairs while pregnant with William was a massive exaggeration on her part. She stumbled down a few steps at most! Diana had to come up with some juicy, headline-grabbing stories for the Andrew Morton book she was secretly colluding with. The book was a huge self-pity party and hatchet job on her husband, which she swore blind she had nothing to do with. But the fact all her friends were willingly speaking to Morton proved she was 100% behind it!
And Diana most certainly did NOT want a divorce - she made that clear in her infamous 'Panorama' interview. Ironic really, because in doing that very foolish interview (in which she hurt her children by attacking their father and publicising one of her umpteen affairs), she unwittingly triggered her own divorce.
Diana wanted to remain married to Charles because she enjoyed the immense privilege and status that came with that elevated role. There was nothing in it for her to divorce him - she was perfectly happy being his separated wife, as she got all the perks of being Charles' wife without actually having to live with him!
It's not as though she'd found a man willing to marry her!
And of course she was so bitter and twisted, she didn't want to give Charles the freedom to marry Camilla. Typical irrational venom from dirty Di - she didn't want Charles herself, and was having affairs with any man with a pulse, but she didn't want him to be happy with someone else.
It's hilarious that Diana was shocked to receive a letter from the Queen soon after her sneaky 'Panorama' interview, ordering her and Charles to divorce (he received a near identical missive from Her Majesty). The Princess was so thick, she really thought she could launch a personal attack on her husband on national television, saying he wasn't up to becoming king, pretending only he had committed cheated on her and she was the innocent party (while 'forgetting' to mention the string of affairs she was still having), etc etc, and she'd be allowed to stay married to him!
The Queen of Tarts wasn't just a serial shagger of other women's husbands, the brainless bint was as thick as mince too!
2
-
@LinaLina-yd2tv BRAVO! Charles and Camilla should have married, and would have done if the system hadn't stupidly ruled out any woman for him who'd had a prior sexual relationship.
Diana was determined to marry Prince Charles and win the prize she was after - the title Princess of Wales, with all the glittering VIP privileges that came with it. She didn't marry Charles for love - not only had her elder sister Sarah already had a go on him, Diana only met him a handful of times before accepting his marriage proposal!
Charles and Camilla have made a happy marriage - something all the evidence suggests Diana would not have achieved herself, had she lived.
Chances are she'd be single at 60, perhaps divorced for a second time. But I suspect she never would have re-married, as she wouldn't have let go of the title Princess of Wales which was so damned important to her!
Diana was a vain, vacuous, vindictive and utterly selfish woman - so selfish she would even hurt her children by attacking their father on TV and in a vicious book. She was such a lousy mother, she failed in ever parent's first duty - to stay alive to raise your children to adults. Diana died because she didn't give William and Harry a thought when running around Paris with her coke-addicted playboy, and fasten her seat belt. If she'd only remembered she was the mother of two dependant little boys and taken a few seconds to fix her seat belt, she'd have walked away from that crash with a few bruises and a broken arm. And no doubt milked the publicity about the tragic loss of Dodi 'the love of her 'life' (in reality just a holiday fling to make her real love surgeon Hasnat Khan, jealous!) Diana was scheming to the end!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the second COURT TV report I've seen on this murder trial which failed to outline the context of the crime, and explain the alleged killer's defense! C'mon Vinnie - I know you're a qualified lawyer not a journalist, but that's just plain lazy.
I am a journalist, so I'll do it for you - Ronnie O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked his children killing his daughter and injuring his son, and that he killed her in an impulsive, revenge fuelled rage ie a 'crime of passion'. The prosecution says that's baloney and he went to her house to kill her and the children in a coldly premeditated, first degree murder.
The law is an ass on so many levels. Where is the legislation to protect that child from ever having another encounter with his father, his would-be killer and the killer of his mother and sister? That man is clearly crazy and the poor kid shouldn't have to even hear his voice again, never mind answer his questions!
Seems this defendant, a suspected double killer, has it all ways. After initially having his mental issues confirmed, he is declared competent for trial - in fact he's so damn competent, he's allowed to be his own lawyer! Yet we're told if he's convicted, he's allowed to play the mental health card to get himself a more lenient sentence! WTF? Talk about having it all ways! Is he mentally responsible for his crimes and competent, or not?
I hope there's an outcry about this trial, and that it causes a change in the law to protect child victims of serious crime from being directly questioned by the accused. Who knows what long term effects this additional trauma will have on this 11 year old child? Ronnie O' Neal's questions could have been asked for him by a dense attorney, to spare that child the ordeal of communicating with him directly, who knows if the poor kid will have nightmares and bed wetting after this?
Incidentally, I heard there was a dramatic point in this little boy's testimony, when he told his father "You stabbed me". Why wasn't it shown in this report?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@belmum1689 I just don't understand it. As my friend, a mum of two put it: "Once you have children, you simply don't have the luxury of not wearing a seat belt or taking any unnecessary risks with your personal safety". A parent's first duty is to stay alive to raise their children to adults. Diana failed her boys William and Harry in that most basic of parental obligations.
I think Diana had a form of arrested development. Though she was determined to win Prince Charles and become a Queen in waiting, they were wholly incompatible as a couple, so the marriage had an expiry date. Diana got what she wanted in marrying the heir to the throne, but in realising that teenage ambition she missed out on the youthful stage of dating and having fun.
Once her marriage was over she more than made up for it, with lots of meaningless sexual flings with unsuitable and unavailable men. Married men were a favourite hobby of hers - I think she enjoyed the danger and excitement of lovers who had to sneak around, and could never commit to her, nor she to them.
This is why she behaved like a carefree, young, single woman in her twenties, when she was in reality a woman of 36 with children and responsibilities. Dodi was another such fling and the timing of it, after her serious love affair with a man she DID want to marry, shows he was very much a rebound lover.
There's a long list of reasons why Diana did not regard Dodi Al Fayed as marriage material, and in fact his race and religion are not on that list. The main reason is Diana didn't respect him. Dodi was the spoiled son of a multi millionaire, who had never had to work. Without that pressure, he never made much of his life or achieved a successful career of his own. At one time he had dabbled as a movie producer, with a credit on the Oscar winning film 'Chariots of Fire'. But as the years went by without any further movie credits, it became clear his money and name got him the gig. He had no real talent for the movies or anything else beyond being a playboy who bedded famous women like the actress Faye Dunaway and model Marie Helvin.
Diana was a traditional, blue blooded aristocrat who wanted a husband she could respect. The man of her dreams had to be successful in his own right, and 'his own man'. That's what attracted her to the man she fell head over heels for and DID want to marry, Pakistani surgeon Hasnat Khan, who she dated from 1995-1997. Diana saw him at work, serious and sensitive, brilliantly skilled and saving lives every day, and she fell for him hard. As with Prince Charles, she was determined to marry Khan, even visiting his family in Pakistan without his permission to press her suit. He eventually ran scared, seeing how emotionally needy she was, how important her own publicity was to her, and how unlikely a marriage was to succeed.
Diana was devastated when Khan ended the relationship in 1997. When Dodi Al Fayed pursued her soon after (pushed by his ambitious father Mohammed, dangling his newly refurbished yacht the Jonikal), she went along with it. She needed an ego boost after her lover's rejection. But more significantly, in the affair she saw a chance to make Hasnat Khan jealous, regret finishing with her, and want her back. That's why Diana colluded with various photographers to get pictures of herself canoodling with Dodi into the UK newspapers.
For Diana it was a fun, holiday romance with the goal of pushing Hasnat Khan into taking her back. But it backfired on her in the most tragic way possible. By putting her safety in the hands of the irresponsible Al Fayeds - and failing to fasten her seat belt - Diana's fate was sealed. She would not return to London, to a jealous and lovelorn ex boyfriend, as she hoped. She would not return to London at all. Diana's childish games ultimately cost her her life, and robbed two children of their mother.
2
-
2
-
@usfanlovesminho5085 Diana fans are woefully ignorant on her true life-story - and wilfully ignorant too, because they're only interested in the cynical, self-serving, airbrushed and romanticised version of herself she invented for the media. In other words the fairy tale, perfect princess, rather than the truth. Sad!
Those of us who do remember Diana, warts and all - beautiful and charismatic, but also vain, self-obsessed, promiscuous and vindictive - will never love her. Because in truth, she wasn't a kind, decent or lovable person. Let's face it, fans like you only 'love' her because she was photogenic. You're even more shallow and vacuous than she was - and that's saying something!
King Charles' second wife Camilla is a very different kind of woman. The polar opposite of Diana, in fact - thank God! Even Diana's sons recognise their steadfast, big-hearted stepmother Camilla is the quietly devoted, self-effacing mother, wife and friend Diana pretended to be for good publicity, but never actually was - or indeed, could ever be.
William and Harry are well aware who their toxic, unhinged mother really was. Why do you think they chose to champion the cause of mental health?
Sadly fame went to Diana's head like strong drink. Within weeks of her marriage to the future King Charles, she was obsessively poring over the newspapers each day to study her own photos and write ups, and getting childishly competitive with the husband she was supposed to be supporting! Diana's ego rapidly got out of control.
Had she lived, there's no question of her achieving a happy second marriage. Not only was it utterly beyond her, she would not have forfeited the prestigious Princess of Wales title she fought tooth and nail to keep in her divorce, for any mere man!
The supposedly 'down to earth and 'humble' Diana was oddly preoccupied with her own royal status - and with people's obligation to curtsy to her!
Camilla in contrast, is a warm, down-to-earth 'girls' girl', who values her female friendships and family. She is great pals with her daughter Laura and her daughter-in-law, Catherine, Princess of Wales.
Diana was always distrustful and uneasy around other women, especially if they were attractive. She'd have been insanely jealous of her sons' wives' Catherine and Meghan's youth and beauty - and the headlines they'd have inevitably taken from her, as she aged and lost her sex appeal.
This insecurity was undoubtedly caused by her father. Her parents Johnny and Frances divorced in the 'sixties over his domestic abuse/violence, which Frances hid from their four children (though Diana recalled as a small child once seeing her father slap her mother across the face).
Frances escaped Althorp House and the marriage through an affair with the wealthy Peter Shand Kydd, who became her next husband. She felt she and the children would be safer away from Johnny, and fought hard to win custody of her two youngest, Diana and Charles (her older daughters were away at boarding school). But it was a 'David and Goliath' court battle she had little chance of winning against the powerful aristocrat.
Johnny Spencer was determined to take sole custody of his children and even secured the testimony/loyalty of his ex mother-in-law Ruth, Lady Fermoy, who outrageously testified against her own daughter, calling her an unfit mother. What a shocking mother-daughter betrayal!
Diana's distant relationship with her mother Frances, echoed the froideur between Frances and HER mother Ruth. History repeats. After winning custody of the children, their father saw them sporadically, he was a hands-off parent, leading a busy hedonistic life similar to the one Diana would one day enjoy. And like Diana, he left much of his children's parenting to paid staff - in his case, a series of young and often inexperienced nannies and au pairs who were cheap to hire.
Mud sticks, and the ultimate result of the divorce and maternal estrangement, was that Diana and her siblings believed their father's lies about their mother abandoning them. Damaging, hurtful lies that put Johnny in a good light in his innocent children's eyes, but for Diana were a legacy of emotional insecurity, abandonment issues, and major distrust of women.
Diana's relationship with her mother never recovered from her father's actions. They were not on speaking terms when she died, following a telephone row about her unsuitable boyfriends, some months earlier. Frances' mother meddled in her love life too, feeling her second husband was beneath her, because he was not an aristocrat, but worked 'in trade'!
So Diana's pathological narcissism and selfishness were in great part down to childhood trauma. She believed her father's damning depiction of her mother as the villain and adulteress, and saw all females the same way - ultimately deciding to follow suit. When you know the context, it's easier to understand how Diana was able to pursue other women's husbands and sleep with them, without a single pang of conscience about their poor deceived wife. Diana didn't like women, and took the view - Strike first!
If you were a true fan of the late Diana, you would be interested in the real woman, flaws included, not the fantasy, photo shopped version she peddled. The real person is always far more fascinating than the fake image they worked so hard to create!
2
-
@usfanlovesminho5085 Diana fans are woefully ignorant on her true life-story - and wilfully ignorant too, because they're only interested in the cynical, self-serving, airbrushed and romanticised version of herself she invented for the media. In other words the fairy tale, perfect princess, rather than the truth. Sad!
Those of us who do remember Diana, warts and all - beautiful and charismatic, but also vain, self-obsessed, promiscuous and vindictive - will never love her. Because in truth, she wasn't a kind, decent or lovable person. Let's face it, fans like you only 'love' her because she was photogenic. You're even more shallow and vacuous than she was - and that's saying something!
King Charles' second wife Camilla is a very different kind of woman. The polar opposite of Diana, in fact - thank God! Even Diana's sons recognise their steadfast, big-hearted stepmother Camilla is the quietly devoted, self-effacing mother, wife and friend Diana pretended to be for good publicity, but never actually was - or indeed, could ever be.
William and Harry are well aware who their toxic, unhinged mother really was. Why do you think they chose to champion the cause of mental health?
Sadly fame went to Diana's head like strong drink. Within weeks of her marriage to the future King Charles, she was obsessively poring over the newspapers each day to study her own photos and write ups, and getting childishly competitive with the husband she was supposed to be supporting! Diana's ego rapidly got out of control.
Had she lived, there's no question of her achieving a happy second marriage. Not only was it utterly beyond her, she would not have forfeited the prestigious Princess of Wales title she fought tooth and nail to keep in her divorce, for any mere man!
The supposedly 'down to earth and 'humble' Diana was oddly preoccupied with her own royal status - and with people's obligation to curtsy to her!
Camilla in contrast, is a warm, down-to-earth 'girls' girl', who values her female friendships and family. She is great pals with her daughter Laura and her daughter-in-law, Catherine, Princess of Wales.
Diana was always distrustful and uneasy around other women, especially if they were attractive. She'd have been insanely jealous of her sons' wives' Catherine and Meghan's youth and beauty - and the headlines they'd have inevitably taken from her, as she aged and lost her sex appeal.
This insecurity was undoubtedly caused by her father. Her parents Johnny and Frances divorced in the 'sixties over his domestic abuse/violence, which Frances hid from their four children (though Diana recalled as a small child once seeing her father slap her mother across the face).
Frances escaped Althorp House and the marriage through an affair with the wealthy Peter Shand Kydd, who became her next husband. She felt she and the children would be safer away from Johnny, and fought hard to win custody of her two youngest, Diana and Charles (her older daughters were away at boarding school). But it was a 'David and Goliath' court battle she had little chance of winning against the powerful aristocrat.
Johnny Spencer was determined to take sole custody of his children and even secured the testimony/loyalty of his ex mother-in-law Ruth, Lady Fermoy, who outrageously testified against her own daughter, calling her an unfit mother. What a shocking mother-daughter betrayal!
Diana's distant relationship with her mother Frances, echoed the froideur between Frances and HER mother Ruth. History repeats. After winning custody of the children, their father saw them sporadically, he was a hands-off parent, leading a busy hedonistic life similar to the one Diana would one day enjoy. And like Diana, he left much of his children's parenting to paid staff - in his case, a series of young and often inexperienced nannies and au pairs who were cheap to hire.
Mud sticks, and the ultimate result of the divorce and maternal estrangement, was that Diana and her siblings believed their father's lies about their mother abandoning them. Damaging, hurtful lies that put Johnny in a good light in his innocent children's eyes, but for Diana were a legacy of emotional insecurity, abandonment issues, and major distrust of women.
Diana's relationship with her mother never recovered from her father's actions. They were not on speaking terms when she died, following a telephone row about her unsuitable boyfriends, some months earlier. Frances' mother meddled in her love life too, feeling her second husband was beneath her, because he was not an aristocrat, but worked 'in trade'!
So Diana's pathological narcissism and selfishness were in great part down to childhood trauma. She believed her father's damning depiction of her mother as the villain and adulteress, and saw all females the same way - ultimately deciding to follow suit. When you know the context, it's easier to understand how Diana was able to pursue other women's husbands and sleep with them, without a single pang of conscience about their poor deceived wife. Diana didn't like women, and took the view - Strike first!
If you were a true fan of the late Diana, you would be interested in the real woman, flaws included, not the fantasy, photo shopped version she peddled. The real person is always far more fascinating than the fake image they worked so hard to create!
2
-
@thefairyqueen369 Are you seriously suggesting someone born to the extraordinary wealth and privilege the late aristocrat Princess Diana was - multiplied x 1 million fold, after her globally famous marriage to heir to the British throne Prince Charles - deserves sympathy for her appalling and immoral behaviour?
Many people (her own two sons included, made motherless totally needlessly), suffered broken hearts and immeasurable, ongoing pain, thanks to Diana's reckless and outrageously selfish conduct up to and including 31st August 1997.
If she had only remembered she was the parent of two dependant children, and taken responsibility for her own security arrangements post-divorce, as the Queen wanted her to (as mother to the future King William, Diana was entitled to the best, Scotland Yard security for life), she would not have been involved in a car crash caused by shady Mohammed Al Fayed's drunk, drugged, and uninsured driver.
Worse, the inquest into the Paris crash revealed Diana would even have survived that disastrous high speed collision, if only she had fastened her seat belt. Her violent premature death was entirely due to her own dumb decisions, and of her own making.
Diana's life and death brings to mind a famous Biblical quote, spoken by the late and legendary US President John F Kennedy:
"For of those to whom much is given, much is required". How true!
Thanks to an accident of birth, the spoiled Princess Diana was given riches beyond measure. She never appreciated them, and died forever in this world's debt!
2
-
@thefairyqueen369 Are you seriously suggesting someone born to the extraordinary wealth and privilege the late aristocrat Princess Diana was - multiplied x 1 million fold, after her globally famous marriage to heir to the British throne Prince Charles - deserves sympathy for her appalling and immoral behaviour?
Many people (her own two sons included, made motherless totally needlessly), suffered broken hearts and immeasurable, ongoing pain, thanks to Diana's reckless and outrageously selfish conduct up to and including 31st August 1997.
If she had only remembered she was the parent of two dependant children, and taken responsibility for her own security arrangements post-divorce, as the Queen wanted her to (as mother to the future King William, Diana was entitled to the best, Scotland Yard security for life), she would not have been involved in a car crash caused by shady Mohammed Al Fayed's drunk, drugged, and uninsured driver.
Worse, the inquest into the Paris crash revealed Diana would even have survived that disastrous high speed collision, if only she had fastened her seat belt. Her violent premature death was entirely due to her own dumb decisions, and of her own making.
Diana's life and death brings to mind a famous Biblical quote, spoken by the late and legendary US President John F Kennedy:
"For of those to whom much is given, much is required". How true!
Thanks to an accident of birth, the spoiled Princess Diana was given riches beyond measure. She never appreciated them, and died forever in this world's debt!
2
-
Paul Burrell was a servant to the late Princess Diana a quarter of a century ago. His biggest claim to fame is hiring a removal van and cleaning out her private apartments, stealing millions of pounds worth of her personal belongings which were her two sons' property by rights.
Burrell is a proven thief and liar, and the idea he has the 'inside track' on the royal family, as GB News claim, is utterly laughable!
RESPONSE TO @jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matthewbarry1746 The killer's parents didn't spend their life savings on his legal defence through delusion, but love.
It was clear from his mother's measured answers to the interviewer's questions, she knows he is most likely guilty of these four murders.
She even says: "He grew up in a healthy environment. What changed him, I don't know".
This case and others like it are an enigma, because the killer wanted for nothing in his formative years. Anthony Garcia should have become a valued member of society, who gave back and paid back for all the advantages he enjoyed as a beloved and supported son.
But his earliest work record shows there were serious, and likely insurmountable issues, in his character/personality. Though he had achieved sufficient academic success to earn these prestigious medical positions, his social inadequacies were so extreme that he simply couldn't keep them.
It's interesting that his younger brother presents in this interview, as normal and socially at ease. I think genetics must be at the heart of Anthony Garcia's sociopathy.
Despite their best efforts, Mr and Mrs Garcia launched a damaged and dangerous human being into the world. Now Anthony Garcia's in prison for the rest of his life he should be studied by experts, like a lab rat, to find clues to how he developed in such a warped way. We can only seek to prevent future tragedies, by better understanding the history of past ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@linda_smilesrfree2744 The unpleasant truth about Diana was revealed a long time ago. But there are none so blind as those who cannot see!
Everything I've stated about Diana's promiscuity, duplicity and general narcissism, are all established truth, in the public domain.
I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties covering royal stories, and researched many of the facts myself. Diana has a big following to this day because she successfully hoodwinked people who didn't know any better, into believing she was some kind of blameless victim (she was not), and because she was a photogenic woman who died young.
Diana was not a generous, kind or decent human being, quite the opposite. She behaved very badly during her short life, and time and time again made selfish choices that hurt many people, without a moment's conscience. Julia Carling's life was just one she ruined, causing her two year marriage to end in divorce by seducing her husband Will.
Who can forget the day the Princess of Wales dumped most of the charities that depended on her patronage for their funding, and turned her back on them - all because she was tired and wanted more time to herself. Aww diddums! She didn't do anything even approaching work for them anyway - but her name on a letterhead was an invaluable asset for them. Diana greedily grabbed all the privileges lavished on her when she succeeded in her scheme to marry Prince Charles - and always took far more than she gave.
She could have done incredible, world-changing things, like start a new charity for a favourite cause, launch a scholarship for the arts she loved, build a much-needed third world hospital, or launch a residential domestic violence shelter in her name, for all the desperate women and their children suffering the scourge of domestic abuse.
Had she promoted it and the cause of abused women with passion, it could quickly have become a chain of domestic abuse shelters across the UK. She had such immense power to do good - and she did nothing!
Diana only got involved with the much publicised landmines cause after her friend Lord Dickie Attenborough begged her. She didn't keep up with world news or have an idea in her empty, spoiled little head, until someone smarter gave it to her.
Her global fame gave her limitless opportunities and power to do profound things. Yet she didn't lift a finger to make any such contributions to change others' lives for the better. She was a thoroughly disappointing individual.
Her legacy is her two sons (one of whom has turned out just as spoiled and useless as her), and that is all.
Have a great day yourself!
2
-
2
-
@susanbloomfield6060 Oh yes, Diana did keep the title 'Princess of Wales' on her divorce.
I assumed that was simply the usual protocol, but another poster in this thread (who like you, talks a great deal of truth about the late princess), said she wasn't entitled to keep it by convention, but that in negotiations over her final divorce settlement she fought hard to stay 'Princess of Wales', and won.
This surprised me. I knew royals who'd married into 'The Firm' automatically lost their HRH prefix on divorce, but assumed royal wives kept their royal titles until death or re-marriage (Prince Andrew's wife Sarah is still to this day Sarah, Duchess of York).
The other poster was emphatic Diana was not entitled to the 'Princess of Wales' moniker, but that it was so important to her that she instructed her divorce lawyers to insist on it as part of the settlement. She wore Charles and the Queen down to such an extent, that after protracted negotiations, they caved in and gave in to her demands.
And so according to that poster, after a fight she remained Diana, Princess of Wales, for the rest of her life - which was just one more year as it turned out, due to her shockingly poor taste in men, holidaying with the shady Al Fayed family.
As I say, I was surprised by that account, because I assumed 'Princess of Wales' was her title indefinitely.
2
-
@gmagee2573 It's only thanks to Charles' good sense and loving heart that 'Diana's boys' had any parenting at all beyond the ages of 12 and 15! He picked up the pieces for the sons he loved, because their feckless mother betrayed them, taking risks with her safety while she ran around Paris with yet another lover!
Diana was a disgrace, throwing her knickers at umpteen men (many of them married). She got herself killed because she chose to sleep with the playboy son of Arab crook Mohammed Al Fayed. He provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver, and she forgot about her two dependent babies and failed to fasten her seat belt! She was a grown woman who made terrible choices, and was the architect of her own demise - no one else.
Charles was faithful to Diana and she was to him, for the first 5 years of the marriage. Yes he was under pressure to marry a 'suitable' girl - he didn't make the rules, but he had to live by them. It was sadder for him actually, as aside from his much-loved sons, he got nothing but misery and betrayal out of his marriage to Diana. She got all the VIP privileges, fame and luxuries she wanted, and had married him for. Don't imagine for one moment Diana married Charles for love - she only met him a handful of times before accepting his proposal! She was from the select aristocratic background who mixed with royalty for centuries and knew the rules. She went into that marriage with her eyes wide open - and firmly fixed on the glittering prizes she'd get as a Princess and future Queen!
Diana was in it for the status of becoming Princess of Wales, a title she was determined to cling onto even after their divorce. Then after the marriage failed, they both looked elsewhere for the love they couldn't get from each other. The union was doomed to fail because it was an arranged marriage between two totally incompatible people!
Charles sought solace with one woman, but Diana had umpteen casual, sexual affairs with unsuitable men. She had no conscience about pursuing other women's husbands! Diana was a mistress many more times than Camilla, she was a damned hypocrite pointing the finger at her husband as if she herself was squeaky clean! And Camilla loved, and went on to marry Charles - Diana's flings were just about cheap sexual thrills, and true to form, was with yet another lover when she died.
Diana would never have found the happy marriage Charles has, she was too self-centred, vain and narcissistic to be a good wife to anyone!
2
-
@patriciadavis2506 Thank you - the voice of sanity! The dumb Diana fans who still swallow her manipulative lies wholesale, are beyond gullible.
Diana was a total hypocrite, pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla for being in love, acting the innocent wife and batting her lashes at TV interviewers, when she was hiding her many secret, casual lovers from the media!
Charles and Camilla have achieved something Diana never could - a happy marriage. It's sadly all too fitting that Diana died in a totally avoidable car crash with a new lover she cared nothing for, and all because she failed to think of her children and fasten her seat belt.
If the princess had only remembered her responsibilities as a mother, and hired her own security and driver, or failing that at least worn her seat belt, she'd have survived. Diana behaved like a silly teenager, and was the architect of her own doom. Thank God poor William and Harry had a loving and responsible father in Charles, who was there for them after their feckless mother got herself killed. She never once gave him any credit, but Charles has always been a great dad.
2
-
2
-
@helenmclean2409 Hi Helen - I just wanted to let you know I scrolled through this LONG thread today and read all your wonderfully insightful and knowledgeable posts on Charles and Diana - Bravo! They were a great read! That you typed such brilliant and comprehensive posts with an injury to your hand, makes it all the more impressive. I do hope you're recovered now, it sounded nasty.
You write with such eloquence and wisdom, and it was fascinating to get the inside track from royal security staff. Some of the Diana fans posting here are child-like in their gullibility and delusion! They have swallowed the media myth wholesale of the 'victim princess' with Charles and Camilla cast as the villains of the piece.
So deep is the denial, not even Diana's umpteen, well documented extra marital affairs (and pursuits of married men), will open their eyes to the truth about her self-serving, vindictive personality and conduct. Conduct which ultimately got her killed. Her cat and mouse paparazzi-taunting which led to the crash, was done to secure tabloid headlines with her new lover, all to make ex Hasnat Khan jealous. She was manipulative to the last!
I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties, tasked with covering the 'War of the Waleses', as it was then dubbed. All reporters were well aware of Diana's many affairs and the ugly truth behind her self-styled 'Queen of Hearts' guff! I well recall the frenzied scramble for the Oliver Hoare story. The News of the World got the exclusive, though in fact all tabloids heard about Diana's 'woman scorned', 300+ malicious calls to Oliver Hoare and were pursuing it.
I don't know if you're aware of the whole story, but it was Hoare himself who outed the princess as a bunny boiler - albeit without that being his full intention. After dumping Diana fairly abruptly, he worked out pretty fast who was making all those silent calls, 24-7. He decided he must come clean to wife Diane about the affair, beg her forgiveness, then present a united front to police and tell them the whole story. As we know, Mrs Hoare forgave him (that he'd split with Diana because she kept on at him to leave his wife, must have gone in his favour!)
When the Hoares went to police they knew they would almost certainly unmask Diana as the culprit. Sure enough, they soon had a request for a home visit from senior detectives. They told them the calls had been traced to Diana's private apartments at Kensington Palace, as well as to her mobile and various public pay phones she visited after dark in a headscarf.
I've seen it reported that on having it confirmed, Oliver told police to leave it there, and he would speak to the princess but that's not what happened. At his wife's urging, he sanctioned the detectives to pay a visit to Diana at KP and warn her off. Diane Hoare felt the shock of police involvement was the only way to make Diana desist. I suspect there was some revenge in her logic too, and frankly I don't blame her!
Oliver sought assurances from the officers they would keep the matter confidential, but predictably a police source pocketed a tidy sum from the News of the World for the inside scoop!
The most shocking aspect of the Oliver Hoare story has only ever been publicly alluded to, and never explained in full. That bombshell, is the fact that when two somewhat embarrassed senior detectives arrived at Kensington Palace to tell Diana the jig was up and to stop harassing her ex lover, she did something outrageous to get herself off the hook. With the calls traced to her home and mobile, her back was against the wall, and yet Diana point blank denied she was responsible for the harassment campaign against the Hoares - and instead blamed her son William!
William was just 13 at the time and away at boarding school, the detectives knew he could not possibly have made hundreds of malicious phone calls at all times of the day and night. Diana was blatantly lying to save herself. It was frankly embarrassing she would try to pin her own sins on her innocent child, and after a warning that prosecution would follow if the calls didn't stop, the officers bid her goodbye. Oliver Hoare was no doubt incredulous on hearing from police how she'd pointed the finger at William!
It was bad timing for Diana that her BBCTV 'Panorama' interview happened after that dramatic, headline-grabbing incident, which had exposed her as an unhinged seducer of married men. But it could not be ignored by interviewer Martin Bashir, she had to be asked about it. He agreed the parameters of its brief inclusion with her in advance (as the entire interview was pre-planned). Diana was practically working to a script!
She echoed the denial she gave to her friend columnist Richard Kay at the Daily Mail, and claimed an unnamed child was behind the calls. She'd told Kay the child was a friend of one of Oliver Hoare's children, she gave no detail about the supposed child's identity to Bashir - and did not repeat her lie to police that the calls were made by her son William, to anyone else!
I believe William's childhood was significantly scarred by his mother's unpredictable moods and paranoia, her frequent vendettas and her habit of using him as a pawn in her dramas. Being the youngest, Harry escaped this burden. Journalists got wind of behavioural problems in William when he was at primary school. Obviously we were duty bound by the code of conduct to keep that from the public then, and out of respect for him I won't repeat any of the specific accounts I've heard from solid sources. I feel, as with many people, his childhood suffering has given him great empathy for the suffering of others and made him a great man, husband and father.
Diana was a narcissist raised by a narcissist - her father Johnny was a lifelong user, of the most ruthless kind. He was so enraged at Diana's mother Frances leaving him for Peter Shand Kydd (when Diana was just six), he was determined to retain custody of their four children. Johnny fought and won a vicious custody battle in the courts, which harmed his children irreparably. A remote father, they lived lonely childhoods at Althorp House, seeing little of either parent, raised by a succession of young nannies and au pairs. Johnny had his revenge on Frances - at terrible cost to their children.
In Diana, Johnny Spencer created a monster in his own image. Her innate self interest and distrust of marriage and women can be traced directly back to him.
As you rightly say, there are so many 'if onlys' in the story of her premature death - and they all focus on Diana's behaviour and bad choices.
On her divorce, the Queen offered her a world class Scotland Yard security team of bodyguards and driver, for life. She felt her former daughter-in-law deserved that level of protection, as mother to the future King William. It's top VIP security, that money alone can't buy. But Diana peevishly refused the Queen's offer, presumably the opportunity to snub the royal family - cutting off her nose to spite her face - was too tempting. That decision cost her her life - as did handing over her personal safety arrangements to the dodgy Al Fayeds, and failing to fasten her seat belt. Diana's story is like a Greek tragedy. Ultimately she was the architect of her own doom.
Good chatting with someone so intelligent and well informed! God bless, and speedy healing from your recent injury. XXX
2
-
@smcv8365 Thanks so much, I really appreciate your feedback. As a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties, I was privy to solid inside information about Charles and Diana. So it frustrates me to read some of the massively inaccurate, often deluded pro Diana, anti Charles views expressed by blinkered Diana fans.
It's a sad story of an arranged marriage, that inevitably ended in divorce. But divorce happens all the time, it isn't a tragedy! In this day and age incompatible people can split and end a failed union - thank God!
That Diana cynically exploited that failed marriage to crucify her husband, the future king and father of her children, shows how unhinged and vindictive she was. Her self-indulgent, self-pity parties with the Andrew Morton book and her BBC 'Panorama' interview, hurt her children terribly.
Diana was no victim, during or after the marriage. Charles was generous in the divorce settlement and gave her everything she wanted. She had a glittering future ahead of her as Princess of Wales, retaining all the wealth, VIP status and privilege of that position, without having to tolerate the husband she loathed!
It's beyond ironic she threw that glittering future away by putting her personal safety in the hands of the famously disreputable Mohammed Al Fayed (who was running the show that night for her spineless lover Dodi). And as we know she compounded that error, by failing to wear her seat belt. Diana, no one else, caused her violent, premature death.
2
-
@helenmclean2409 You're very welcome, it's great chatting to someone with an informed and balanced view of the decidedly unbalanced Diana. Yes, her attempt to frame her 13-year-old son William for her own serious stalking crime is shocking, and certainly not the conduct of a loving, protective mother!
It's my view Diana missed out on an critical stage in her emotional development, as a result of the inadequate parenting she received after her mother left her abusive father. With only the remote, egocentric Johnny Spencer, and a parade of young nannies and au pairs as role models, the Spencer children grew up pretty feral. Beyond their mother Frances, who they saw only fleetingly thanks to the acrimonious divorce, they lacked any kind of decent and consistent parental influence. The psychological damage done to Diana was only too clear in her flawed performance as both wife and mother.
I guess the William story hasn't come out for his sake, as much as hers. The sainted Diana can't be exposed as the narcissistic, self-serving mother she undoubtedly was, and poor William can't be humiliated as the child she so ruthlessly exploited to save her own neck.
Your description of the princess privately mocking her fans, fits with everything I learned about her from insiders in the 'nineties. The double standards Diana lived by in life, crucifying Charles when she herself was positively immoral, are echoed today by her soppy fan base.
And what a rum lot Diana's fan club are. Some of their dewy-eyed, gullible posts truly beggar belief. They've confused Diana with Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and every other Disney princess who never lived outside of a kiddies' cartoon!
Stay safe & well, all the very best to you and yours! X
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's interesting that Joan has always been very outspoken on political issues, yet she ran a mile from speaking her mind on the madness and misogyny of modern trans politics!
It shows how toxic and sinister the men in dresses are - they will not tolerate any criticism at all. You're not even allowed to question their agenda, without accusations of 'transphobe' and 'bigot' being thrown at you, to intimidate and silence you.
Trans activists' slogan is #NoDebate, because they know they hold minority views that won't survive scrutiny by the majority - so they fight to stay under the radar. That's why it's crucial that public figures like Joan discuss the trans war on women openly. Our hard won legal rights - hell, our very name 'Woman' - is being given away to men, in the name of 'inclusivity' and 'equality'! What about women's rights FFS?
Harry Potter author JK Rowling has courageously defended women's rights, refusing to be cowed by the woman-hating, trans bullies. Dame Joan should do the same. There's no way she agrees with modern trans demands, eg that bearded, be-penised men can be termed 'women'! She doesn't support big burly men like swim cheat 'Lia Thomas' competing in female sports. Thomas is guilty of two abuses - thrashing women in the pool by unfair advantage of a powerful male body, then exposing his penis to his female competitors in the FEMALE changing rooms.
And I'm damn sure Dame Joan wouldn't be happy if she encountered a big burly man in drag in the ladies toilets! Last year, a British woman patient was raped by a be-penised 'trans woman', on what that lady had believed was a female-only NHS hospital ward. Today, NHS hospital staff are instructed to treat 'trans women' exactly the same as biological women. And those staff have even been told, if a patient/patient's visitor enquires about the sex of a trans person, they must lie and tell them they are the sex they identify as. Yes, NHS hospital policy is to lie to the public - and potentially protect dangerous sexual predators lurking on single sex wards!
As a woman I'm massively disappointed in Joan Collins for avoiding this particular controversy, which is a far bigger threat to women's rights than the Suffragettes fought over 100 years ago. Today women are fighting to retain our very identity as a unique group! She has two daughters - she should be speaking out in their defence, against the trans war on women.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pinaytravels2789 If you seriously believe Diana's horse shit about being heartbroken over the failure of her marriage, you are very naive! Diana fell out of love with Charles just as much as he did with her. They simply weren't compatible - it was an arranged marriage and they frequently fail. Look at video of the pair on public appearances in the late 'eighties - Diana is bored to tears of Charles and she doesn't care who knows it!
When the marriage broke down (on both sides), Charles took up with his old flame Camilla, and Diana took a strong of different lovers including Barry Mannakee, James Hewitt, James Gilbey and Oliver Hoare. She sneaked around and kept these lovers as quiet as she could, to perpetuate the myth she loved her husband. She did not! If she was heartbroken over Charles as she claimed, she wouldn't have slept around with umpteen men!
If Harry wants to blame someone for his mother's death, he need look no further than Diana herself. She stupidly failed to hire her own bodyguards and driver, and instead handed her security arrangements to the shady Al Fayed family, who provided a drunk driver. She also failed to think of her two children and fasten her seat belt - if she had only remembered she was a mother and buckled up, she'd have survived the crash with a broken arm. Diana was the architect of her own doom!
2
-
@laisawhippy8726 Your blind devotion to Diana, who is now widely recognised as mentally ill and extremely narcissistic, only exposes your own poor judgement.
Diana had good reason to demonise her husband and his soul mate Camilla - she was mentally unstable and malevolent, with a huge persecution complex that fuelled her spite. So what's your excuse?!
On the breakdown of her arranged marriage, Diana sought to win public favour by slandering Charles as an adulterer, when she herself was sleeping with a long queue of unsuitable and married men. She was a shameless hypocrite!
Diana didn't even want her husband, he bored her to tears. That was obvious in videos of them doing joint public appearances in the late 'eighties/early nineties, when her cold, stand-offish demeanour made it totally clear to everyone she despised him. Diana was no loyal wife, quite the opposite!
Charles' one affair was with a woman he loved, and in time married. Diana's extra marital flings never became committed relationships - and doesn't that say it all. She petulantly told the world to hate Camilla, but Camilla's only sin was to marry the wrong man - and finally be reunited with the man she loved. Diana didn't even want Charles - she just didn't want Camilla to have him!
She demonised Camilla as a mistress, when she was mistress to several men and very promiscuous! Next to Diana, Camilla was the Blessed Virgin.
I understand why Diana charmed people like you. She was pretty and charming. She was also deeply flawed. If you really admire Diana you will acknowledge her flaws and admit them, and love her just the same. By denying her undeniable weaknesses, you do her a great disservice. Diana's silly, self-serving lies were busted decades ago. By perpetuating them in 2021, you do her no favours at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@milkandspice1074 Of course Diana attacked the institution of the monarchy - wilfully and determinedly! She slyly colluded on the Andrew Morton book, a hatchet job on her husband and the royal family, recording audio tapes of her verbal attacks, which were delivered to the author 'by hand' under elaborate, third party subterfuge. She denied till she was blue in the face she had directly cooperated with the book. After her death it was confirmed she fully cooperated and indeed instigated the book!
She followed this up in 1995 by inviting a BBC Panorama crew into her home, under such secrecy she kept it from her own publicists and instructed Martin Bashir and team to sneak into Kensington Palace disguised as workmen.
She then admitted to only one of her own umpteen adulterous affairs (some with married men she'd pursued), while crucifying her husband for his ONE affair with Camilla. An affair which began after the relationship with Diana had broken down. Moreover there's evidence to indicate it was Diana, not Charles, who cheated first.
Diana's goals in that notorious interview were purely vindictive. To destroy her husband's public image and elevate her own, by selling her supposed 'victim' status. She demonised not only her husband but also the British monarchy past, present and future, to achieve that. Never mind that her children were by blood senior figures within the monarchy, and that her eldest son's future role was dependant on its survival as a respected institution!
On a more human level, did Diana give no thought to the harm she would do her young children by publicly rubbishing their father in such an explosive way? William in particular suffered teasing at boarding school, after the Panorama interview aired. Good parents do not criticise the other parent to their children - least of all annihilate them on a global media platform!
Diana's hypocrisy and blatant self-interest in not wanting a divorce does not reflect well on her. She hadn't met a man she wanted to marry, and saw only a loss in her massive VIP status if she divorced. No doubt there was also spite involved, in not wanting her husband free to marry the woman who did love him! Yet in arranging the bombshell Panorama interview in which she publicly attacked her husband and questioned his credentials to be king, she made divorce inevitable. How could she expect the separation to go on indefinitely after that?
It was Diana's out of control ego and spite that brought about the divorce, and arguably set in motion events which ended in her death at 36 a year later. Ultimately Diana's vindictiveness and hate turned inwards on herself - as those nasty traits tend to do. She was the architect of her own doom.
2
-
2
-
@sandrakissack1332 So you knew the late Princess of Wales personally? Nah, didn't think so! You're just another sad, middle aged fan-girl who wants to believe in the 'Queen of Hearts' myth, and can't face the fact Diana dropped her drawers to anything with a pulse - and preferably with a wife too!
You're not interested in the truth, but I'll give it to you anyway just to raise your blood pressure, lol! If you're a genuine fan of the woman, you'll want to read the real story, warts and all.
Diana was a hypocrite and homewrecker, breaking up Will and Julia Carling's marriage for the sake of a giving a rugby star a few meaningless blow jobs. Diana's liaison with Carling was far too grubby to be termed an 'affair'. Julia Carling will tell you the truth about the Queen of Tarts, who shamelessly chased her husband and broke up her marriage before it even had a chance to survive. And all so Diana could entertain her pals over lunch at San Lorenzo, with stories of her exploits on her knees with a married celebrity. Cheap!
Worse was her determined campaign to wrestle lover Oliver Hoare from his wife Diane. But he became so bored of desperate Diana
nagging him to end his marriage, that instead he turned the tables and dumped her - prompting her to go nuclear with over 300 malicious phone calls to his home at all hours, 24-7. A mentally-ill woman scorned!
When Hoare came clean to his wife about the affair and they agreed to present a united front and report Diana to police, she got a very embarrassing home visit at Kensington Palace from two plain clothes Met police officers. It was their unfortunate duty to tell the Princess to back off and leave Mr and Mrs H alone, or, they warned her, the couple would press charges.
Diana's reaction? She not only point blank denied making the calls like a petulant child (the detectives told her the calls had been traced to her home and cellphone numbers, as well as to local payphones, so she was totally busted), she went much further. She actually blamed her eldest son William, saying he'd done it all as a 'schoolboy prank'. Obviously police knew her claim was totally preposterous - at the time of the calls William was just 11 years old!
So much for Diana the devoted mother. That her knee-jerk reaction when backed into a corner over harassing a married ex-lover was to blame her innocent child for her own appalling behaviour, shows exactly the kind of parent, and woman, she was!
The Hoares' gamble in calling the cops on Diana paid off, as not surprisingly her round the clock telephone harassment ended forthwith. Diana immediately desisted from her stalking campaign against the Hoares, desperately worried the whole ugly business might reach journalists' ears and tarnish her carefully cultivated, entirely fake image as the innocent, wronged wife (HA!).
Diana was right to be worried - the whole sordid story did get out! And what an incredible scoop it was for journalists like myself. It was the start of what would have been the unravelling of Diana's fake public image, had she lived in the greater scrutiny of the internet age and been exposed for the spiteful, vengeful hypocrite and narcissist she was. Ironically, dying young was a PR triumph for Diana, just as she was facing an uncertain future under the internet spotlight.
I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties and wrote many features on Charles and Diana, including the inside track on her stalking of Oliver Hoare. It was such a big scandal she was forced to answer a question about it during the BBC 'Panorama' interview. Without naming William, she again lied as she had previously done to police, and blamed the telephone harassment campaign on an unknown child, playing a prank.
The Hoares, the police, the media and even Diana's friends knew full well that SHE had made the calls, even parking up outside the Hoare family home and watching for the lights to come on as she rang from her mobile at 3am - before hanging up. She had played a very dangerous game stalking a married man, and given the public an unflattering, glimpse of the real Diana. There would have been much more of that to come, had she lived.
Whether the late Princesses' fans like it or not, my statements here are 100% fact, from reliable sources close to Charles and the late Diana - some intimately close. The people involved spoke to me on and off the record, and some became friends and trusted contacts.
Diana fans like you still cling to the myth she created of being some kind of 'victim', 25 years after her death. Pathetic really, when intelligent people were catching onto her lies and manipulation long before she died! Diana went into her marriage with her eyes wide open, hungry to grab the VIP status, fame, glamour and wealth that superstar role brought. When she and Charles discreetly separated after 5 years he returned to his old love Camilla and Diana embarked on multiple affairs with unsuitable men, frequently married. She was no innocent victim - she was bored to tears of Charles and couldn't care less about him and Camilla at Highgrove, while she was partying with umpteen different lovers in London! She only pretended Charles broke her heart to win public sympathy and a damaging PR war she launched against the father of her children.
Diana emerged from her divorce triumphant, with top VIP status, servants and a Kensington Palace home for life, plus £17 million in the bank. Some victim! The marriage had failed, as arranged marriages often do. But it was the making of Diana, giving her global stardom and delivering everything she hoped it would.
Single again at 35, she had every opportunity to meet a man who did make her happy, and live a productive life. But just one year after her divorce Diana made herself a victim by failing to fasten her seat belt and trusting the shady Al Fayeds with her safety and security. Two mistakes which together cost her her life.
Naturally her eldest son William loves his late mother, but he's a realist who after years of therapy knows her extreme narcissism damaged him psychologically. Unlike the fans who didn't know her at all, William fully understands how flawed she was, and how cruel and selfish she could be. Why do you think he champions the cause of mental health?
Thankfully in Catherine he chose a woman with all of the late Diana's glamour and charisma, but none of her destructive, self-indulgent neuroses. Unlike the late Princess Diana, Catherine is a fantastic, stable, loyal and loving wife and mother.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sandrakissack1332 You are quoting from Andrew Morton's fictitious pile of sub-Barbara Cartland garbage 'Diana - Her (Un) True Story', YET AGAIN! You swallowed Diana's self-invented, propaganda paperback, wholesale. Silly you!
That dumb story about 'Dutch' and the tea towels - YAWN! We've heard it a million times before, like Diana attaching huge drama to Charles' innocent throwaway remark about "whatever love means". It was the kind of silly, meaningless quip men - and especially aristocratic men - make all the time. Diana wasn't a bit bothered at the time, she only used it years later and blew it up as something it wasn't as a weapon to attack her ex with in her vicious media campaign against him.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Diana 'throwing herself down the stairs' while pregnant with William - another total fiction. But you 100% believe it because you saw it played out by actors in some crummy, made-for-TV movie about Charles and Di!
What did Camilla ever do to you to deserve such venom? Diana was done with Charles when they resumed their old romance. Diana was so bored of her husband she left him at Highgrove, Gloucestershire and moved back to live full time in London and party with umpteen lovers, many of them married like her. Diana packed her little boys off to boarding school, so she could have the run of Kensington Palace without two pesky children getting in the way!
If Diana was the 'wonderful mother' she told everyone she was, why not send her children to day school and keep them home with her? She could easily have chosen that option - instead she sent them away to boarding school aged just EIGHT!
William and Catherine have announced to their credit they won't be sending their children away to boarding school at that tender age, as poor William was sent - proving - if there was ever any doubt - that Catherine is a far better mother and woman than Diana ever was.
Diana effectively abandoned Charles after Harry's birth, she was bored sick of him - as she made obvious in front of the world's cameras on their joint public engagements. Her sour face was embarrassing and ignorant. If she hated him so much why didn't she divorce him?
But of course divorce was the last thing Diana wanted, as she made clear to journalist Martin Bashie. She was too fond of all the status and perks that came with being Charles' wife. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, sleeping with multiple boyfriends while enjoying the VIP status as wife to the Prince of Wales.
You think Charles should have stayed lonely and abandoned at Highgrove, without any female company? It's not like he was a womaniser, or had a string of different lovers as his wife Diana did! He understandably turned to Camilla, his old flame and trusted friend, for support. Camilla was also in a loveless marriage - and unlike Charles, her husband WAS a womaniser!
Who can blame Charles? He'd known Camilla for years and could rely on her confidence. He wasn't getting that support from his wife Diana - she was too busy throwing her knickers at any man with a pulse (and she wasn't even that fussy!)
It's hilarious you crucify Camilla for her ONE affair with a man who she went on to be happily married to, but you haven't a word of criticism for the promiscuous, immoral Diana, who knowingly chased and slept with umpteen men - and tried her hardest to end marriages, succeeding in ending at least one, Will Carling's.
Yet you imagine the dead princess as some sort of 'virginal innocent'. In truth Diana was a vindictive, scheming, promiscuous adulteress many times over - an ageing 'good time girl', and lousy wife and mother, who cared more about having a good time than remembering she was a parent and fastening her seat belt!
Shame dirty Diana died though. It would have been hilarious watching her get crazier, and more spitefully out of control, inevitably feuding with her sons and their wives while she morphed into Michael Jackson with endless cosmetic surgeries after turning 40!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariareginaschepp1998 Agreed - Prince Charles will be a good King, it's only the soppy, deluded Diana fans who say otherwise!
Diana fell out of love with her husband, left him in Gloucestershire while she moved back to London, and was sleeping around with umpteen different, unsuitable men, many of them married like her.
She had absolutely no conscience about chasing other women's husbands for casual sex, she did it multiple times! A 'Queen of Tarts' more than the 'Queen of Hearts' she talked about. Why wouldn't Prince Charles turn to his old friend Camilla for companionship and romance? Who can blame him in those terrible circumstances?
Diana was bored sick of Charles - as she made abundantly clear during their public appearances from the mid-'eighties onward! It was toxic and manipulative of her to pretend he cheated on her, and that she desperately loved and wanted him back. Truth is, she wasn't remotely heartbroken, in fact she couldn't care less what he did - or who with - while she was throwing her knickers to the wind with all her secret lovers at Kensington Palace.
Some naive Diana fans have wondered why, if Diana was such a devoted mother, she allowed her two little boys to be packed off to boarding school so young. The truth is she had hedonistic, sexual priorities far higher than motherhood. Having two young children under her size 7 feet when she wanted to entertain many different lovers was a headache she didn't need!
2
-
@keiyamcmorris9271 OMG if you really believe Diana was murdered by Prince Phillip, you shouldn't be allowed out - you should be in a strait-jacket! Quite apart from the fact he had no reason to want her dead (If Diana had a brain she'd be dangerous!) it would be very difficult to ensure someone's death in a car crash. How could Prince Phillip ensure the crash was fatal?
More to the point, how did he make her befriend the crooked Al Fayed family (and have an affair with Dodi), the main cause of the tragedy? How did Prince Phillip get the chauffeur drunk/drugged and also reckless, goading the paparazzi into a race? How did Prince Phillip make the driver choose the risky tunnel route?
Most importantly - how did Phillip make Diana decide not to wear her seat belt? And before you spout more crap, all the seat belts in the Mercedes were in full working order, as Diana's own sister Sarah confirmed - it was just very unlucky she didn't fasten hers that night, as she usually did. If she had only thought of her kids and taken a few seconds to do so, she would have survived the crash with a broken arm and bruises.
Oh, and do tell us why the elderly Prince Phillip, who had been very supportive to his daughter-in-law over her split from his son Charles, want to murder her? I guess you'll come out with the usual nonsense about him not wanting her to marry a Muslim. Diana had only been having a holiday fling with Dodi for a few weeks, she wasn't going to marry him in a million years, as she told close friends. The ring he gave her was going firmly on her right hand!
Diana thought the Arab playboy was fun, but not high status enough to marry - and she had fought hard to keep her Princess of Wales title in her divorce of a year earlier. She would not have given up the royal title that meant so much to her, for the likes of Dodi Al Fayed!
The truth is Diana killed Diana, with her own foolish choices, among them entrusting her personal security to the Al Fayed family. On her divorce, the Queen had offered her a world-class Scotland Yard security team for life, but she stupidly turned it down. And she sealed her fate that night, by failing to wear her seat belt. Diana's death at 36 in a stupid accident, was a needless tragedy entirely of her own making.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ZeldaZelda-RichesToRags You are presenting the same bogus argument that some use to suggest family annihilator Chris Watts' is innocent, and his mistress murdered his pregnant wife and children. Nope!
Chris Watts and Patrick Frazee are killers - their mistresses have certainly displayed immoral behaviour, but unlike their sociopath boyfriends they did not commit any murders.
You are letting evil men off the hook for their crimes, by seeking to blame their mistresses! It's a very ugly misogyny when even the vilest of crimes like those perpetrated by Watts and Frazee, are blamed on women.
Violent crime is overwhelmingly carried out by men, not women. Attack Krystal Lee Kenney all you like, I agree she has blood on her hands as she could and should have reported her boyfriend to law enforcement and saved Kelsey's life. But please keep the focus where it belongs - on the killer, Patrick Frazee. Nobody but Frazee had the motive or the means to murder Kelsey Berreth. She is dead because she was conned into trusting a highly dangerous and manipulative man - just as Shanann Watts was taken in by Chris Watts and his fake, 'nice guy' mask.
There are many parallels between the Frazee and the Watts murders. Both killers coldly pre-planned and carried out the murders and disposal of vulnerable people who loved and trusted them. And their motives were equally self-serving - to destroy people who had become an inconvenience to them (with future child access/payments major issues). Chris Watts and Patrick Frazee are both covert narcissists who secured new women to provide them with the emotional and practical support they need, before they killed the partner they had tired of.
They are highly dangerous, supremely manipulative and like all family annihilators, perfectly equipped to commit murder without feeling a moment's remorse or guilt. Men like these two are incapable of feeling love for other sentient beings. They have no idea what love is, in any real sense. But they know "I love you" means something important to others, so they learn to fake it to get what they want.
Without ever having loved their victims or made any emotional investment in them, Watts and Frazee regarded them as literally disposable once they had served their purpose. Murdering women and children who loved them was no more upsetting to these two evil males than swatting flies.
Chris Watts and Patrick Frazee fully expected to get away with their crimes - thankfully both men were wrong in their assumption they were smarter than police. Extreme narcissists, they never take responsibility for their crimes (nothing is ever a narcissist's fault), but seek to pin the blame on others.
Chris Watts initially blamed Shanann, the pregnant wife he strangled, for their children's murders, pretending he only killed her in retaliation. His lawyers eventually persuaded him to drop this nasty pretence that slandered his dead wife, as the evidence he killed all the victims was overwhelming! Patrick Frazee will no doubt try to persuade the jury his lover Krystal killed his fiancé Kelsey, and he had nothing to do with it. And no doubt the jury will see through that cynical ploy.
It's just a shame Watts and Frazee are still successfully manipulating people like you into believing that their heinous crimes were committed by women. These men are as evil as killers get - make no mistake about it, they acted alone and will both die behind bars like the circus freaks they are. No court on Earth can impose a punishment on Krystal Lee Kenney worse than the court of public opinion will! Her bad luck in falling for Frazee and her own despicable lack of moral fibre have sealed her fate. If she never serves a day in prison, the stench of this hideous crime will cling to her for the rest of her days.
2
-
2
-
2
-
We only have Maria's word (the word of a thief), that it wasn't her idea to retrieve her confession letter from the doctor's home, having had second thoughts about it, and that it wasn't her who 100% put her boyfriend up to committing that burglary.
And we only have her word for it that this was planned as a burglary to retrieve the letter, and wasn't actually the pre-planned assassination of Paul and Greg, two witnesses who knew she owed the doctor $9,000. That is actually a far more plausible explanation - or why break in at night, knowing the two men were there, asleep and vulnerable? The victims were not killed because they awoke - both men died in their beds. They were surely victims of a ruthless, cold-blooded hit.
I believe this was always a murder plot, so Maria wouldn't have to re-pay that money, or keep any of the empty promises she made in the letter, and so that the doctor couldn't scupper her future employment/workplace theft scams, with a poor reference - or even by reporting her to the police for the theft.
The more I learned about her and her self-pitying, self-serving ways, the more I suspect that's exactly how it went down - and she concocted a story about a burglary pushed by her boyfriend, which gave her as little responsibility as possible.
Had the doctor only fired her for stealing from him (as most employers would have done), he and his son would likely not have been murdered. How desperately sad that his kindness in forgiving her, and letting her keep her job, resulted in a far worse betrayal by her - and set in motion the murders of both himself, and his beloved son.
Never was the phrase 'No good deed goes unpunished', more true!
I was not impressed with the defence attorney's performance. Her speeches were poorly argued, and lacked eloquence. I'm amazed she won the jury over, especially after putting her client on the stand with that blatantly coached, cynical sob story of victim hood - which the prosecutor effortlessly exposed and ridiculed!
Maria was a lousy witness for herself and only confirmed her pity was of the 'poor me' variety, not for the two men who lost their lives solely because of her. I saw no evidence of remorse or sadness for the innocent victims - only regret that she got prosecuted!
Maria's murder acquittals were a hollow victory. Clearly the judge did not agree with the jury, and ensured that in spite of their not guilty murder verdicts, justice was delivered for the double homicide through the hefty, 30 year sentence he imposed. I somehow doubt Maria will leave prison alive. I think in the end, she got what she deserved. Paul and Greg did not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree he's 100% guilty but in truth he's fooled absolutely no one. He managed to dodge justice for three years all thanks to his VIP celebrity status and powerful friends in high places. This man has only ever experienced positive discrimination from his mixed race background!
For him to constantly play the race card and pretend the law was prejudiced against him for being black, is as outrageous a lie as his faked hate crime and the noose he put around his own neck!
But he deserves no Oscar - he's a lousy actor who didn't fool police, and didn't fool prosecutors, the judge or that jury! The fool was so deluded about his own talent, he really believed he could take the stand and persuade jurors of his innocence - his arrogance is off the chart!
But worst of all for Jussie Smollett - he didn't fool the public. It's the court of public opinion that really counts for celebrities - and he blew it. He's a joke, finished as any kind of public figure. He's toxic as all hell, no charity or good cause will let him within a mile of them. And as is now abundantly clear, he really isn't talented enough to resurrect any kind of big acting career.
It's frankly astonishing he ever landed a $2 million a year TV contract, on such limited acting ability. Which again indicates he's used to pulling strings and getting unfair advantages from powerful contacts. He's no Denzel Washington or Samuel L Jackson - that he believed he was as talented as those black superstars and deserved their level of fame, so faked an horrific racial assault as a short-cut to it, shows exactly how deluded he is!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vijayabs2266 Diana was never good enough to marry royalty. Once she'd done the big wedding and popped out two children to ensure her position as mother to the future king, she reverted to type, throwing her knickers to the wind with a long list of men. And her speciality was bedding other women's husbands!
Diana's sons William and Harry dodged a bullet when she died. She would have been a thorn in their sides, too vain and narcissistic to achieve a happy marriage, and madly jealous of their younger more beautiful wives taking all the media attention from her.
I'm sad she died young actually - an ageing and desperate Diana, going to more and more extreme lengths to look young and get attention, would have been quite entertaining! She'd have overdone the plastic surgery and become a pathetic specimen, had she lived.
And the irony is if she had lived and lost her looks, shallow idiots like you who worship her glamorous image, would have lost interest in her many years ago! Mother Theresa was a truly great and selfless woman, who nursed the sick and dying around the clock without complaint. But you wouldn't defend her because she didn't wear make up, high heels or short skirts!
2
-
2
-
@vijayabs2266 And while you're seeking out those English language classes, find some anger management classes too.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything what would be the point - you're crazy and you don't speak English!
Camilla and Charles made a happy marriage, something selfish, promiscuous, narcissistic, lobotomised, in-bred Sloane Diana would never have achieved. If she'd only given her two little boys a single thought that night and fastened her seat belt, she'd be alive today and still chasing men as an arthritic pensioner!
Watching desperate Di throw herself at younger men, closely resembling Michael Jackson after umpteen face lifts, and still as resentful as hell of her ex husband's happy marriage, would have been utterly hilarious!
Oh Diana, you daft bat. If only you'd loved your children enough to wear your seat belt, you'd still be alive and giving us so many laughs today!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diana was photogenic - big deal, she certainly was not beautiful on the inside where it counts! She was only too thrilled to marry the Prince of Wales and become a pampered princess with a team of servants at her beck and call and limitless wealth and privilege. She had no qualifications despite her expensive private education, and absolutely no career ambition but to marry a rich man. She hit the jackpot when Prince Charles proposed - he gave her every perk and privilege she valued most in her life.
The marriage failed because the couple were not compatible - many arranged marriages fail. But Diana was hell bent on blaming Charles, and wouldn't accept any fault whatsoever - ridiculous, childish and petty. She was no innocent, wronged wife as she pretended - and certainly no victim! Her ruthless pursuits of married men, and utterly hypocritical attacks on the husband who gave her everything she held dear - her fame, wealth and VIP privilege - show exactly who she was. A self-obsessed, narcissistic and totally immoral serial adulterer.
I am so sick of reading Diana's ancient, self-pitying lies and anti-Charles propaganda re-heated by her fans for the umpteenth time! We've heard all the stories before in her sly, self promoting Andrew Morton book and the disastrous 'Panorama' interview. Those of us who know better - or have the intelligence to work it out for ourselves - dismissed the promiscuous princess's stories for the self-serving garbage they are, decades ago!
2
-
These males become dangerous because they are molly-coddled by parents growing up, who don't lay down and instil clear boundaries and expectations for good behaviour, and respecting others. Parents who don't like saying 'no' to their little brats, or see their son's inadequacies and think denying those inadequacies by spoiling him (throwing money at the problem), will turn them into more impressive men. There is often an absent father the boy never knew.
The boy becomes a dangerously entitled, lazy and narcissistic man who never worked hard to amount to anything. So he's resentful of others who have worked to achieve good things in their lives, like respect, prestigious careers, good incomes and nice possessions.
We saw it with mass school shooter Nicolas Cruz, Darrell Brooks who murdered innocent people mowing them down in his mother's car (never had a job so didn't own a vehicle himself). Sometimes these man-child narcissists kill the parents who moulded them - typically when the parents say no to them 20 years too late (in this category are Joel Guy Jr, Chandler Halderson and Grant Amato). Society has got to start addressing the way it is raising boys!
2
-
Agreed, this panel was an absolute joke - they all spouted the same ill-informed, stupid baloney about Camilla. A panel is supposed to present contrasting views, or what's the damn point?!
They failed to acknowledge Diana didn't even want to be Queen, as she admitted herself in the infamous 'Panorama' interview! (She batted her eyelashes and simpered that she wanted to be 'Queen of People's Hearts' - when in reality, she was the Queen of Tarts, sneaking around/sleeping around with any man with a pulse - and frequently, a wedding ring).
Of course Diana didn't want to be Queen. Being Queen would have meant being a loving, faithful, supportive wife to Charles - which she was equally unwilling to be!
Diana wanted out of that arranged marriage every bit as much as Charles. She was no innocent, wronged wife, as she pretended, just to crucify Charles and Camilla, play the victim and win public sympathy. She was horribly manipulative, and as vindictive as Hell!
Had she lived, it's highly doubtful she'd have re-married - Diana could never be a loving supportive wife, as Camilla is to Charles. And of course a marriage would have meant Diana forfeiting the 'Princess of Wales' title she fought tooth and nail to keep in her divorce (and was generously given by Charles, though she was not entitled to it).
I was expecting Christopher Biggins to defend Camilla, but instead he was utterly spineless and just parroted the same garbage the two dumb women did about what a 'wonderful' person Diana was. What rot!
No mention by anyone of Diana's umpteen affairs - do they think we are all stupid, or perhaps have dementia?! What a joke - do MUCH better than this garbage GB News, for Gawd's sake!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TF80s We're not talking about whether or not someone's 'the life and soul of the party'. That's not the point. We're talking about the way a person of power & influence - which by their very definition, TV celebrities are - treats those who are lower than them in the pecking order.
I know first hand that Eamonn Holmes passes that test with flying colours - Phillip Schofield does not, and many people share my view his comeuppance has been a long time coming!
I never said Eamonn is a saint - who is? I praised him for being a decent person to work with and a man of integrity, speaking up for those less powerful, silenced and bullied by a toxic, corrupt culture at ITV. That is admirable, in my book.
Presumably you are not a personal friend of Eamonn Holmes, so I've no idea why you feel it's appropriate to criticise him, entirely speculatively, over his split from his first wife Gabrielle almost 30 years ago! Having a failed marriage does not automatically make you a villain. I know he retained a civil relationship with his ex Gabrielle and their three, now adult children, as does his present wife Ruth Langsford (who he married a full 16 years after that break up).
Unlike Phillip Schofield's cynically exploited and it now turns out bogus image as a faithful family man, Eamonn Holmes is the genuine article. What's more, he's never done anything to shame or humiliate his kids, as Schofield has (one of Schofield's daughters had hopes of a TV career - now jeopardised by his appalling conduct).
Again I'm unclear why you've taken Anthea Turner's side in the decades-ago falling out between her and Holmes at GMTV? He went public on her diva behaviour - which again I have experienced personally from working with her at the BBC in the mid 'nineties, the height of her fame. He's right - she's another spoiled, egotistical nightmare like Schofield, who thinks she's better than everyone else, and treats production staff like dirt - not even bothering to learn colleagues' names! Eamonn is no hypocrite. He speaks as he finds and doesn't collude in protecting and propping up celebrity narcissists. Unfortunately when people are constantly pandered to they can become demanding, dangerously entitled monsters - in over 20 years working in TV, I've seen it happen a million rimes!
There's an old saying which holds true for every walk of life - including television: "Always judge a person by the way they treat someone who can be of no use to them". Eamonn is kind - Schofield most certainly is not. I've no idea why anyone would want to defend him - except perhaps, his mother! And my heart goes out to that poor, elderly lady, with both her sons bringing shame (and journalists) to her door, over separate sex scandals involving young boys. Horrendous.
2
-
The police made it clear very early on they were not treating this as a hate crime. Some people are jumping to that conclusion, purely because the victim was a trans identified teenage boy. Predictably this tragedy has been exploited by trans activists, to push the gender-cult agenda.
As is currently being explained in court, the two killers, a boy and a girl now aged 16, shared an obsession with sadistic violence. They had, over a long period of years, discussed in detail murdering five different school friends, by various horrific methods. They would watch torture videos together, and encourage each other's perverted fetish for violence. Autism may have been a factor in their unhealthy, obsessional conduct.
In the end Brianna was the victim, but there's no evidence to suggest being a trans identified male was any kind of factor. The motive was the violent crime itself, and the killers' blood lust. They are now each seeking to each blame the other for the murder - I have no doubt the jury will see though that ruse!
2
-
2
-
And if Diana had only given her two dependant children a thought when she was running around Paris with an Arab playboy and fastened her seat belt, she would still be alive. But that wasn't her only fatal mistake.
Diana refused the Queen's generous divorce offer of a world class, Scotland Yard trained security team (bodyguards and driver) for life, a year before her death. The Queen felt as mother to the future king, Diana deserved that top level of personal protection. But Diana peevishly turned her offer down. Had she accepted - or even hired her own security team with the whopping £17 million divorce settlement she got from Charles - Diana would not have put her safety into the hands of the shady, totally untrustworthy Al Fayed family.
Diana died that night because she trusted untrustworthy people with her security, and failed to fasten her seat belt. She wasn't in love with Dodi and certainly wouldn't have considered him good enough to marry. She was only using him to get paparazzi shots into the UK papers to make Hasnat Khan, her real love, jealous. Heart surgeon Khan had ended their 2 year relationship just weeks before, in June 1997. Diana was devastated - and hoped to win him back. Dodi was merely a rebound fling she hoped would reunite her with Khan, there was no more to the holiday romance than that.
Mohammed Al Fayed lied that Diana and Dodi were not only engaged, but that Diana was pregnant. It was garbage - a close pal of Diana's was with her during her last period and knew she could not possibly be pregnant. And when interviewed by police after her death, Hasnat Khan said he doubted she could be pregnant, as she always took her contraceptive pills. But Mohammed Al Fated told many self-serving lies to distract from the fact he provided a drunk, drugged and reckless chauffeur, whose terrible driving that night killed the princess aged 36 and his own son aged 42. Al Fayed may not publicly acknowledge that guilt, but he must live with it for the rest of his life.
2
-
@CharvonR You provided a pretty accurate assessment of the arranged marriage between Charles and Diana, and her drama queen, 'poor little victim', innocent, wronged wife act after the marriage inevitably failed. Divorces happen all the time, that's life. It's not the tragedy Diana pretended, to win public sympathy for herself.
She went into the marriage with her eyes fully open, wanting the prestige and glamour of being Princess of Wales. She loved the limelight and adulation being a senior royal gave her! Though she never once acknowledged it, Diana would have been nothing without the British royal family - just another airhead aristocrat's daughter, without a single qualification to her name, likely divorced from a banker. She was so self-involved and narcissistic, it's doubtful she'd have been a good wife to anyone. You've only to see footage of her joint foreign tour with Charles in 1991 when she didn't conceal her total contempt for him, to know she was done with her husband and wanted out of their relationship just as much as he did!
She emerged from her divorce with a £17 million settlement, two fine sons, a Kensington Palace apartment, a senior royal title (she remained Princess of Wales), and top VIP status for life. Some victim!
The way she publicly crucified Charles for his one affair with a woman he loved (and went on to marry), when she was having umpteen meaningless sexual flings - many with married men - before the marriage ended, was rank hypocrisy!
Camilla was a mistress to Charles only - but Diana was a mistress many times over. And she had a very nasty kink for chasing other women's husbands. Ask Susan Mannakee, Diane Hoare and Julia Carling, whose husbands Diana ruthlessly bedded, what they think of the self styled 'Queen of Hearts' ('Queen of Tarts', surely?!)
Diana's promiscuity makes Camilla look like the Virgin Mary!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I can't believe the feisty Joan Collins is running scared of the men in dresses! Very disappointed. In 2022, extremist trans rights are trampling over women's rights, and public figures like her should be speaking out (as JK Rowling does), NOT zipping her lip and doing her "I'm alright Jack" act.
Comedian Ricky Gervais just did an hilarious stand up routine about the fact that today, there are literally men walking round with beards and penises claiming to be women - and if you contradict them, you're branded a bigot! Trans supposed 'rights' have now got so out of hand, they are now about pandering to the delusions of a tiny minority of males. Human beings cannot change sex, no mammal can. There are only two sexes. These are irrefutable biological facts!
The definition 'Woman' is specific to adult human females, it does not include males - however they 'identify'. A woman does not have a penis, any more than a man has a cervix! Even senior politicians like Labour leader Keir Starmer won't say what a woman is - and his late mother was an NHS nurse! (She must be spinning in her grave). If you can't say what a woman is, how can you protect women's rights?
Trans activists are demanding that male bodied 'trans women' share women's legally-enshrined, single sex public spaces with them eg ladies' toilets, changing rooms, prisons, domestic violence shelters, etc. But as soon as you allow 'trans women' into single sex spaces, they're no longer single sex!
This is already being exploited by sexual predators, for whom a bogus 'trans woman' identity is the perfect Trojan Horse disguise to access women and child victims. Last year a female patient was raped on a so-called female-only hospital ward. Police investigated, and when they spoke to the hospital were initially told the lady must be lying, as there were 'no men' on that ward. Of course hospital staff later admitted there WAS a man on the ward - a be-penised, trans identified man (a supposed 'trans woman'), who had been treated as though he were a woman - with horrific consequences for that poor woman.
Even 10 years ago, no one would have argued a man with a penis should be taken seriously if he called himself a woman. 10 years ago, trans identified men sexually attracted to women would not have been taken seriously if they called themselves 'lesbians' - and worse, demanded actual lesbians date them, or be attacked as 'bigots'!
Just 10 years ago, the public assumed trans women were men who had either had their penis and testicles removed, or were planning to have surgery to lose them, due to body dysphoria. 10 years ago, we could not have predicted that in the near future, 90% of British trans identified males would be fully male bodied with no intention of losing their functioning male genitals - making them an obvious potential danger to females.
Dame Joan Collins has two daughters - doesn't she care about the effect on them and their daughters of the new trans war on women??? What a spineless let down she turned out to be!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
SNL must be upfront - is it a comedy show, or political propaganda? There is no place for flattering politicians of any party, on a topical, satirical comedy show!
Above all, this is a huge missed opportunity by SNL. Kamala Harris is a rich seam to mine for laughs:. The fake-profound, circular word salad statements that mean nothing whatsoever.
Her embarrassing, ghetto 'down with the kids' schtick when she's addressing a 20-something. And of course, that horrific mirthless, open-mouthed cackle, which somehow entirely convulses her entire body (nothing's that funny).
If SNL continues to miss this open target, they are missing the joke of the century!
2
-
2
-
@smtrav170 Yep she's bad not mad - no question. Fact is, other prisoners will need to be protected from this vicious freak (and prison staff must take care of themselves/colleagues too!)
I sincerely hope whichever high security prison takes her, has prepared for her arrival and is taking steps to keep the female inmates safe. It is not a legitimate part of any prisoner's punishment, to be exposed to violent, unhinged nut jobs like her. Taylor Schabusiness is an extremely dangerous, sadistic psychopath. She will kill again if she's given the chance - the power of the kill excites her.
A normal human being would not be capable of dismembering another human, and certainly couldn't kill for sick kicks, as this woman did. For most, the act of cutting off someone's head, arm, foot etc, as Schabusiness did (plus pulling out the victim's heart, liver and major organs), would literally make them retch and vomit. She clearly had no problem with any of that!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I believe the evidence against Wendi is inevitably more obscure, because her mom and brother Charlie worked hard to keep her at arms length from the dirty business of arranging the murder-for-hire of her ex husband. In protecting Wendy from consequences, Charlie and now Donna, screwed themselves, and will die behind bars.
However there's every indication prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to build a strong case against Wendi for murder. They know they must bring their A-game, as Wendi is an attorney, and will hire the best defence team her late husband's money can buy.
They've certainly had plenty of time to prepare, a whole decade to be precise, and I hope once her mom Donna is convicted, they will turn their attention to Wendi and score the hat-trick - the three Adelson family members who together arranged Dan's assassination, convicted and jailed for life.
Donna's husband Harvey, like Wendi, has been named by prosecutors as a conspirator, and it may well be that they prosecute him next, and save Wendi for last. The public will be disappointed if that happens - there is huge outrage that Wendi Adelson, the main beneficiary and driving force behind the murder, is still walking free ten years on and got her wish, to raise Dan's sons without him. Many people are on the edge of their seats, awaiting her arrest and conviction for his murder. Prosecutors know this, and there is immense pressure on them to act - but they must get it right. Wendi is an arch manipulator and she will fight all the way to stay out of prison!
I think it's safe to say with her mom's imminent murder trial following on from her brother's life sentence, Wendi must feel like the walls are closing in on her, and the day of her arrest is getting ever closer. In recent years she has turned her back on Charlie and her parents, out of ruthless self-preservation, and has little to do with them. As a result, her parents have missed out on seeing their grandsons, as well as their only daughter. They are angry about it.
It's ironic that they killed Dan so their family could all live together and raise his boys, and yet the murder has caused the opposite to happen - they are pretty much estranged, and will ultimately be permanently parted, in separate prisons!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AlexAndra-iy5zu Al was having a workplace affair with a military colleague called Linda, when Gannon was murdered. He certainly had not started divorce proceedings - and Letecia had no idea he was cheating.
However she had noticed his growing indifference to her, after 5 years of marriage. He should have started divorce proceedings. It would have been straightforward, as they did not share any children, and Letecia's only child by a previous relationship, Harley Hunt, was 17 and almost an adult. But instead Al chose to continue to exploit her as a free childminder, while he went off on supposed work trips, to see his married lover.
Letecia's growing anger and frustration at her failing marriage was turned on poor Gannon. Al had to know she was abusive, and that Gannon was the frequent target of her rage. Gannon's schoolfriends knew his stepmother disliked him - so how could Al not?
But Al turned a blind eye to her abuse, and worse, he backed her in any conflicts she had with his kids, to give himself an easy life. Poor Gannon was even punished in the days before his murder, when, with Al's telephone agreement, Letecia banned him from playing on his 'Switch' due to him burning the carpet.
I wonder how Al feels about that decision now? He didn't want to rock the boat with his volatile wife, she was a useful babysitter. What's more, his lover was a married woman and not free to make a future with him, so it suited him to maintain the status quo - no matter what was happening at home to his kids, while he was away.
Had Al Stauch only been a man, and more importantly, a father, and kicked that abusive witch out of the marital home, Gannon would be alive today. Instead, it took Gannon's murder to finally, belatedly prompt his father to launch divorce proceedings against Letecia. Too late to benefit poor Gannon.
2
-
Great special report. The Stephen Smith Case stinks to high heaven of corruption and cover up of a Homophobic hate crime! If Stephen's own family don't believe it was a hit and run, nor do I!
Buster Murdaugh does not give off heterosexual vibes, despite him flaunting his girlfriend on camera at every opportunity during Dad Alex Murdaugh's recent trial for murdering his Mom and brother Paul! There is ZERO chemistry between Buster and his lady. But Buster gives every impression of being a gay man hiding in the closet, desperate for sexual adventures with other gay men.
At just 19, Stephen Smith was a brave, out and proud Gay man. He wasn't reckless - he was very much aware of his vulnerability to violence, as a Gay man. I accept his Mom's assertion he would not have walked in the middle of the road that night.
If I was a gambler, I'd say there was a romantic relationship between the handsome and unapologetically gay Stephen Smith, and far less attractive (but celebrated) firmly in the closet, Buster Murdaugh. That was a relationship that could never emerge into the daylight. We know enough about the Murdaugh family, to say with authority - they would not tolerate a gay member of the family.
Buster would never have 'come out' to his parents. The fear of being ;outed' against his will for his relationship with Stephen Smith could well be ample motive for murder.
I believe Smith was murdered to cover up his sexual relationship with Buster. This was no damn hit and run! 🙄🙄Vinny Politan is 100% right - a hit and run makes no sense whatsoever! The location of his body alone, his wallet in the car not carried when he wa supposedly walking for gas, and the lightening fast processing by a funeral parlour, is suspicious!
Medical professionals were convinced from the start it was a murder. I hope justice will prevail for Stephen and his heartbroken family.
2
-
Joe Biden needs to GO. 👏👏👏👏👏
NO QUESTION and NO DELAY! If he cares a damn about his country, public service, and above all his Democrat Party, as he claims, he will now withdraw.
He's an major embarrassment. His recent, woeful, 90-minute LIVE, TV head-to-head Democrat/Republican face-off against Donald Trump was a DISASTER, which fully exposed his weaknesses.
We might forgive Joe Biden his delusions - but his wife and adult children, who have encouraged them to keep him in power, cannot be so easily forgiven/ That they are standing back and watching their 'loved one' make a fool of himself is unforgivable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm amazed anyone agreed to socialise with this unspeakable scumbag after he served time (a paltry 3 years) for attempting to murder his previous girlfriend in a sickening knife attack!
Presumably they all knew about his attempted murder conviction, as his girlfriend (the late) Kay Baker was an old flame who re-connected with him during his trial for that atrocity! That previous partner only survived his repeated, vicious knife attacks through her quick wits, huge good luck, and the incredible work of medical professionals.
That attempted murder could so easily have been a murder. And as murder was clearly his intention, he should have been imprisoned for life to stop him killing any other women. But waddayano - he gets out after serving just 3 years behind bars. And within just 2 years of being a free man, he repeats the attack on his next girlfriend, mom of two Kay Baker. And this time, because he's had practice and learned from his mistakes, he succeeds and kills her (this time he cut her throat to the spinal column).
Let's hope this cowardly, woman murdering POS meets some REAL men in prison!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joebaby1975 Fascinating post! It's very worrying isn't it - we seem to be breeding a new generations of entitled, narcissistic adults, the 'selfie' generation.
I was raised to put the other person first, to hang back, be polite and let people around me get first dibs on everything. A child raised that way today would be trampled underfoot by the majority, who absolutely aren't raised that way, but with a 'dog eat dog' mentality. To be selfish and self obsessed is encouraged - all this ghastly pouting young girls do with their ever more posed and photoshopped selfies - it's out of control!
And the internet has created so much harsh judgement of these kids - about the most shallow things in life, like their appearance and materialistic stuff, owning the latest technology/designer clothes etc.
I'm glad I don't have kids, I fear for them with all the cyber bullying that goes on, and also the easy access to vile, sadistic woman-hating online porn that most see before they are even 10 years old!
Grant Amato is a real cautionary tale in this respect, a 29-year-old man-child who sat in the police interrogation room like a spoiled brat, without taking responsibility for murdering his family or shedding a single tear of remorse.
A grown man of almost 30, living with parents, out of work cause he got fired from his job for stealing, bankrolled by them and wasting his days playing computer games and flirting with an imaginary trophy girlfriend he knows he will never meet. Oh and sending her his parents $200k retirement fund, so he could pretend to be a millionaire businessman!
At the same age, his father Chad was working hard in a responsible career as a pharmacist, had married a flesh and blood woman, started a family and bought a house. I fear young women today are being faced with more and more of these inadequate, 'man-child' males like Grant, who are incapable of being good husbands or fathers. Takers who never grow up and stand on their own two feet, but instead feel entitled to pimp money off others. And the more extreme cases like Grant are so spoiled and inadequate, they even feel entitled to kill when those people decide to stop their payments!
Rant over - lol! Happy Tuesday. XXX
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very true. Tell that to Diana, whose ruthless pursuit of other women's husbands ended at least one marriage - Will Carling's - and threatened many more. Diana's kink for men wearing a wedding ring was truly grotty.
That she pointed the finger at Camilla for being mistress to one man she wound up marrying, when she herself had umpteen casual sexual flings with married men, was typical of Diana's rank hypocrisy and manipulation!
It's a great shame Diana hadn't lived and become the ridiculous older woman, desperately trying to hang on to her looks - her only real asset - that was her destiny.
Diana would have become more and more ridiculous and undignified with the years, increasingly angry and petulant as her son's younger, more attractive wives took the limelight away from her. Her tantrums, family estrangements (she was bound to fall out with her sons at some point), failed romances and cosmetic surgeries, would have exposed her for what she always was. A sly, devious, self-serving narcissist.
The public would then have seen the real Diana. But in dying young, many are still fooled by her 'poor little innocent victim' act. How foolish Diana fans are!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed. I believe Richard Allen is guilty, on the balance of probabilities - but his defence should be allowed to cite the flawed police investigation and their mistakes like the second, much younger sketch with looks nothing like Allen.
Richard Allen admitted from the start he was 'Bridge Guy', ie the man Libby recorded on her Smartphone stalking her and Abby across the bridge that day (brave girl). He even accurately described the clothes he was wearing - which, surprise, surprise, were exactly the same clothes seen on the stalker in the video.
Allen obviously freaked out after seeing those images of himself all over TV news/social media, and was afraid he would be recognised by someone, and identified to police. He also knew several female witnesses had seen him there that day. He decided to 'get in front' of the story by presenting himself to the authorities as an innocent witness, rather than the guilty killer he was.
I bet he couldn't believe his luck when the police never followed up with him after his admission, leaving him alone for a staggering 5 years while they chased false leads like a load of headless chicken!
It was sheer incompetence by law enforcement. Indiana Police, under the utterly useless Supt Doug Carter, should be held fully accountable for that and other big mistakes in their flawed investigation (eg the second, useless younger suspect sketch/age estimate announced to media fanfare in 2019, and the 'Anthony Shotts' online profile, that turned out to be yet another disastrous red herring). Police mistakes allowed this highly dangerous sex killer to walk free for five years.
Even after prosecutor Nick McLeland announced the murder charges against Richard Allen in late 2022, he was telling the assembled news media about 'other actors', ie suggesting Allen may have an accomplice, and that there could be further arrests. There have been none - Allen acted alone.
McLeland's talk of 'other actors' right after charging Allen is a huge embarrassment for the prosecution, and will no doubt be exploited to the max by the Defence. It proves the police were still all over the place, hadn't got their theory straight about the crime very late in the day. They still wrongly believed Keegan Kline, the paedophile behind the cat-fishing 'Anthony Shotts' profile Libby had been chatting with online, was in some way connected with Allen. He never was. There are umpteen online predators like Kline chatting to young girls like Libby - sadly it wasn't remotely unusual. However they are not automatically child killers!
Of course Allen is guilty - and there would be no doubt about it from the naysayers, if the Keystone Cops had only arrested him when he first came forward and identified himself, just days after the double homicide. But because the police ran such a disastrous murder investigation, it's allowed misinformation and conspiracy theories to flourish.
The motive was clearly sexual, as confirmed by the fact the girls were both naked at various points during the crime. It was an opportunist abduction, assault and murder. Allen knew the Monon trails were a popular beauty spot with walkers, and was looking to commit sexual violence on a female victim that day. Vulnerable teens Abby and Libby happened to cross paths with him, in a tragic case of 'wrong place, wrong time'.
But Richard Allen deserves a fair trial and I'm not convinced this judge is showing wisdom in her pro-prosecution rulings, or her total ban on broadcast from the court.
2
-
@papillionbella You soppy, post-menopausal Diana fans are hilarious! Camilla was mistress to the love of her life Prince Charles, who she went on to marry. No shame in that - they are still happily married to this day, and her stepsons William and Harry adore her.
In contrast, Diana had umpteen grubby, meaningless, extra-marital shags with different men (her particular kink was other women's husbands - YUK). She would never have achieved a successful marriage, as Charles and Camilla have done. Diana's narcissism, ego and self-absorption ruled that out.
A loyal mistress like Camilla is far classier than a self-serving tramp like Diana, who dropped her drawers to anything in trousers, and even introduced her innocent little boys to her sexual conquests, among them James Hewitt and rugby player Will Carling.
There are photos of her poor sons shaking hands with their mother's lovers, totally oblivious to that fact. She cynically used her children to throw the media off the scent of her many affairs, she was totally shameless! Poor William and Harry had to grow up realising their mother was a promiscuous airhead, who never formed a committed relationship after their father, and had so many flings she should have had revolving doors fitted to her bedroom.
The hypocrisy of Diana acting the innocent, wronged wife, and pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, when SHE was boffing anything with a pulse, is breath taking!
The Panorama interview she secretly set up to stab her husband in the back and sabotage him becoming King, really took the biscuit. Talk about spiteful! Diana batted her mascaraed, pantomime dame lashes at the TV camera like butter wouldn't melt, and talked about "Three people in her crowded marriage", when she knew damn fine it was in reality a cast of thousands and considerably more crowded than she let on thanks to all her casual lays!
True to form, she died because she was yet again throwing her knickers to the wind, this time, fatally, with a low-class Arab playboy, who was only using her for her royal status. Diana was so dumb and easily flattered, she couldn't even see when she was being played by the crooked Al Fayeds! They shafted her in every sense of the word.
How gullible are you to swallow the self-styled 'Queen of hearts' self pity party? You'd obviously be easy prey to a scheming narcissist like Diana in real life - be careful out there!
2
-
The soppy deluded Diana fans are behind this daft trolling of Camilla. These fools refuse to face the fact their idol Diana had umpteen cheap, adulterous affairs (many with married men like the newlywed rugby star Will Carling whose early divorce she caused, and Charles' old school friend Oliver Hoare - who she stalked with 300+ silent phone calls when he dumped her).
Diana said herself, she did not want to be Queen! Of course she didn't - that would have meant being a faithful, supportive wife to Charles, a role she wanted even less. The failure of the marriage was entirely mutual - Charles and Diana simply weren't compatible. He bored Diana to tears - as she made embarrassingly obvious to the world, on their joint public appearances from the late 'eighties. Yet she bleated to the media that he and Camilla had broken her heart - What rot! She couldn't care less, she was far too busy sleeping/sneaking around with multiple unsuitable lovers, to give a damn what Charles did.
As the marriage failed, Diana jumped into bed with a procession of unsuitable men - Charles turned only to his old flame and true love Camilla, who was also trapped in a miserable marriage with a self-obsessed, bed-hopping spouse. Charles and Camilla are a love match. Had she lived, Diana was highly unlikely to have found a life-partner she could be content with. For one thing, re-marrying would have meant giving up the 'Princess of Wales' title she fought tooth and nail to keep in her divorce - and was generously given by Charles, though as a divorcee she had absolutely no right to it!
Camilla however does love Charles, and unlike the vain and vacuous Diana, she's happy to be a supportive wife - not seeking public praise, or vying with him for headlines and popularity. Diana's ruthless narcissism and ego as she declared war on Charles and fought to be the most popular, were utterly toxic and pathetic!
Marriages fail - that's life. It's not the tragedy Diana pretended, for sympathy and to play the victim and crucify her ex. Diana has been dead for over a quarter of a century, and while she was pretty and charming, she was also deeply flawed, vindictive and manipulative. It's high time everyone stopped buying into a dead woman's myth, and saw Diana as she really was. Camilla is a great human being, and unlike Diana, she is a woman's woman. I know who I would choose to go on a girls' night out with - and it ain't the vain, vacuous and horrible self-obsessed Diana!
2
-
2
-
100% Robert Wagner put her in that dark water to die the death she had always feared. He's an abusive monster who killed his wife in a jealous rage over her flirtation with the younger, sexier Christopher Walken. His story about her going on deck alone in the dark, in her nightclothes, to 'tie up a banging dinghy', then slipping, knocking herself out and falling in the sea, is pure invention.
Neither of the other two men on board that night heard any such 'banging dinghy'. And besides, if a job needed to be done on deck, Natalie would have instructed her employee to do it, not gone up in her nightie and done it herself! No one has confirmed Wagner's explanation, it's a total fairy tale. Witnesses saw the couple's final confrontation on the deck, and bruises on her face and body confirm the ugly truth. A toxic combination of jealous rage, revenge, fear of abandonment and alcohol, combined to fuel his violent and ultimately fatal attack on his petite wife.
After 9 years, the couple's second marriage was on the rocks, and Natalie was talking about divorce. Abuse victims are frequently killed after they leave, or threaten to leave, their abuser. I don't believe this highly suspicious spousal death is any different. That Wagner waited over an hour before he raised the alarm that she was missing from the boat, ludicrously claiming she'd taken the dinghy to shore, alone in the dark, confirms his callous disregard for her safety. I think he wanted her dead because she no longer wanted him - the classic 'If I can't have you, no one else will'.
It's outrageous Robert Wagner was able to intimidate police with his star power and expensive lawyers. Law enforcement should have investigated him as prime suspect in his wife's suspicious death from day one. If they had only done their jobs properly, Natalie might have got the justice she so deserved! #JusticeForNatalie
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lancashite Police are the lowest of the low. It's plainly obvious they've entered victim-blaming territory, to take the heat off their own obvious failings in this case. After serving armed police officer Wayne Couzens abducted and murdered a woman last year (and other heinous incidents of police misogyny), women have no reason whatsoever to trust the police!
Nicola Bulley's menopause is totally irrelevant to the search for her. Nor are her drinking habits important - she was clearly a fully functioning citizen, taking her kids to school, walking her dog, and holding down a responsible job!
There may be no evidence of foul play or third party involvement, as the police keep telling us - but neither is there any evidence she went into that river! The Keystone Cops clearly seized on her recent, confidential medical issues, and used them as confirmation bias of their premature conclusion she drowned.
Would she really have jumped into that river and abandoned her beloved dog, off the leash? Would she have committed suicide during a conference call to her employer? It simply doesn't add up. There is insufficient evidence to be sure this woman drowned herself, and police should consider foul play as a very real possibility. Because guess what, menopausal women who like a drink can be abducted the same as non menopausal teetotallers can. The circumstances of her disappearance are VERY suspicious!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Marie Hackett Gabby certainly didn't 'win', when she was conned into a relationship with a manipulative covert narcissist who viciously took her life at just 22. Her killer's subsequent death was as a direct result of his own wicked crime, so he certainly deserves no sympathy, least of all understanding!
It's now crystal clear Brian Laundrie's parents knew exactly what their son had done to Gabby Petito, a defenceless young woman who had shared their home for 2 years. Yet they ruthlessly closed ranks, hired a lawyer, shut their mouths and protected him from the consequences of his obscene violence against a woman who loved and trusted him. They callously ignored her family's desperate phone and text messages, knowing full well her body lay rotting out in the open where their son had dumped it - before driving home in her van, and stealing $1,000 of her money en route. Hardly a son who deserves protection!
I wish more women were clued up about the realities of narcissistic behaviour, which is seen in its most extreme form in the men who abuse and kill women. Such males (and domestic abusers are overwhelmingly male), typically kill the woman when she ends or talks about ending the relationship. Brian Laundrie's well documented controlling and possessive behaviour is textbook. I believe he was always afraid Gabby would leave him, and the pressures of the 'Van Life' road trip escalated his abuse of her and brought his fears and insecurity to a head.
It's great that people are learning about narcissistic abuse. In my view older schoolchildren would benefit greatly from lessons in respectful adult relationships. The Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse should be central to any such lessons. Knowledge is power. Armed with the facts it's entirely possible women who wind up dead at the hands of covert narcissists like Brian Laundrie and Chris Watts, might recognise the danger signs in time, and escape such men with their lives.
You don't need a Phd in psychology to recognise the all too predictable patterns of behaviour at play in abusive relationships like this one. There are common red flags in abusers' conduct - and in victims' responses too. That's why it's so shocking police in the bodycam footage were ignorant of those behaviours, and misjudged this couple so disastrously.
Had those police received proper training/education in narcissistic abuse they would not have been taken in by Brian Laundrie's totally fake 'nice guy' act. Nor would they have accepted Gabby's self-blame (the usual stance of victims) at face value. Those cops misidentified sly Brian as the victim, and branded the actual victim Gabby as the abuser! Detective work doesn't get lousier than that. Two weeks later Laundrie strangled her to death, revealing exactly how wrong those cops called it.
More education on the MO of abusers like Brian Laundrie would be very welcome - especially for law enforcement, who dropped the ball and missed a golden opportunity to save Gabby Petito's life. That damning bodycam video should be used in police training, as a powerful example of how NOT to handle abuser and victim!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Evil, ugly skank should have her creepy long hair shaved off and be tarred and feathered. You only have to see pics of them together - her with that vile toothy 'Joker' smile, him, handsome and sad, to know he's struggling to escape an abusive relationship.
Hubers' dumb, indulgent Momma should have told her daughter to respect other people's rights to like or dislike her! Ryan was allowed to end their relationship if he wanted to, they weren't even married FFS! Who does she think she is, letting herself into his apartment with keys, refusing to leave when he asked her to, constantly calling him at work, texting him 100 times a day etc. She was way beyond controlling - and it's wrong that the law in that State did not allow him to file a restraining order against her.
Psychopath Hubers actually has a fan on Facebook, who she gives old photos of herself to, so they can post them on there, supposedly glamorous bikini shots etc. Her ego is still off the chart now she's serving a life term for murder! It's part of a pathetic 'Shayna is innocent' campaign supported by tragic, loser males who can't get laid!
Bitch will never marry, have a career, children, or any kind of meaningful life, all because she wouldn't let an eligible man - who was always miles out of her league - end their association and date sane women. Hubers is disgusting.
She turned up at his condo unannounced and uninvited that night, because she was stalking his Facebook and knew he had arranged a date with an eligible woman. She went there to kill him, in a rage at his rejection - it was the classic "If I can't have you, no one will". She picked up Ryan's gun, released the safety catch, and shot him through the forehead, putting him on the ground. He was no threat to her before or after that shot - he just wanted her to leave him alone.
After fatally shooting him through the forehead, she walked around his fatally wounded body and shot him another FIVE times all in the head. She destroyed his face. Self defence? No way - that's anger and RAGE at the fact he didn't want her. Mommy never taught Hubers humility or respect for others. She grew up an out of control narcissist, who believed everyone she met should do her bidding, and refused to take no for an answer. Poor Ryan, a much loved young man with his whole life ahead of him who ran into a highly dangerous psychopath and was too damn nice to protect himself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Exactly, hypocritical as hell! It's sickening to see Jussie Smollett and his lawyers, all powerful, privileged people of colour, cynically playing the race card to get him off consequences for the crime he was just convicted of, hoaxing a racial hate crime.
That he and his legal team are repeating exactly the same thing he was just convicted of - playing the race card for personal advantage - is beyond ironic and massive hypocrisy!
And it does ordinary black people, unprotected by the immense VIP privileges that they enjoy, nothing but harm. Smollett and his lawyers are a disgrace to their race!
Jussie Smollett had a fair jury trial, he gave evidence in his own defence - still lying his head off throughout and refusing to own his disgusting crime, perjuring himself for hours as the judge pointed out. He was obviously as unconvincing on the stand as he has been right down the line (which shows exactly how bad an actor he is!)
Smollett is a narcissist of the most extreme variety, a pathologically self-serving liar, who has unshakeable belief in his ability to manipulate and fool others. Intelligent media players who followed his self-inflicted problems over the last 3 years, will avoid him from now on. He has hobbled his own career, because anyone with sound judgement won't work with him in future. An individual as entitled and deluded as Jussie Smollett is very dangerous indeed.
Smollett is so crazily egotistical and conceited, he was utterly convinced he'd get away with his ridiculously badly staged, fake 'hate crime'. Even after being caught red handed by the excellent work of Chicago Police, 3 years later he thought he could just continue to lie and he'd eventually fool enough people on the jury to get away with it!
All the way down the line he tried - and failed - to wriggle out of consequences. Early on, he believed he'd succeeded, when his friends in high places got him a slap on the wrist, a $10k fine (peanuts to him, paid $2 million a year), and some BS 'community service' of his choosing. Thankfully he did not get away with that - it was such an obvious farce, it was challenged by brilliant prosecutors, and the result - though it took 3 years - was this full jury trial.
Double jeopardy my ass! That first supposed 'punishment' was as fake as the hate crime itself. The only REAL punishment, as we've seen from Smollett's repeated temper tantrums and protests, was the jury trial. If that lying scumbag doesn't serve any jail time for the serious crime he was properly convicted of (which cynically damaged racial relations just for his own career advancement), the US justice system will be a global laughing stock.
Jussie Smollett has got away with nothing. He wanted more fame - and he got it, but the totally wrong kind! He has no credibility left as a public figure, and was never a talented enough actor to salvage any really successful career from this car wreck. In the court that really counts - the court of public opinion - Jessie Smollett is finished.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think Vinnie nailed it - the coward held the gun in BOTH hands then shot at his left temple. Perfectly feasible, not so strange. He wasn't used to handling guns, and wanted to make sure he killed himself outright at first attempt.
Glad 'Court TV' is showing the infamous police bodycam of Brian Laundrie smiling and doing his best 'innocent, nice guy' act, while elsewhere Gabby Petito sobs in a fragile, highly emotional state.
I want ALL cops to be familiar with this case, study that bodycam as part of their training, and see what a domestic murderer of women looks like, so they aren't totally taken in by one as the Moab cops were taken in by Laundrie - with tragic consequences for Gabby!
If that bodycam video of Brian Laundrie can be utilised in police training to ensure they handle domestic abusers appropriately in future (arrest them when they get a 911 witness report of a man hitting a woman, don't do a best pals act with them), then Laundrie will finally do something useful after his death!
2
-
2
-
2
-
'Phenomenal performance'?! What rot! This wide-eyed, rotund and decidedly unsexy actress was woefully miscast as Monica Lewinsky.
First off, Lewinsky was not morbidly obese like Ms Feldstein. If she had been, President Clinton (who as we know had an eye for good looking women), would not have looked twice at her.
What's more, Monica Lewinsky was a smart young woman, naive in thinking Clinton reciprocated her feelings, but not the childlike, desperate idiot she's portrayed as here. Lewinsky had charm and charisma. The notion Clinton would have had an affair with a gullible butterball like the Feldstein characterisation, is utterly ludicrous.
A shame the producers don't know the difference between a voluptuous woman (which Lewinsky was), and an out-and-out fatty - which she most certainly was not. Beanie Feldstein's entire performance is lousy - it's astonishing that Monica Lewinsky as a producer on the show, had a hand in casting her. Apparently Feldstein wasn't even asked to lose some weight before attempting the role! Monica love - you sold yourself short again!
I read Beanie Feldstein has just been cast as the gorgeous, uber-glamorous Fanny Brice, in a Broadway production of the role Barbara Streisand made famous on the big screen. I wonder what iconic female Feldstein might be asked to play next? Audrey Hepburn? Grace Kelly? Vivien Leigh? Twiggy?! At least spare us Beanie Feldstein as the late Natalie Wood - Big Beanie could never drown!
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed, Amber Heard is a pathological liar and violent domestic abuser. And Johnny Depp wasn't her only victim - she spent a night in police cells for hitting a former girlfriend, hit a friend during a minor argument in her home, beat up her sister Whitney, as discussed on a reality show - the examples of her violent temper are many and cross decades. I truly fear for that child's safety.
She didn't even give birth to her baby herself, but paid a surrogate (rumoured to be Whitney). I don't believe there's any medical reason she can't carry a child - she's actually very fit to have done the action sequences in 'Aquaman'. No doubt she cared more about keeping her figure, than experiencing the miracle of childbirth. She's an off-the-chart narcissist, and should not be allowed to raise another human being.
Like the famous actress and child abuser Joan Crawford, she elected to raise that child as a single mother - she's so damn controlling, she didn't want a second parent to have any say in her daughter's upbringing! It's all about power and control with abusers like Heard. She came after Johnny Depp with her abuse lies for SIX YEARS after they split, enraged that he pulled the plug and rejected her. Take away a narcissist's power and there's hell to pay.
I hope despite her wealth, Heard cannot bypass the child protection authorities and if anyone sees any evidence she's abusive, they report her! Poor baby. Amber Heard can't be trusted with sole charge of a dog - she fought to take Johnny Depp's Yorkie from him in the divorce and when she won him, gave him away to her father - a convicted animal abuser who ran dog fighting rings. I wonder what became of Johnny's little dog Boo? So cruel she fought to take him from Johnnie - then gave him to her cruel father.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RJ-wx3fh Agreed, when scripts are as good as 'Happy Valley', the craft that went into the plotting is fascinating.
It occurred to me writer Sally Wainwright faced a big challenge with series 3, in that her big villain Tommy is locked up in prison, serving a life sentence. That obviously reduces his opportunities to torment the protagonist Catherine!
So Wainwright had to find ways to weave Tommy into the action, despite being in jail. His secret visits from son Ryan is one way to include him. But as I've mentioned, I think putting the show's new baddie, teacher Mr Hepworth alongside Tommy in jail for the two to join forces against Catherine, might be the way they give Tommy power in this series.
Hepworth is likely to be wrongly charged for his wife's murder by the dodgy pharmacist. And the fact he'd recently confided in young Ryan that his marriage was on the rocks won't help his pleas of innocence!
I like the sub-plot with the young female cop who is going for promotion. She was almost killed by Tommy in series 2 and is due another showdown with him - not sure how the writer will engineer that, but no doubt she'll find a way!
I believe Tommy will wind up murdering Mr Hepworth in jail, as that allows Tommy to do his worst and prove he's no reformed character but a psycho as Catherine's said, and it's just desserts for Hepworth who will have sinned against Catherine/Ryan far worse by that time, and made viewers bay for his blood!
It's a great TV drama - sad that Catherine is coming up for retirement on the show. But I doubt that will rule out a fourth series somehow, the ratings are too good!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rhonda is like a naughty child, a devil one second, a sweet angel the next. Her vulnerability breaks my heart - this poor woman has suffered like we will never know, in her 45 years on the planet. There are many, many clues, if you take the time to listen to her, rather than judge her.
What can be done to turn around the lives of all the Rhondas in this sad world? She was ultimately sent to jail. Will that experience be a positive one, that will help break the negative cycle when she comes out again, and resumes her life as a free citizen? Of course not. Prisons are brutal places - if anything, it will set her on a worse downward spiral. I fear Rhonda may not live a long life, and worse, she doesn't care.
Shout out to the police, who behaved with impeccable professionalism and humanity throughout, recognising while Rhonda was a gigantic pain in the ass, she was also a human being - and a very sad and broken one. I am praying for Rhonda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ask the multiple women whose husbands Diana ruthlessly pursued and bedded, how much 'chaos and misery' the late, promiscuous princess caused in their lives! Barry Mannakee, Oliver Hoare and Will Carling to name just three married men Diana took to her bed, caring nothing that they had an unsuspecting wife at home!
Diana was manipulative and two-faced as all hell, a home wrecker who hid her true, nasty nature behind simpering smiles and big blue eyes. She had a damn nerve pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla for their one relationship with each other (now a happy marriage), when she was sleeping with any man with a pulse (and often a wedding ring), caring nothing who she hurt, and working hard to keep her sexual adventures out of the papers so she could play the innocent, 'wronged wife' to the media. Some innocent! Sickening.
In her infamous BBC Panorama interview, news of her 300+ malicious phone calls to married lover Oliver Hoare had recently hit the headlines, so Martin Bashir was forced to ask her about it (though he did so only fleetingly, and let her off the hook).
Of course Diana denied her stalking campaign against the Hoares, she made multiple silent phone calls to their home around the clock, day and night. All in revenge at him refusing to leave his wife for her, and ending their affair!
Hoare decided to come clean to his wife Diane about the affair, and the fact he was certain the spurned Princess was behind the constant malicious calls. His wife forgave him, and together they presented a united front to the police and reported Diana - asking for discretion in their investigations. Detectives quickly traced the calls to Diana's private Kensington Palace phone lines, how own mobile phones, and perhaps most surprising, to several local payphones she visited disguised in headscarf and sunglasses! She was out of control.
And so it fell to two rather embarrassed plain clothes police detectives to visit Diana at Kensington Palace, and warn her to desist her harassment or be prosecuted. Just as she did on the Panorama interview, Diana batted her eyelashes, acted the innocent and point blank denied she was the culprit. But she went even further to the detectives - this has never been revealed in the public domain, but Diana actually blamed her own son William for making the calls, claiming he did it as a 'prank'.
The police knew so many calls, from Diana's own phones and at all times of the day and night could not possibly be the work of a child. Besides which, William was away at boarding school at the time! So much for Diana's self promoted image as a devoted mother. When her back was against the wall, her knee-jerk response to get herself out of trouble was to frame her innocent son for her own bad behaviour.
Needless to say, after her police home visit, the silent calls to the Hoares ended as suddenly as they'd begun. But unfortunately for Diana, the story was far from over. Someone (undoubtedly from within Metropolitan Police), tipped off the News of the World about Diana's phone stalking of Hoare - and the adulterous affair and Diana's bunny-boiler response to being dumped, became global headline news.
Diana's studiously crafted false image of sainthood was beginning to fall apart, as the truth about her real character inevitably began to emerge. Had she lived, grown older and lost her sex appeal - and been subjected to the greater scrutiny of the internet age - there's no question her popularity as a public figure would have plummeted. Dying young helped her legacy hugely!
Diana turned nuclear when men disappointed her - her narcissism and spite were off the scale. But the fact she would even throw her own child to the wolves to save her skin shows exactly how pathologically self serving she was.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
HOW THE HELL DID HE GET AWAY WITH THAT??? I HATE THAT ENTITLED, NARCISSISTIC CREEP! I HOPE THIS BEHAVIOUR BACKFIRES ON HIM BIG TIME! HE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL AND TAKEN HIS PUNISHMENT LIKE A MAN!
HE WILL REGRETS THIS - ALL OF IT - HE'S A CONVICTED CRIMINAL, AND HIS TV AND MOVIE CAREER AS ANY KIND OF CELEBRITY IS OVER. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THAT SMUG, LYING FRAUDSTER'S UGLY, GRIFTER FACE EVER AGAIN! A TOTAL CREEP AND CON MAN, ALL ABOUT 'ME, ME, ME'. HIS FAMILY AND EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED THE ENTITLED ARROGANT POS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!
JESSIE SMOLLETT HAS SET THE CAUSE OF BLACK PEOPLE BACK BY DECADES, HE IS A TRAITOR TO HIS ETHNIC HERITAGE. LESS THAN 100 YEARS AGO, BLACK PEOPLE REALLY WERE BRUTALLY LYNCHED AND HANGED AND BURNED IN THE STREET IN RACIST ATTACKS. AND HE HAS THE AUDACITY TO PAY 2 BLACK MEN TO COVER THEIR FACES WITH SKI MASKS AND THROW BLEACH AND A NOOSE AROUND HIS NECK??? WHAT AN INSULT TO THOSE FALLEN VICTIMS OF RACISM!
SHAME ON HIM - HE NEEDS TO DISAPPEAR AND NEVER INSULT AUDIENCES AGAIN WITH HIS ODIOUS FACE! NEVER SHOWED ANY REMORSE, NEVER APOLOGISED, NEVER EVEN ADMITTED TO WHAT HE'D DONE IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. JUDGE SAID HE GOT ON THE STAND AND COMMITTED PERJURY - THEN HE DID IT AGAIN AFTER SENTENCING, LYING AGAIN, THAT HE WAS INNOCENT! HE SHOULDA GOT MORE JAIL TIME FOR THAT. NOW HIS OVERPAID LAWYERS HAVE SPRUNG HIM OUT ON A TECHNICALITY? US JUSTICE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LAUGHING STOCK!
ONE LAW FOR RICH AMERICANS AND ANOTHER FOR THE REST - AND ANY OTHER, NON RICH & PRIVILEGED BLACK MAN WHO'D PULLED THE STUNT SMOLLETT DID WOULD NOT HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR A NANOSECOND!
DISGUSTING INJUSTICE - DISGUSTING EXCUSE FOR A MAN! JESSIE SMOLLETT NEEDS TO DISAPPEAR DOWN THE NEAREST TOILET ALONG WITH HIS CAREER AND STOP OFFENDING THE PUBLIC'S EYES AND EARS.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ylass8884 Diana was not 'stating fact' - in reality, there were many more than 'three people in the marriage' because Diana 'forgot' to count all her own lovers!
That scheming, two-faced adulterer Diana was actually in a VERY crowded marriage - crowded with all the men she invited to her Kensington Palace bedroom while her abandoned husband was left behind at their country house in Gloucestershire.
Five years in, Diana was bored of being a wife, and began her first affair with her married police protection officer Barry Mannakee. His poor widow Susan must live with the fact her late husband betrayed her with the Princess of Wales.
Hot on Manakee's heels came a queue of men Diana bedded, among them James Gilbey, James Hewitt, Will Carling and Oliver Hoare. The BBC 'Panorama' interview exposes the hypocrite and liar the late princess was, as she only admitted to one affair, with the unmarried James Hewitt, and she even denied she had been the stalker who harassed Oliver Hoare and his wife Diane with 300+ silent phone calls to their home.
The police traced the malicious calls to her private lines at Kensington Palace and to two of her cellphones - there was no question it was her who made those obsessive, sinister phone calls at all times of the day and night! She a woman scorned, was exacting revenge of Hoare for ending their 4 year affair, and refusing to leave his wife for her. Diana was vicious when men disappointed her!
2
-
@pamelabacker2420 Are you back tracking on your earlier claim that Charles stated publicly that he never loved Diana? Do you now admit you got that wrong?
I know Charles admitted to adultery with Camilla after his marriage had irretrievably broken down, in his 1994 interview with Jonathan Dimbleby. I also know he made that throwaway comment "Whatever love means" during a joint 1981 interview the couple gave marking their engagement (a joke he merely made to lighten the moment when a journalist got too personal, which he was never allowed to forget as Diana - and subsequently the media - crucified him for it forever afterwards!)
Those two quotes from Charles are famous, and well known by anyone who has paid even the least attention to the history of the modern royal family.
I'm not 'in denial', about anything Charles said. I'm a journalist who respects facts. I'm telling you Charles never even once publicly said he never loved Diana, as you claimed earlier in this thread. That is simply not true, and as a national news journalist who reported on the war between the Prince and Princess of Wales in the 'nineties, I should know!
You must have seen that on 'The Crown' or some other fictitious, scripted dramatisation of the royal family played by actors, and your memory confused it with reality and now believes it actually happened.
I say again - if you can provide reference to a TV clip, or any report in which Charles publicly stated from his own lips to an interviewer that he never loved Diana, link to it here. You won't, because you can't - it never happened.
2
-
2
-
@38inessa Yep, I'm 100% sure the Princess of Wales died as a result of foolishly entrusting her personal safety to the shady Al Fayed family, who provided her with a drunk, drugged and reckless 'chauffeur', who was not even insured to drive her!
Diana compounded that massive mistake by failing to fasten her seat belt - setting the stage for disaster. The details of the accident were examined in full at the 2004 inquestm and came to exactly that conclusion.
A woman in her position, ie world famous and the mother of the future king, should have taken care of her own security, either by accepting the Scotland Yard royal protection team to which she was entitled 24-7, or by spending some of her $17m divorce settlement from Charles employing her own drivers and bodyguards.
If she'd only behaved like the 36 year old grown up mother of two she was, rather than like an irresponsible teen, Diana would not have died in a totally avoidable accident.
2
-
@lillianflorence6056 No one could stop Diana from marrying the future king. She was desperate for Prince Charles to propose, ambitious for the world fame and adulation that marriage would hand her on a silver platter. You surely don't believe Diana married the 12 years older, totally incompatible Charles for love?!
The arranged marriage delivered far more glittering prizes to her, than even she could have imagined. And she didn't even have to tolerate the husband who bored her to tears for more than 5 years! They were leading separate lives by mutual agreement from 1985. Despite the self-serving lies she told the media to win public sympathy and demonise her husband, he didn't break her heart. She was too busy living a bachelor-girl life in London with umpteen secret boyfriends (abandoning Charles to the country life she hated in Gloucestershire), to care a damn about Camilla or any other woman!
Diana was a shameless hypocrite. It was fine for her to sleep around, but a crime for Charles to be happy with one woman - a woman he's now happily married to who has become the wonderful, supportive wife and Queen Diana could not be!
She didn't want a divorce, because there was nothing in it for her - despite umpteen sexual affairs, Diana had not met any man she could realistically marry. Besides, she knew if she re-married, she'd have to lose the Princess title that meant so much to her! She kicked up one hell of a fuss over losing the 'HRH' prefix - something which happened to Sarah Ferguson and to every royal who divorces out of the royal family. Why did Diana think she could keep it? For someone so supposedly down to earth, Diana was weirdly concerned about people curtseying to her!
After she spitefully arranged the bombshell BBC interview with Panorama in which she trashed the husband and institution that had made her a superstar and secured her children's privileged futures, the Queen rightly ordered the long-overdue divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales.
Diana emerged from that divorce with two fine sons, $17 million in the bank, Kensington Palace for a home, a team of servants on call to her 24-7, and global, VIP status. If only every women came out of divorce with even a fraction of that bounty!
Diana was on course to live a life of rare wealth and privilege - she was certainly no victim, as she pretended. But within a year of winning her 'freedom' from Prince Charles and the royal family, she had stupidly got herself killed alongside a playboy lover, in a totally needless accident. It's supremely ironic that in the final analysis, Diana's false victimhood became a self fulfilling prophecy. She made herself a victim when she chose to lay down with dogs (the shady Al Fayeds), failed to take care of her own security like the grown up, mega-rich independent woman she was, and finally, forgot she was a mother and didn't fasten her seat belt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lynnemclaughlan996 Agreed - thankfully I've never had the hate in me required to pursue and sleep with another woman's husband, as Diana did with multiple married men, breaking up at least one marriage Will Carling's), and trying to wreck many more (Oliver Hoare). She was not a 'girl's girl' and it's not hard to see where her lifelong mistrust of females originated.
Diana's abusive father Johnny demonised her mother Frances to her (and her siblings) from a young age, calling her 'the bolter' and persuading his four children she had callously abandoned them for another man. Totally untrue of course - Frances had understandably abandoned Johnny, after one black eye too many. But her children - never.
In those days the husband was king and to be obeyed without question - and never more so than when that husband was also a top aristocrat like Johnny Spencer.
Frances took on a courageous but doomed legal fight, to win custody of her three daughters and one son. The odds were so unfairly stacked against her, that her own mother, Ruth, Baroness Fermoy, gave evidence in court for her estranged husband! The children grew up believing their mother chose a man over them, a cruel and damaging slander.
Only in adulthood was Frances able to build bridges with her children, without her controlling ex husband throwing a spanner in the works. But by then, the damage was done - particularly in Diana's case. All her life Diana idolised her abusive, manipulative father, while accepting his warped narrative about her mother.
This negative childhood experience of lost maternal love, does not excuse Diana's ugly misogyny. But it does, to a degree, explain it.
2
-
2
-
@peterlawrence6815 It is ironic indeed that Diana secured the best possible legacy for herself by dying young in a ridiculous and totally avoidable accident!
With her life over in 1997, the Princess of Wales exited the world stage still young and beautiful, before the fierce scrutiny of the internet age had time to shine a light on her true character and behaviour - which she'd been very sly and mostly successful about hiding up till then!
Had she survived into the 21st Century, the public would have cottoned onto the less appealing reality of the narcissistic, vindictive, A-moral and ruthlessly self-serving Diana.
And my goodness she would not have liked ageing one bit! Her looks were always far too important to her. She ranked her own natural photogenic qualities as a super-power she wielded to great effect for positive publicity. In obsessing about shallow 'image', she forgot to develop a character. If we haven't done that by middle age, we are frankly screwed by the time we start ageing!
Diana's future, had she lived, was bleak and lonely. She would inevitably have fallen out with both sons (and their wives), and addicted to the VIP status attached to her royal title, she would not have remarried, and forfeited her Princess moniker.
2
-
2
-
2
-
This mass murder of 4 young people at their most defenceless, in their own home and in their own beds, was clearly premeditated and pre-planned. Therefore it wasn't the work of a madman, and nor was it impulsive.
The male who did this was in control of his actions throughout - not mad, but BAD.
Whoever this killer is, he planned it with cold precision. He knew what he was doing in the planning stages (buying knife/gloves/special clothing etc), during its commission, and in the 6 weeks afterwards, when still at liberty he did all he could to escape justice.
If Bryan Kohberger is the killer. his academic knowledge of such homicides (and law enforcement/forensic methods to catch killers), doubtless gave him confidence.
He was sure of success in killing his targets, because he attacked them between 3 - 4am when totally vulnerable. He was similarly confident of escaping detection by police after, due to all he had learned as a criminology student (and thanks to the innate arrogance and entitlement of the pathological narcissist).
Whoever entered these young people's home uninvited, and murdered them in vicious knife attacks, will forever pose a risk of serious harm/death to the public. He can never, ever enjoy his liberty again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Are you suggesting Chris Watts dumped his wife and daughters' bodies in his truck at the BACK of the house, where there were no CCTV cameras? I thought it was established that the neighbour Nate's camera videoed him around 5am backing his work truck into his garage at the FRONT of the house and making 3 separate journeys to the vehicle on foot to dump each dead body? My assumption is that CW tells the TV news crew there are no cameras at the back of his house, purely to set up some kind of bullshit theory that a kidnapper took them out the back, and the only reason there's no evidence of that because there are no cameras? By the way - why do some people believe CW killed the children first? This makes no sense to me and is not the opinion of police and prosecution. CW is a coward and did not want to put Shanann on her guard when she got home. So he would not have risked her finding her own kids murdered, then fighting him and possibly fleeing the house and raising the alarm. I believe the children were alive and in bed when Shanann stepped in the door, cos CW knew she had missed them and would be sure to check on them when she got in. I think Bella, a light sleeper who CW said had been waking all evening and asking him if Mommy was home yet, may have been awake/woken when Shanann got in. However CW made murdering his adult wife the priority - she was his biggest challenge in every sense, once he had killed her, killing two little girls was a piece of cake. Shanann's dead body was found with her make up still on and underwear and a T shirt - this tells me she was getting ready for bed, probably sitting or laying on the bed, when he attacked and quickly overpowered and strangled her to death. She had no defensive wounds so had been unable to fight back - CW did not want to fight with his wife, he wanted to kill her quickly and with as little struggle as possible. Seems he succeeded. I don't think that poor woman had a clue he was dangerous until he was sitting on top of her, his thighs pinning her arms to her sides and his hands tightening around her throat. Her last thoughts are just heart breaking to imagine. Once he had achieved his biggest goal, killing the one victim who had a chance of fighting back, he could kill the two children with ease, knowing their mother could not defend them. He likely killed Bella next as she was the eldest child and the next biggest threat - I think she was either awake or woke as he was suffocating her with his bare hands, as she was a light sleeper and her autopsy revealed she had struggled - there were lacerations showing she had bitten her own tongue several times and torn her inner lip. Little Cece did not appear to have struggled at all, she may have been asleep or just too tiny to put up any kind of fight against a grown man. Bad enough this bastard murdered his pregnant wife and children in cold blood - he then tried to blame Shanann for the children's murders! Unlike him, she was a loving and devoted parent who would have died for Bella and Cece - as one of her friends said "Shanann would have chosen those girls over 100 Chris Watts". This pitiless woman and child killer has no redeeming features and not a shred of guilt about killing the defenceless woman and children who loved him. As the female cop mentioned in her notes - after describing to her and her colleague how he crammed his little girls' corpses into tanks of crude oil feet first through an 8 inch hatch, he accepted her offer of pizza, ate both slices, then accepted two more offered by another cop and finished every scrap. Chris Watts is not human. The photos of him clean shaven in prison reveal his true face - that vile, mean, thin lipped mouth is finally revealed and you can see that the beard, like his quiet, Mr Nice Guy act, hid a multitude of very ugly flaws.
2
-
2
-
@onlytruth4me915 Diana's continued popularity with a hardcore of fans, has a lot to do with the timing of her death just before the dawn of the internet.
Had she lived even another 5 years and faced the global scrutiny of online journalism, she would have been exposed as the vindictive, two-faced (and horribly promiscuous) adulteress she was! Her hypocrisy in attacking Charles for his one genuine love affair while hiding her sordid sexual exploits with multiple men, was off the scale!
In terms of her image, Diana played a blinder in dying young and beautiful, before her lies, manipulations and vile vindictive nature were exposed to the world. Her fans are even more shallow than she was - had she lived, aged and inevitably lost her sex appeal, they would have tired of her and her self-pity, and abandoned her in their droves!
2
-
2
-
@danidan9917 It's the kind of meaningless red herring desperate defense lawyers seize upon and make a meal of, in hopes it translates to reasonable doubt with a juror (they only need one sucker, to scupper a conviction).
Smartphones, like Siri/Alexa and all electronic communications equipment, do strange, unpredictable things sometimes. We've all experienced it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Libby's phone moved or was touched/used by human hand after 2.30 - 3pm that day, none at all.
The headphone anomaly was likely down to damp, or a forest creature of some description may have triggered it. Sadly it may also indicate a movement, either pre or post mortem, deliberate or involuntary, by Abby, whose body lay on top of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Supt Doug Carter is an embarrassing old ham, who led a famous, failed murder investigation. Over and over again Carter chased dead ends (Anthony Shotts), and false trails (the second, 2019 younger suspect sketch), til eventually his headless chicken act led Indiana Police back to the start to revisit the earliest leads. And that's how Richard Allen was finally caught.
Carter was wrong when he said the killer was 'hiding in plain sight' - Richard Allen wasn't hiding at all! He came forward to authorities and identified himself as 'Bridge Guy', the man filmed by Libby stalking her and Abby, within days of the 2017 murders. Allen even correctly identified the outfit he was wearing that day -- exactly the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'.
But incredibly, detectives failed to follow up with Allen until 2022, and he was free to attack females for a further FIVE YEARS. If he didn't murder any other women or girls in that time, it's no thanks to Indiana Police.
Because of that extended failure, Allen had years to toss/clean up incriminating evidence, meaning today's prosecution case is inevitably weaker than it would be had he been identified from the start. Inexperienced cops under the woeful Carter, ran a ridiculously secretive investigation, kept far too many details close to the vest, and only succeeded in blocking the public from providing vital tips (they cannot help in an information vacuum!)
The level of secrecy by law enforcement was unprecedented, with even the victims' cause of death kept under wraps. Why? The fact the murder weapon was some kind of bladed tool creating blood was huge, and just might have jogged memories.
Whatever the verdict, Supt Doug Allen and Indiana Police must be held accountable for their shocking failings in the Delphi murder investigation. No such $hit show should ever be allowed to happen again, within a major murder investigation. Frankly I'm not convinced Doug Carter could find his own ass with both hands if someone shut the lights off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wow, TWO women defending serial adulterer and female-hater Diana - and no mention of her umpteen cheap sexual affairs? HILARIOUS!
I guess Christopher Biggins is still waiting on his spine-transplant. Bad move Biggins! He will no doubt live to regret his mealy-mouthed platitudes about the 'wonderful' Diana, who lest we forget, had AT LEAST six meaningless, sexual adulterous affairs to Charles' ONE extra-marital relationship - with Camilla the woman he loved, and wound up happily married to.
Diana had no conscience whatsoever about chasing other women's husbands. Her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee was an early conquest, her husband's old school friend Oliver Hoare (who she stalked with over 300 silent phone calls when he dumped her, prompting him to report her to police), and newlywed England rugby Will Carling whose early divorce she triggered, were just three.
Imagine the scandal and negative publicity if Charles had chased married women, the way Diana ruthlessly pursued married trouser, with her tongue hanging out!
Here are some FACTS, for the realists ready to hear them -
Diana knew exactly what she was entering into, when she married the Heir to the Throne. Her vile, wife abusing father Johnny Spencer (Diana's poor mother Frances fled from him because of his physical and emotional abuse - though this was never acknowledged by her brainwashed, 'Daddy-Obsessed daughter Diana, who idolised the swine to the end), had lifelong links to the royals. He was equerry to both King George and Queen Elizabeth. The Queen and Prince Phillip were honoured guests at Diana's parents' 1954 wedding at Westminster Abbey! Diana's mother Frances Roche (just 18 on her wedding day, the youngest woman to be married at the Abbey since 1893), was also top aristocracy, born on the royal Sandringham estate, and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Diana played with Prince Andrew as a child, and her father impressed upon his three daughters, his wish that one of them marry the world's most eligible bachelor, eldest royal son Charles, and become Queen of England.
Diana's elder sister Sarah was first to indulge her father and date Charles, but according to her version, she decided he was not for her. Diana should have done the same, but she was far too ambitious to win all the fame and spoils of being engaged and then married to the future King.
Diana may have been 19 when she said 'Yes please' to the arranged marriage. But she 100% knew in return for the massive, unsurpassed VIP status of being Charles' wife, she would be expected to produce children. It was a deal she happily agreed to, and for which she was handsomely rewarded, beyond any human dreams of riches and privilege.
Why is Diana's role as the mother to Charles' two children so often cited as some terrible thing? She left school at 16 with no qualifications, and no career ambitions beyond working with children as an unqualified classroom assistant and mother's help. She was clearly twiddling her thumbs until an eligible man proposed to her! And my God did her wildest dreams come true - she bagged the most eligible man on the planet in Prince Charles!
Furthermore, delivering him two children guaranteed to retain her top VIP status for life, as mother of the future king - regardless of what happened to the marriage. And so it came to be. Diana won a massive £17 million divorce settlement (worth a great deal more today), kept the Princess of Wales title she fought tooth and nail to retain, though she was not in fact entitled to it, was given full ownership of her lavish Kensington Palace apartments and a sizeable team of royal servants, and, of course, kept her top, VIP status for life. Diana was no victim - but like all toxic narcissists, she played the victim role to her advantage.
True to form, the narcissistic Diana, separated from Charles, bleated to her young sons about losing the HRH prefix (which everyone who divorces out of the royals naturally loses), prompting her poor, confused little boy William to promise when he was king he would restore it to her. Why was Diana so bothered that people would not longer have to curtsy to her? Hardly the sweet and humble 'People's Princess' she claimed to be - more a money and privilege obsessed, egomaniac!
What these idiot women Nina Myscow and Jasmine Birtles fail to recognise, is Diana and Charles went into an arranged marriage, which was highly unlikely to last the course. Not only was there over a decade's age difference between them, they were a huge intellectual mismatch. That said, there's evidence they did love each other at the beginning of their union - Diana admitted as much herself, when she recognised their sons should know they were conceived in love.
Diana said herself she did NOT want to be Queen! That would have meant being Charles' wife, which she had no interest in - he bored her to tears, as she made blatantly clear on their late 1980s public appearances. The breakdown of their marriage was a mutual thing. Diana only pretended Charles broke her heart to play the victim, and win sympathy from the media and the public - while she was brazenly sneaking around behind the scenes, and working hard to keep her own, multiple grubby affairs, often with married men, out of the public domain!
In contrast, Camilla loves Charles, and though she didn't choose to be Queen (as Diana absolutely did - it's the main reason she married Charles at 19), she is doing a wonderful job in the role. Her work for female victims of domestic violence alone marks her out as a fantastic Queen and a 'girls girl' - Diana was never that, as proven by her ruthless pursuit of married lovers! To crucify Charles and Camilla for their one affair which ended in a happy loving marriage, and let Diana off the hook for her umpteen, meaningless sexual flings while married, is arch hypocrisy.
2
-
@pricklypear7516 No evidence whatsoever there were two offenders involved in the abduction and murder of Libby German and Abby Williams. Police were always very clear they were looking for ONE suspect. And it's thought Libby DID try to make a break for it and run - which is how she, Abby and the killer wound up crossing the creek (the girls' bodies were found on the other side).
A predatory male can easily control two, frightened teens, Abby and Libby were just 13 and 14 years old. The "Guys - down the hill" audio supports the theory he subdued them with threats of a gun/knife, and that's another reason they obeyed him - as most kids would, suddenly faced with that terrifying situation.
The term "Guys" is often used towards children and in fact is exactly the kind of familiar, casual language a predator would use towards child victims, as in "Guys, do this and I won't hurt you". Besides, if he had an accomplice as you suggest, that accomplice is not seen on Libby's cellphone footage, suggesting he was already waiting 'down the hill'! There was no second killer!
Please don't spread misinformation in a case that's already featured much confusion, due to a bungled police investigation. And please don't victim-blame. Libby and Abby were just children, the odds were stacked against them that day and they were unable to escape a powerful adult male with murder in mind. They deserve nothing but praise for their courage in an horrific situation, and the fact Libby courageously shot video and audio of the killer in what turned out to be her final, tragic moments alive. God bless them both - may justice and truth finally prevail. Prayers to the Williams and German families, in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
2
-
2
-
@Court TV A heartfelt plea - Can you PLEASE stop your producers from adding annoying, loud and totally unnecessary background music to every piece of video you show?
It happens so often now - notably last week, when you played-in the tape of reporter Nate Eaton giving a guided tour of the soon to be demolished home of serial killer Chad Daybell. The pointless, repetitive background music you added throughout, was horribly distracting, and made it really hard to hear what Nate was saying.
In this episode about the murder of Madeline Soto, the same gratuitous, annoyingly repetitive music has been laid over the interrogation video of suspect Stephan Sterns. As a true crime channel, you are well aware it's already hard to hear police interrogation videos, as the audio is generally poor. So please don't make it even more incomprehensible for your viewers, by playing music over the top! It's madness and doesn't make your content look more slick, as intended, it only looks amateurish.
I hope you'll address this issue, as it's marring an otherwise excellent channel with superior true crime coverage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed, from his first embarrassing media conference it was clear Supt Doug Carter was WAY out of his depth on this double child homicide, making mistake after mistake, and frankly, just not up to the job!
His failed, five year murder investigation is the reason the defence can now make merry with various, contrasting theories and suspects, to fill that extended information vacuum while Carter & Co were kicking cans down the road. Cops confused everyone with two totally different sketches and criminal profiles of the killer - one middle aged, chubby and bearded, the other young, slim and clean shaven. The Keystone Cops' many mistakes over those five years might just create enough reasonable doubt to get Richard Allen off the hook at trial.
We recently learned Carter's inexperience and incompetence, were matched by staggering arrogance - because rather than admit Indiana Police needed professional help from more specialised detectives, it transpires he dismissed the FBI early on, saying his boys were doing just fine. The man is a buffoon!
Carter enjoyed those media conferences way too much. He struck poses, addressed the killer direct with a quivering lip and ridiculous statements like "You probably told someone you did this" (Er, probably not - killers rarely confess), suggested the murderer could be in the room at that very moment (he wasn't), and claimed he was 'hiding in plain sight'.
Carter was wrong on every count - Richard Allen wasn't hiding in plain sight. He wasn't hiding at all!
We subsequently learned Richard Allen as good as gave himself up within days of the murders, admitting he was there and even wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy', because he knew Libby recorded him on video stalking her and Abi across the bridge. It was an obvious strategy to get his alibi in early, and get ahead of the damning video evidence against him that he was there that day. Libby taped him - and he WAS 'Bridge Guy'.
Yet no one saw fit to invite Allen to come in for a formal police interview! If they had, he would have been recognised as 'Bridge Guy', and arrested and charged within a week. Out of just 3,000 Delphi residents - and less than 1,500 of them adult males - Carter & co took five years to find him. That incompetent fool couldn't find his own ass with both hands if someone shut the lights off!
Establishing who was at the Monon High Nature trail on the day of the crime, interviewing and eliminating them, is the most basic kind of police work. The Keystone Cops failed to do that, allowing a highly dangerous man to remain at large for five years, and putting Libby and Abi's loved-ones through hell. And now that the likely guilty man is caught, their mistakes may yet get him out of jail!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@glen7318 You are splitting hairs. The Queen did want her former daughter-in-law to have that top level protection, and her logic was she deserved it as a former senior royal, and mother of the future Queen. Regardless of Diana's appalling behaviour in sabotaging the royal hand that fed her with her collusion on the Andrew Morton book and 'Panorama' interview, the Queen cared about her future security.
As ex wife to the heir to the throne, Diana was always a senior royal and far higher status than Sarah Ferguson, who was merely Prince Andrew's ex wife. In constitutional terms, there's no comparison between the two women - on marrying Prince Charles, Diana was the future Queen!
Earlier this year Prince Harry (spoiled, manipulative and with a pronounced persecution complex - very much his mother's son), falsely claimed the royal family had abandoned his mother in terms of her security arrangements. He said he recalled as a child that sometimes she couldn't drive herself safely 'because of the tears', as she was pursued by paparazzi. As you're aware, Diana herself had sacked her security team in 1993. No doubt this was entirely due to her wanting the freedom to pursue multiple affairs, without any inconvenient witnesses! But Harry (a backstabber like his mother), exploited this as a stick to beat the royals with, as if it were their fault!
As you acknowledge, Diana churlishly refused the expensive security team the Queen wanted her to have, on her 1996 divorce, which would have protected her for the rest of her life. It was a fateful decision. If she's cared more about her two dependent sons and accepted that protection to keep herself safe, the 'rest of her life' would have been considerably longer than it turned out to be.
Diana survived only one year after her divorce. Trusting the shady Mohammed Al Fayed with her personal safety, and failing to fasten her seat belt, ultimately caused her death at 36. For deluded Diana fans to blame the royal family for her death, is as unhinged and unfair as Diana herself was.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shazb3023 Yes, isn't it sad that Diana was so shallow and self-indulgent, she didn't give her two little boys a thought and fasten her seatbelt? If she had only thought of William and Harry that night and used her seat belt, she would have survived the crash, as did bodyguard Trevor Rees jones.
Rees Jones was the sole survivor, despite being the front seat passenger, purely because he had the good sense to see how recklessly the Al Fayed employed driver Henri Paul was speeding, and belatedly fastened his seat belt. The inquest into the crash was clear - experts concluded Diana would have lived, had she only behaved responsibly and fastened her seat belt.
She failed in every responsible parent's first duty - to stay alive to raise your children to adulthood.
Charles was a loving and devoted father, and stepped in to pick up the pieces for his motherless boys. He, not Diana, deserves most credit for the fine men they became (at only 12 when Diana died, Harry admits his memories of her are sketchy).
Poor William and Harry had to face up to their late mother's flaws when they became men. The spiteful media vendetta she waged against their father, her countless extra marital affairs - many with married men - most of whom she distastefully introduced to them both as 'uncle' figures, and her totally needless death at 36, because she'd entrusted her safety arrangements to the shady Al Fayeds and failed to use a seat belt.
Diana's sons felt understandable anger at her, which they couldn't express publicly, but they received help from discreet psychotherapists. Little wonder Harry went off the rails for a while, drinking, partying, cavorting naked and generally behaving foolishly. To the world they toed the line, painting their mother as some kind of saint and blameless role model. Privately, her feet of clay left them deeply disappointed.
2
-
@carlam4986 Diana's lousy choices got her killed. She wasn't a child, she was a grown woman of 36 - and a very powerful one too. She had immense wealth and special VIP status topped only by the Queen. And on her divorce, the Queen had offered her a world class, Scotland Yard security team and driver for life - which she churlishly refused.
Diana had no excuse whatsoever for handing over her security arrangements to the notoriously shady Al Fayed family! She was mother to two dependant children, who needed her alive. If she didn't want the Queen's help, she could and should have hired her own bodyguards and chauffeur. If she had she'd be alive today, not killed by a drunk driver!
Diana's totally avoidable death in a dumb accident was one of many self-centred actions. She had a nasty habit of pursuing married men, slipping them her phone number at gatherings when their wife was in the same room. Ask Julia Carling, Susan Manakee or Diane Hoare, what they think of Diana, the woman who shamelessly bedded their husbands without a moment's respect for their married status. Diana had a damned cheek bleating about Charles' one extra marital relationship, when she herself had umpteen casual affairs, and broke up at least two marriages. 'Three people in the marriage'? Diana conveniently forgot to count all her meaningless sexual flings - at least Charles' went on to marry Camilla!
Had Diana lived it's highly doubtful she'd have achieved a happy marriage, as Charles has. She was far too narcissistic, self-serving and entitled to be a good wife to anyone. And her sons' wives Kate and Meghan dodged a bullet, as she'd have been the mother-in-law from hell to her younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law! Diana would have been childishly, insanely jealous of Kate and Meghan and become bitter as she aged - her looks meant everything to her. She would rather have died in that car crash than survived with facial disfigurement, like front seat passenger and bodyguard Trevor Rhys-Jones. She did not have the depth of character to have handled losing her good looks. Every morning she pored over every tabloid newspaper for photos of herself, and she threw herself at so many men, she should have had revolving doors fitted to her bedroom!
It's very sad for her sons William and Harry. When they grew up, they realised how promiscuous their mother had been, and remembered that she often involved them in her sleazy affairs. As innocent little boys, she would introduce them to her latest casual shag, though at the time they were totally oblivious. Will Carling, a newlywed (but not for long - his wife Julia divorced him on discovering his affair with Diana), even brought the boys a gift of England rugby shirts. They happily accepted them, totally oblivious that he was sleeping with their mummy. No wonder Diana, the supposedly 'wonderful mother', made William and Harry be boarders, even though they could easily have been day pupils (and doubtless would have been, given the choice). She didn't want her children at home and getting under her feet, while she conducted multiple affairs, and lived the life of a sex mad teenager.
There are many people far more deserving of your loyalty and admiration than the hedonistic and long-dead princess. And what's so funny about it, is that you wouldn't give a fig about Diana and pretend she was some kind of saint, if she hadn't been pretty. You only idolise her because she was photogenic, it's hilarious!
If she'd looked like elderly, wrinkled Mother Theresa, a genuinely selfless woman, you wouldn't bother to defend her. You're just as shallow and empty-headed as she was! Don't forget to fasten your seat belt, will you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Exactly right WELL SAID! 👏👏👏 'Gender' cult is misogynist madness, that's actively harming women and girls, plus trampling over children's well-being and safeguarding (no such thing as a 'trans kid' or anyone 'born in the wrong body), and also crucially, attacking gay rights.
No mammal ever changed sex or ever will, it's impossible. There are two sexes, male and female. 'Non-binary' is BS. Feelings are not facts. A man in a dress is still a man. And a man in a dress who fancies women is a straight, heterosexual transvestite, not a 'Lesbian' or any kind of woman!
Today dating sites/apps for gay women are being invaded by such men, wearing wigs, make up and skirts and ludicrously claiming to be lesbians. They expect actual lesbians - same sex attracted females - to date them, and be excited by their male genitals.
Any lesbian who protests this and says such men should not be permitted on their dating sites, gets branded 'transphobic' or bigoted! It is woman-hating, homophobic garbage. Eddie Izzard and the rest are not 'trans women' at all as they claim, they are straight, transvestite men and as such they have no right to invade public spaces, facilities and sports reserved for FEMALES ONLY. Once men start muscling in on these things they are no longer single sex spaces/entitles, and the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls has been stolen.
I am sick of the twisted, male-centric wokery that is enabling these outrages against women, gay people and children. Paedophiles are currently having a field day thanks to these warped cultural trends. Would Schofield's sexual pursuit of a 34 years younger male he'd first known/groomed from age 10 have been tolerated, if it was a little GIRL? I seriously doubt it! The inappropriate relationship was turned a blind eye to by senior ITV execs and worse, actively enabled by them (and Schofield protected from any consequences), because the dynamic was homosexual.
Schofield claimed in his recent TV interviews he didn't groom that boy - he was just trying to help young people get on in television. What a lovely, selfless act! Pull the other one Pip - the TV interviewer should have immediately asked him how many little GIRLS he took under his wing in the same way and similarly 'helped'. We all know the answer is NONE! There's an at least 10 years old video of Schofield sitting at a discreet corner table in a smart London restaurant with Matthew McGreevy - when he was a child of just 13 years old. That is clearly grooming a child!
How long before more young men sell stories on Schofield to the media? He may have stuffed McGreevy's mouth with cash and silenced him for now, but by refusing to deny other gay affairs in the BBC interview, he tells us loud and clear there are many others! His poor wife is set to be humiliated much further, for much longer. Schofield's two adult daughters shouldn't be rushing to comfort their narcissistic father, whose blatant lies over at least eight years were finally his undoing. They should be supporting their poor betrayed mother Stephanie - she, not their arrogant, despicable father, is the REAL victim in this shabby story of beytrayal.
2
-
2
-
@tammysims5164 It's a shame you didn't watch the whole trial - which incidentally was ALL prosecution witnesses, because the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary person to give evidence in support of the defendant! And after seeing how aggressively he protested his innocence to detectives on their videos, it was telling that James Propokovitz declined to give evidence in court and tell it to the jury
A primarily circumstantial and historic murder case like this would always be harder to prove, so lawyers are bound to express surprise at the guilty verdict. But the defendant's guilt was firmly established to the jury, as the verdict shows - this has, I hope, enlightened people that circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as a so-called 'slam-dunk' forensic case.
The defence case was weak. In order to persuade the jury their client hadn't killed his wife Victoria, they had to exaggerate her history of depression and suicide attempts to make them believe she killed herself and somehow disposed of her own body (which was never found, despite 8 years of exhaustive professional police searches).
The two historic suicide attempts the defence attorney emphasised (the most 'recent' one a full 10 years before she went missing) happened so long ago, as to be pretty much irrelevant to her state of mind when she vanished.
The defence really went to town on Victoria's years-ago statement to family 'next time, you won't find me'. Common sense tells you she meant 'next time I attempt suicide, you won't find me in time to save me', NOT 'next time, you won't find my body'. Why would she even think about her corpse after she died, or about hiding it from her family? This was desperate stuff from the defence!
Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand one by one, to say she was not depressed, much less suicidal before she went missing. On the day she was last seen she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
Her history of depression was obviously something her killer would immediately exploit to the full - as soon as she vanished, her husband was telling police about her past 'suicide attempts'. This of course was another reason he was so sure he could kill her and get away with it!
I would argue the lack of a body was actually more problematic for the defence than the prosecution. How on earth could Victoria have made her own fully clothed corpse totally disappear like that? If, as the defence claimed, she had somehow left home and killed herself elsewhere (despite not driving or being able to walk far), she would not have gone without her cigarettes - she was a chain smoker - nor would she have left her dentures at home. She was a proud woman of 59, who never went out without her teeth. The person who would want to leave her dentures at home was not her, but her killer.
It was established in court Propokovitz was easily able to get his wife's corpse into the chemical sludge pools at his works' disposal site. It was a dramatic moment in the trial, when one of the two senior detectives who took the stand said the defendant had told them he had a key to that site. He could access it 24-7. And very conveniently for him, there were no CCTV cameras there at all. He had ample time to kill and dump his wife, between her son Wes leaving the house at 7pm, and returning home at 4am, when he found his stepdad, supposedly searching for her in their yard. Propokovitz made sure she wasn't wearing her dentures, which as he mentioned to another inmate in custody would have identified her if she was found.
But of course he knew that toxic chemical sludge would destroy her remains quickly, and she was unlikely to ever be found. That's why he was so confident he'd got away with killing her, that he didn't even pretend to care she was gone!
It was Victoria's adult children and stepchildren who brought this case. They knew in their gut she had not killed herself, and even more damning, they knew Propokovitz their dad/stepdad was capable of killing her. And when they put the facts to seasoned detectives, they too shared that gut feeling and believed her husband was behind her sudden disappearance. Suicide victims are usually found, it is very rare that they are not. But murder victims can vanish forever as in this case - because their body is evidence against their killer, so he works hard to ensure it can never return to point the finger at him from beyond the grave.
2
-
@donnawest1126 You make an excellent point about Suzanne Morphews' daughters' silence. The reason Victoria Prokopovitz' husband finally went to jail for murdering her, is that her three adult children knew in their gut their stepfather had killed her, and told police about their suspicions. It was her son and two daughters who organised publicity and searches for her when she first went missing, and kept up the fight for answers. And when they repeatedly came up empty, they knew for sure their mom could not have killed herself and hidden her own corpse. They also knew their stepfather was capable of killing her, and had strong motives to, among them his new girlfriend.
I can't see any other logical explanation other than Barry Morphew murdered wife Suzanne and successfully hid or destroyed her body. I think she wanted a divorce and he wasn't going to let her walk away with half of their shared marital assets. Her public rejection would hurt his image and the financial loss would hit his wallet. It's the typical motivations for domestic killers.
You're right, if Suzanne's daughters won't fight for justice for her, the chances of him getting away with it are much improved. I hope to God he doesn't stay a free man for much longer. His conduct since she vanished has been deeply suspicious - like James Prokopovitz, failing to organise or even join in searches for one thing! And like Propokovitz, it's obvious he does not want his wife back. I wonder how long before we get confirmation Morphew has a girlfriend, like this sack of shit?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A great day for justice! The Victoria Propokovitz murder trial sends out a clear message to domestic abusers that 'No body - No crime' is a myth. Wife killers who successfully dispose of their partner's corpse, cannot assume they will get away with it.
Nor can men who choose murder over divorce relax, and think once sufficient time has passed and evidence gets cold, they are home free. The knock on the door from police can arrive at any moment! I hope a certain Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne vanished in equally suspicious circumstances last year, saw this Guilty verdict and shuddered. The investigating detectives did a fantastic job. They knew damn fine Victoria's death was no suicide, and their diligence and determination to deliver justice for a murdered wife, secured her killer's conviction.
The two senior officers were compelling prosecution witnesses. They showed the jury exactly who James Propokovitch is. His arrogance, belligerence and entitlement, seen by everyone on the police bodycam footage, gave a glimpse of the abusive husband who made Victoria's life a misery for years, before he finally murdered her.
I hope people now see that a primarily circumstantial case like this one can be just as compelling as one that features forensic evidence. Because the defence case was ridiculous! They asked the jury to believe that Victoria, a cancer patient with a bad leg who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without cigarettes, dentures, a suicide note or any footprints, killed herself and somehow disposed of her own clothed body without trace! Police did extensive, sophisticated searches for her, but she was nowhere to be found. Suicide victims don't vanish into thin air - murder victims do, because their killer worked damn hard to make sure of it. The absence of any body in this case was damning evidence of foul play. And who but her husband had a motive to murder her? James Prokopovitch clearly didn't care one jot for his wife, and didn't want her back. He dumped her naked body in toxic sludge, denying her the dignity of a funeral so he could get away with killing her. His contempt for his wife in police interviews was horrific, telling officers he wished he could "Shit her out" so they'd leave his girlfriend alone!
Because if Victoria's sudden disappearance wasn't suspicious enough, his hot and heavy, brand new relationship with new girlfriend Kathy filled in the blanks and showed exactly why Victoria had become an inconvenience he wanted rid of.
Truth and justice caught up with James 'Curly' Propokovitch 8 years after he murdered his cancer-stricken wife Victoria, to enjoy a bachelor lifestyle of boozing and gambling with his new girlfriend. He'll die behind bars, as he deserves to. He has created many, devastated victims - Victoria and Kathy's children and loved ones are heartbroken at their deaths. Two women who both died miserable, unnatural deaths, as a result of their relationship with the defendant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Travis is exactly the kind of self-pitying, man-baby who winds up committing mass shootings. Classic inadequate stalker type too. Woe betide anyone who made/makes the mistake of a romantic relationship with this pussy.
What can society do about toxic losers like Travis? People who grow older, but never grow up. They don't mature or learn from their mistakes. They don't even own their bad behaviour or acknowledge it, so how can they? For the Travis's of this world, everything is always somebody else's fault.
He loses his job - it's his boss/colleagues' fault, they've got it in for him. Rather than learn and grow, so he'll get another job and keep it, he expends energy on revenge plots.
He rows with neighbours - doesn't desist from the anti-social conduct that caused the fights, apologise and try to get along, but continues to misbehave until he's evicted/jailed.
Breaks up with romantic partner - experiences issues with access to children. Again, the partner is held 100% responsible for his domestic abuse, and the consequences that result. These idiots can't wait to hook up with a new partner - just to start the whole, abusive cycle again - and maybe create a few more confused and damaged kids along the way.
These are the times I feel really sorry for law enforcement and all the professional bodies that come into contact with this category of people. They are hopeless cases - and cause a hell of a lot of misery and harm to others, as they stumble angry and uncomprehending, towards the grave.
2
-
Men have huge physical advantages over women far beyond mere hormone levels (bigger heart and lungs, muscle mass, more blood to oxygenate during exertion etc etc). Look at the SIZE of Liar Thomas - he has shoulders as wide as the swimming lanes, and standing next to female competitors it is totally obvious from the other side of the stadium he is a MAN.
Let's quit mincing words here - it is not appropriate to call this CHEAT a 'woman' in the context of him stealing medals, places and prestige from female athletes! The trans takeover of language is helping them to justify doing women and girls terrible, totally unjust harm!
As Will Thomas, he got nowhere against other men - he wasn't even placed in those contests. So he decides to 'identify' as a woman (without any wish to have sex change surgery), and suddenly everyone including the swimming world has to accept that??? WHY? And to add insult to injury, this male-born, male-bodied human (otherwise known as a man), is using the female changing rooms - and exposing his penis to the female competitors. Women he is potentially sexually attracted to, as a heterosexual male. He is abusing those female swimmers in every possible way!
Make no mistake, toxic trans activism is a global #WarOnWomen and we cannot lose it! If you are a woman (or give a damn about the rights, safety, and dignity of women and girls), PROTEST this injustice in women's sports, and every other example of trans-fuelled misogyny you encounter, people!
#MenAreNotWomen #AdultHumanFemale #SaveWomensSports♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
WELL SAID! Why are female athletes tolerating this BS for a nanosecond? If male born people like Lia Thomas (otherwise known as men) are allowed to muscle in and steal women athletes' places, medals and prestige, it will end all women's sports stone dead as a category. Women's sports will no longer exist in any real way if men are included, it's totally obvious!
The world - and specifically 50% of it, women and girls - are looking to female athletes to stand up and be counted, and not let men like Lia Thomas walk all over them and their FEMALE sports in size 9 boots!
And by the way, like 90% of today's trans women Lia Thomas is fully male bodied with a penis and testicles 'she' has no wish to lose (ie has neither had, nor wants, gender surgery). Lia Thomas is also heterosexual. Not so long ago, this was known as a transvestite male - and of course that's exactly what he is. If he's happy in his male body then he doesn't have body dysphoria so how exactly is he transgender?
The term transgender today has become so totally meaningless, a fully male bodied male can literally say he's decided he's a woman and the world has to accept he is - and let him thrash actual women in their sports! What's more, Lia Thomas can share the female changing rooms, as a fully male bodied, biological male who is sexually attracted to women. That is another outrageous abuse of women he is committing without anyone stopping him! WTF are those female athletes doing - if they don't speak out and condemn this misogynist abuse, they are betraying ALL women and girls!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Iseeyou19xx Non Brits idolise Diana, because they swallowed her lies wholesale and bought into the fake, media image 100%. They haven't a clue who she really was!
Diana had at least 10 extra marital affairs to Charles ONE, and was a mistress many times more than Camilla!
That Diana had the nerve to point the finger at her husband, when she was a far bigger adulterer, and hiding so many dirty secrets from the public, shows what a devious, manipulative hypocrite she was.
There were many more than "three people in the marriage", as she famously claimed - it was actually crowded out with all her secret lovers, many of whom were other women's husbands!
Diana didn't want Charles herself - she made no secret of how he bored her at their joint public engagements from the late 'eighties onwards. She just didn't want him to be happy with Camilla, because she was childish and spiteful. She hurt her children terribly, by stabbing their father in the back on the infamous 'Panorama' interview' and by slyly colluding with the Andrew Morton book. And it backfired on her, because the Queen ordered them to hurry up and divorce - something she didn't want! She enjoyed the luxuries of being separated wife to the Prince, with all the perks of that position but without having to actually be a wife - a role she was lousy at! Of course she didn't want to divorce, it wasn't like she'd met an eligible man who wanted to marry her, and no doubt she didn't want Charles to be free to marry Camilla, the woman who DID love him.
If Diana the Queen of Tarts had lived and aged, her dumb fans would have abandoned her long ago. Diana would not have liked turning 60, and her face lifts as she desperately tried to stay young, and public rows with her sons as their younger, more beautiful wives took the limelight from her, would have exposed what a ridiculous, vindictive, self-serving narcissist she was.
People like you romanticise her because she died young and beautiful. You're even more shallow and deluded than she was!
2
-
@yuhgetintoit3929 You clearly have as little understanding of the term 'misogyny', as you do the late Princess Diana!
I don't go around pursuing and sleeping with other women's husbands - Diana did. Actions don't get much more misogynistic than that!
Diana's misogyny was no doubt rooted in her childhood. She was under the spell of her narcissist father Johnny Spencer, who abused her mother Frances.
When Frances left him for another man, he successfully brainwashed Diana and her three siblings into believing their mother had abandoned them. In truth her mother was heartbroken at the loss of her children, and fought for custody through the courts. But she had no chance against a powerful aristocrat. Johnny kept the kids - and they were raised by a succession of nannies and au pairs, while he continued the hedonistic lifestyle of the landed gentry, unbothered by parental duties!
Losing her mother aged 7, gave Diana lifelong 'mummy' issues, resenting and distrusting females. Alas it manifested itself in some very spiteful treatment of other women.
Diana pursued recently married rugby star Will Carling for no other reason than an ego trip - and ended his marriage before it was 2 years old. Diana wasn't in love with Carling - sources say she met him in private only three times, providing the kind of 'service' men usually have to pay for!
And for those cheap thrills, she broke another woman's heart. She threatened several other marriages - her sinister stalking of former lover Oliver Hoare and his wife, after he dumped her, was an early indication of how vindictive she was when she didn't get her own way. Diana constantly nagged Hoare to leave his wife for her - something he had no intention of doing. Eventually her demands drove him away - and prompted him to come clean to his wife Diane about the affair.
Diana was a duplicitous hypocrite, pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she was a mistress many times, with the morals of an alley cat!
You really need to do some research before you spout your nonsense about the Princess of Wales. Your ignorance about who she was, and the reality of her character and behaviour, is painfully obvious!
2
-
@yuhgetintoit3929 Are you serious? Prince Charles' - 'I should really have two wives to keep all her fans happy' - speech was a joke - and a very complimentary one to her!
He was remarking on her popularity with the crowds on a foreign tour, and making a joke against himself that the public preferred to see her over him, hence he really needed two of her. Diana was smiling, and clearly delighted at the compliment. Absolutely nothing offensive in it whatsoever - except to himself!
Perhaps the joke suffered in translation - you obviously didn't understand it at all!
What 'insults' do you 'know' Camilla made against Diana? More nonsense! In fact Camilla behaved with great dignity in the face of Diana's vindictive media campaign against her, and never once retaliated. It was Diana who called Camilla names, not the other way around.
There's no reason to believe, as you apparently do, that Camilla's feelings for Charles aren't real. They've been friends for 50 years after all! Yes, Charles knew Camilla's husband Andrew Parker Bowles, so what? His sister Princess Anne dated APB before he married Camilla. And Diana's sister Sarah dated Charles before she did. If you understood the British aristocracy, you'd know it's a small group of people therefore everybody knows - and dates - each other!
Princess Diana was many things, but 'sweet' was not one of them! She acted the innocent and presented herself as a victim purely to manipulate public opinion and win sympathy. It is the text book conduct of a covert narcissist.
With the word 'sweet' you reveal you've been totally taken in by her fake, butter-wouldn't-melt act, and eyelash batting. Again showing how gullible you are!
The public were fooled by her for a long time, but intelligent people have the measure of Diana today, and recognise how aggressively self-serving, two-faced and narcissistic she was. She only embarked on that final, fateful vacation with Dodi Al Fayed to make her heart surgeon ex Hasnat Khan jealous. She was annoyed he hadn't made any commitment to her, and that despite twice turning up at his family's house in Pakistan unannounced to persuade them she'd make him a good wife, he had not proposed. Diana went nuts when men didn't do her bidding!
Playing silly games, and colluding with the paparazzi to put photos of herself on the front pages, was typical of Diana's childish behaviour. And it cost her her life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sheilahammond4260 I recognise in dying young and beautiful, Diana left many deluded fans like yourself who see her as some sort of blameless, benevolent Mother Teresa figure. She was never that - far from it!
She is however deceased - long deceased. So it's distasteful and unhinged that her historic, pathologically vindictive vendetta against her husband's second wife Camilla is being continued by her minions. Diana cannot be hurt by anything said about her (the truth is not at all flattering). Camilla can, and she did nothing to deserve it. Diana was only angry at her for loving Charles, as she herself could not.
Diana's vanity is well documented, as is her bad behaviour, vindictiveness and immoral promiscuity. To put it bluntly, she threw herself at anything in trousers. Her determined 'seduction' of recently-married rugby star Will Carling was especially cruel. Diana knew he had a wife at home who cared about him and their marriage. Diana wasn't in love with him, but she found it amusing to have a famous man on a string and make him a conquest. It wasn't a love affair - it was far too sordid to be called as that.
On two separate occasions she schemed to get Carling into her bedroom at Kensington Palace and give him oral sex. I have that from the best possible authority incidentally - him! Carling once told rugby buddies he would never forget looking down at the top of Diana's head and thinking "That's the future Queen of England giving me a blow job". That's the kind of woman (and mother) Diana was! She greedily grabbed every privilege her royal marriage gave her, and behaved with horrendous selfishness.
If you want to worship a dead celebrity for being photogenic, be my guest. But don't pretend she was something she wasn't. Jealous of a woman who has lain rotting in a coffin for 23 years? If I were, I'd be crazy enough to be a Diana fan. I'm certainly not that!
2
-
@Aperson-dz6dy First off, like you I'm not a close personal friend of any of these people, and have no personal motive to like or dislike them. As a matter of fact, I'm not a fan of Prince Charles, or any of the royals. However I do not swallow Diana's efforts to make me and everyone else view him as Satan. Where is her evidence he was a terrible man and husband? Hell, Charles wasn't even a womaniser! The marriage failed as much due to her as him - they simply weren't compatible. A mismatch. Nobody's fault!
Charles and Diana both agreed to an arranged marriage and that's risky. Like all arranged marriages, the odds were against it succeeding. As heir to the throne and future King seeking his Queen, Charles had the most to lose. Diana in contrast had everything to gain. As indeed she did - the divorce got her £17 million in the bank (Charles was generous), top, VIP status for life as Princess of Wales, global fame, a Kensington Palace pad and a large team of staff at her disposal 24-7. And of course, two fine sons, who shared the royal status she won by marrying the Prince of Wales, and in William's case, got a prestigious job for life as the next king.
So it's frankly a mystery why Diana was so bitter about the end of her marriage, when she was having several extra marital affairs herself, to Charles' one - with a woman he loved and would eventually marry. The truth is Diana couldn't care less who her estranged husband was sleeping with in Gloucestershire, while she partied in London with her boyfriends (some of them married). But she was desperate to win a popularity contest with him, that she started and played out in the media. She was hugely manipulative, a brazen hypocrite - and a major league narcissist to boot.
If Diana had any dignity or decency and genuinely cared about her children, she would not have publicly declared war on their father as she did. She fully colluded with the Andrew Morton book, swearing blind she had nothing to do with it while slyly recording audio tapes telling 'her story' (very selectively!). And she invited the 'Panorama' crew into Kensington Palace, keeping that bombshell interview secret from her staff and passing the BBC crew off as builders.
Poor William will never forget his horror as a boarder at Eton, watching his mother not only admit to adultery (only with James Hewitt though, needless to say she 'forgot' to mention all her other lovers), and tell the world his father wasn't fit to be King. If Diana had been the wonderful mother she claimed, she would have put her children first, kept her mouth shut and be glad of all the glittering prizes her marriage to the Prince of Wales gave her!
2
-
@madelainemadelaine2934 Thank you! It's good to know I'm not the only one who got the joke! Diana clearly did - she loved it, and was well aware her husband was complimenting her.
It's crazy how people now look for supposed slights against Diana by Charles. I don't think he was a perfect husband - nor do I think she was a perfect wife! They were clearly a mismatch of two incompatible people. That's often the way with arranged marriages - and their union was certainly that.
Divorce is sad but it happens - it certainly isn't the terrible tragedy Diana pretended, to gain public sympathy! She was as glad to see the back of Charles as he was of her. You've only to watch their joint public appearances of the late 80s, to see she was bored stiff of him, and she showed it!
Diana emerged from her divorce with two fine sons, global fame and top VIP status, a Princess title, £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace home, and a team of paid staff for life, to do her bidding. Her self pity was ridiculous!
And it was that fabulously privileged, glittering life she threw away aged 36, when she forgot she was mother to dependent children, and failed to wear her seat belt. No one is to blame for that fatal mistake, but Diana.
2
-
2
-
@Aperson-dz6dy I was a British national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties who reported on the royals and specifically the 'War of the Waleses', as it was known in the tabloids. Having interviewed people on the inside, I know more about the real Princess Diana and her marriage than you ever will! I haven't made anything up, as you foolishly allege. I don't need to. There's all too much documented evidence of Diana's malevolent scheming and promiscuity.
Your claim Princess Diana was murdered in a car crash by her ex husband shows exactly how crazy you are. You're even more deluded than the typical, air-headed Diana fan and fantasist!
What possible motive would anyone have had to kill Diana? Frankly she was too stupid to be a threat to anyone but herself. Her death at 36 was entirely due to her own bad decisions. She died because she refused to accept the Queen's offer of a top Scotland Yard security team for life, on her divorce. Her former mother-in-law felt Diana deserved the very best round-the-clock protection, as mother to the future king. But Diana childishly thumbed her nose at her prestigious offer - an offer that money alone could not buy!
Then Diana compounded her terrible mistake by not only sleeping with coke-head Dodi, but accepting hospitality from his dodgy father the shady Mohammed Al Fayed. That crook provided the Princess with a reckless, drunk, drugged and uninsured driver. As the saying goes - if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas!
However, Diana would even have survived that calamity, if she'd only remembered she was mother to two dependent children and fastened her seat belt. There was no conspiracy behind her death - just her own, usual, typically selfish and ill-considered hedonism. All the Mercedes' seat belts were in full working order. Crash investigators agreed, if she'd been wearing her belt, she'd have walked away from the crash with a broken arm and bruising. How would any assassin have made her fail to fasten her seat belt?
Charles was generous to her in their divorce, and thanks to him she was set up for life with top VIP, princess status, a Kensington Palace home and staff for life. But she threw it all away that night with her shockingly poor judgements. She was the architect of her own doom. And you need to stick to soppy fiction - you clearly can't handle the truth!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Simply_Helen Your comment about Gabby touching her throat as she recalled their fight was very insightful - the coroner has confirmed Gabby Petito was strangled. I would bet Brian Laundrie had throttled her before, but this time took it to the worst conclusion, didn't release his grip on her neck, and murdered her.
Domestic violence experts have identified that if an abuser grabs at or squeezes a partner's neck, even as a supposed joke, there is a massive increase in the chances of him killing her by that method some day. A woman is never strangled without there having been several prior 'practice runs'. The advice to women is clear - if a man touches your neck like that, leave him. Stay, and you might not survive the relationship.
I think Gabby was murdered on 27th August, after Brian Laundrie's restaurant meltdown at waitresses, which was witnessed by many people. It's said Gabby apologised to staff for his nasty behaviour. A narcissist like him cannot handle public embarrassment which for them is an unbearable humiliation. I think Brian was enraged about losing face in that restaurant, through his own ugly, hysterical behaviour - and when they were alone in the van later, he strangled her to death. Poor Gabby, I so wish she had escaped this toxic loser long before he decided to murder her. She deserved so much better than that hideous, spoiled mommy's boy!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course the prestigious 'Prince's Trust', King Charles' long-established royal charity for vulnerable young people, has cut all ties with Phillip Schofield and his grubby child sex scandal! It was only a matter of time - the man is now persona non grata!
Sex predator and toxic narcissist Phillip Schofield, his agents, his lawyers, ITV (its top executives and his former co-host Holly Willoughby), are ALL up to their eyes in this filthy swamp!
Willoughby knew about her co-host's grooming/ exploitative, sexual relationship with a three-decades younger teenage boy! It had been going on for years - right under her nose. She played the leading role in that ridiculous, fake 'coming out' story on the 'This Morning' sofa - all pre-plotted and stage managed by ITV to protect him & his VIP status, after the vulnerable young man he exploited Matthew McGreevy tried to tell his story to The Sun. 🙄🙄🙄
She and the equally duplicitous Schofield and ITV are taking the public for total FOOLS! Willoughby's brand is irreparably damaged. Yet she's STILL lying - not to protect Schofield, but herself and her 'brand'. She has zero credibility and the public now knows what a snooty, devious FAKE she is. She's finished.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well said Eamonn Holmes - Bravo that magnificent man! 👏👏👏His positive legacy is assured.
Thank God one TV 'big-beast' has sufficient backbone to speak truth to Phillip Schofield's & ITV executives' grubby lies, and defend all the powerless TV production staff he & his crooked ITV bosses trampled on, and showed utter contempt for!
Others (far too many to list here, but including Piers Morgan), have slunk into the shadows like the cowardly, self-serving snakes they are!
The Schofield/McGreevy affair was all over the internet after Schofield's highly suspect, staged, 2020 fake 'coming out' on the sofa. So it's plainly obvious EVERYONE on the relatively small 'This Morning' team - including ITV top brass and co-host Holly Willoughby - knew the truth for at least the last THREE YEARS!
Eamonn is a class act, and so is his wife Ruth Langsford. Like her husband, Ruth possessed sufficient integrity and gumption to officially complain about Schofield to ITV executives. And how did ITV reward her for her honestly and decency? They threw her and Eamonn off their Friday gig hosting 'This Morning'! This scanda stinks of conspiracy and cover up from start to finish.
How the hell does 'Dame Easyjet' Carolyn McCall justify her £3 million annual salary???? She's in charge of major broadcaster ITV, yet she has a business NOT a broadcast background. Madness!
Her performance under questioning was predictably pedestrian and unimpressive. Yet as I feared, MPs simply aren't up to the job of holding her and Kevin Lygo's feet to the fire, and getting anything close to the truth out of them.
Will these crooks ever be held accountable???
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for speaking truth about today's toxic trans activism and it's powerful, woke supporters. I am so sick of misogynist, homophobic trans propaganda being mainstream. It's views are not about 'inclusivity' at all, but the very opposite!
Pride is now a joke. These people are misogynists and homophobes, their politics are anti women, and anti gay. In truth, today 'trans rights' are a men's sex rights group. The majority of so-called 'trans women' are nothing of the kind. Not trans women at all, but transvestites attracted to women. That used to be known as men with a sexual kink for women's clothing, the medical diagnosis is Autogynephiles or AGPs. But now they are claiming a trans woman identity (often in middle age much to the dismay of their wives), to enjoy the umbrella of protection and preferential treatment a trans identity brings.
As you rightly say, intersex is a medical condition, It has nothing to do with trans or gay rights. And there are even fewer intersex people than trans ones, they are tiny group! You nailed it - trans people try to conflate trans people with intersex ones to undermine the truth that sex IS binary.
The trans song in which a man wearing full drag and false breasts preaches about 'being you' is beyond ironic. How depressing Nickelodeon is the latest big organisation to throw transvestites at kids as positive role models. What kind of message is that gross parody of a woman sending little girls?
Make no mistake, Andrew Levett and the rest are not trans women as they claim (well I assume he does if he sings about trans rights, but today's trans means all things to all people, so who knows). The public would be astonished if they realised that today the vast majority of men who identify as 'trans women' are fully intact males with no intention of medically transitioning, so not the age-old 'man trapped in the wrong body' scenario at all. If these so-called 'trans women' don't want to transition, how are they 'trans'? In addition to being unapologetically, happily male bodied, today's 'trans women' are mostly heterosexual males, ie sexually attracted to women. Which means many of these men are ludicrously claiming to be lesbians. What's more, they are often making sexual advances to actual lesbians, expecting them to be attracted to their male bodies. If a lesbian rejects the sexual advances of a trans woman, she can be branded homophobic! What a crazy, woman and gay hating phase the world is going through, thanks to toxic trans activism.
2
-
2
-
@samdoors5132 If you research the case, Robert Wagner's version of events simply isn't credible, and reeks of a guilty cover up. He used his star power and expensive lawyers to get away with murdering his wife. And the police allowed themselves to be intimidated by him into backing off. It's disgraceful!
As the husband, police should have treated Wagner as the prime suspect in her suspicious death, and fully investigated him from day one. Everyone who knew her, knew she wouldn't have gone near the sea at night. His dumb, totally invented story about her going on deck in the pitch black in nightclothes to tie up a 'banging dinghy', slipping and falling unconscious into the sea, was uncorroborated. Neither of the other two people on the boat heard any such 'banging dinghy'. Besides, if a job needed doing on deck, Natalie would have told the employee to do it, she would not have done it herself.
It's truly horrific to imagine Natalie's terrifying last moments, totally alone in the dark water she so feared, knowing her husband had callously put her there. No wonder Robert Wagner aged so fast after her death - his guilty conscience was coming out on his face, as a guilty conscience tends to do. Who knows, he may do a deathbed confession if he's a religious man, but I somehow doubt he has the moral courage.
2
-
2
-
Charles walked into Lori's new home (which he paid the rent on), that sunny morning, to take their adopted son JJ out for breakfast. He was unarmed, and unsuspecting, when her brother Alex Cox ambushed him, shooting him multiple times in the chest and torso. He didn't stand a chance.
Later when his body was moved by police, they found a bullet underneath it, on the floor - meaning at least one shot was fired at him as he lay helpless on the ground. Charles left Lori's home in a body bag. Little JJ's devoted daddy, and main protector, was dead.
Alex and Lori ludicrously told Chandler Police that Cox had killed him in 'self defence'. Charles was unarmed - they claimed he had been 'aggressive' towards Lori, and had hit Alex over the head with a child's baseball bat he found inside the home. Even if that unlikely story were true, how is shooting an unarmed guy multiple times in the chest 'self defence' in that situation?
Yet incredibly, Chandler Police accepted the killers' explanation at face value, and didn't arrest or detain them! Law enforcement's inaction over Charles Vallow's violent death really beggars belief. A quick police computer check would have told them the victim Charles had no history of violence or domestic abuse, while his killer Alex Cox was a convicted felon, who had done prison time for a serious assault on Lori's previous husband Joseph Ryan, involving a taser!
And because police took no action against Charles' murderers, they were at liberty (with Chad Daybell) to murder Lori's two children JJ and Tylee, and Chad's wife Tammy Daybell over the next three months. Chandler Police must be held accountable for their appalling failings over the Charles Vallow homicide. Those incompetent police officers have the blood of at least three murder victims on their hands!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@la-zh4231 The witnesses said plenty! And they were all witnesses for the prosecution. The defence didn't put up a single witness to speak for the defendant, or provide evidence in his favour. Not one!
Oh, and the accused who had so much to say in his defence when interviewed by police, refused the opportunity to appeal directly to the jury. Weird, huh? We all saw what kind of man James Propokovitz is - if he was innocent of his wife's murder, wild horses wouldn't stop him taking the stand and declaring it to the jurors!
He's as guilty as sin, and 8 years after killing the wife he so clearly despised, he thought he had got away with it right up to the end. He was fully expecting the judge to say not guilty, he's such an arrogant snake. Watching cops clamp the handcuffs on that bully and march him out to his new home - a cage - was poetry in motion! He will die in jail, a convicted murderer.
James Propokovitch got what he deserved, and a far better fate than he gave his poor wife. He brutally took her life aged 59, robbing her and her loved ones of her retirement years. He also stole any chance of them saying goodbye and giving her a proper funeral. He will be well cared for in his final years (he's sure enjoying the food in custody), with home comforts and ongoing contact with the relatives who support him, his sister and nieces among them. He'll have TV and newspapers for entertainment, and medical care on demand. And when the time comes, he'll have a peaceful death from natural causes, and a funeral - human dignities he denied his loyal wife. Jail is too good for him.
2
-
2
-
@geneatkinson3052 Who knows what the future holds - after a revolution, the entire contents of the royal vaults could be looted and fall into republicans' hands to buy and sell as they see fit! My point was that the 'Royal Collection' showcased in this documentary is of unique historic significance, impossible to put an accurate price on, and highly unlikely to ever come up for sale.
There's no comparison between those legendary artefacts and the late Princess Margaret's privately owned pieces that were auctioned off by her children in 2006 to pay death taxes, as special and valuable as they are. They included a cocktail watch her mother purchased for her second hand for Christmas from Cartier (she paid £100 for it in 1950), the diamond necklace bequeathed to her by her grandmother Queen Mary, and the huge diamond tiara Margaret purchased for herself at auction and wore on her wedding day.
Wallis Simpson's jewellery gifts from husband Edward are even further from the 'Royal Collection' in value and importance. The Duchess of Windsor was not royalty in the conventional sense, and while the focus of international fascination due to the abdication crisis, doesn't have anything close to the royals' financial clout and prestige.
It reflects how isolated the Duchess became after the Duke's death in 1972, that there's no record of her leaving any gifts to friends or relatives - it all went to the Pasteur Institute. Clearly after all those years of acrimony, estrangement and exile, she had no reason to leave her late husband's jewellery gifts to her hated royal in-laws - though many of the Cartier pieces he commissioned for her were created from royal-owned gemstones.
I'm aware a 'value' can be put on anything. The nearly 5lbs of gold used to make the 'Imperial State Crown' can be valued, as can the millions of pounds worth of gemstones it contains. But obviously an item of such incredible provenance is worth considerably more than the sum of its parts. My main point is that any item is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. If you were stranded in the desert dying of thirst, you'd happily hand over the entire Crown Jewels for a glass of water!
I haven't read this thread in many months, and am astonished at how incredibly pedantic, dull and plain stupid it's become. Does anyone else want to say that the royal family jewels are stolen? Anyone?! YAWN!
2
-
2
-
WHY does Court TV invite dirty ex-cop Chris McDonough onto its channel? Chrish McDoofus is a proven crook, liar and charlatan, who tried to frame three children for a murder they did not commit. The man has zero integrity or credibility. Frankly his inclusion on any true crime panel is a stain on that TV channel's reputation!
Anyone unfamiliar with McDonough's seedy past need only Google his name for details of his leading role in an appalling and deliberate, near miscarriage of justice - the murder of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe on January 20th 1998.
Thanks to McDonough's corrupt and unlawful interrogation techniques, the victim's teen brother Michael Crowe, and his friends Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway were wrongly accused of the murder.
McDonough subjected the three innocent boys to hours of gruelling, psychologically abusive interrogation, during which they were deliberately isolated from their parents and had no access to lawyers. They were indited on murder charges, and pre-trial proceedings commenced.
McDonough applied his normal approach to 'solving' the crime ie, rather than keep an open mind and be led by the evidence, he decided from the start the boys were guilty because Stephanie had been stabbed to death at home in her bedroom, and there was no forced entry to the house. He then built a (flimsy) case to fit his view. McDoofus concluded, without any actual evidence whatsoever, that it had to be an inside job by the victim's elder sibling and his pals.
Thankfully a year later Stephanie's blood was (very belatedly) found on the shirt of her actual killer, transient man Richard Tuite. And then the full, shocking story of the bungled murder investigation under Chris McDonough's disastrous leadership, finally emerged.
Killer Tuite had not only been seen in the Crowes' neighbourhood on the night of Stephanie's murder by multiple witnesses, he was also reported to police by several neighbours for his strange and aggressive behaviour. Tuite, was clearly under the influence of drink/drugs, was yelling threats of murder, knocking on neighbouring front doors, and trying various different ruses to get inside residents' homes.
A police officer who attended that night in response to the 911 calls, briefly looked around and noted that he saw a door next to the Crowe's garage, close. This was a clear indication that someone had just entered it. The officer could not see who closed the door, and despite the earlier 911 reports of a transient male trying to enter houses, he did not investigate further. The cop left the scene at 9.56pm, reporting that the transient was 'gone on arrival'.
Stephanie was stabbed to death by Tuite in her bedroom between 10 - 11pm. There was no forced entry - Tuite got in through the unlocked door next to the garage. The policeman had witnessed the killer enter the house - and missed the opportunity to arrest him, and save Stephanie's life. She was found dead on her bedroom floor by her grandmother next morning at 6.30am. bloodied from frenzied blows with a 5-6 inch bladed knife.
Police briefly took Tuite in for questioning, fingerprinted him and took various items including clothing, fingernail scrapings and hair. They did only the briefest interview with him, and crucially failed to do a background check. If they had, they'd have found he had an extensive mental health and arrests history. Tuite was detained for a short time, and released. Under Chris McDonough, the investigation turned away from him, and focused in on entirely the wrong suspects - Stephanie's innocent brother and his two equally innocent and bewildered friends.
Tuite's shirt had been collected during the first days of the police investigation, but thanks to McDonough's arrogant certainty that he'd solved the case and nabbed the three teen 'killers', the garment was not fully tested until a whole year later.
Those poor boys (and their families, one of whom also lost a child to murder), needlessly endured a living hell, fully expecting to die in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Only due to the solid dna evidence proving their innocence, which emerged so crazily late due to police corruption, were they finally and fully cleared. Charges against the boys were dropped, and Tuite was convicted of Stephanie's murder.
If Chris McDonough had had his way, Michael, Aaron and Joshua, three totally innocent men, would still be locked up in prison today, for a heinous child homicide they had nothing to do with. I wonder how those three men feel when they see their former tormentor presented on TV shows like this as a respectable voice of true crime and justice?
After that disgusting scandal McDonough should have been kicked out of the police force in disgrace with no pension. Instead he was allowed to quietly retire, with his reputation - and fat pension - intact.
It is a measure of the man's enormous ego that he launched a post-retirement career as a true crime media 'expert' - despite his shocking and well-documented history of corruption and failure, and his notable lack of talent as a 'broadcasshter'!
Is this really the calibre of true crime 'expert' guest, Court TV is booking these days??? Get a clue, Vinnie!
2
-
2
-
The body language is very revealing, he's not even close to tears at any point, but smiling several times, hugging himself, sucking his bottom lip etc etc - but the visuals aside, if you just read a transcript of what he says it is bizarre to say the least! He is not saying the things a man who has just lost his entire family in mysterious circumstances would say. He talks in vague clichés, and repeats them - a clear clue he has rehearsed this bullshit over and over in his mind. According to him, he has just lost a pregnant wife and two tiny little daughters aged 3 and 4, he fails to mention important issues like his wife is pregnant and the children are without their medication! They are all very vulnerable, so why isn't he looking worried, anxious, begging the public to help him find them? He just parrots over and over "I want them back" while shaking his head to tell us "GOTCHA! I don't want them at all - good riddance!" How his friends could have invited him to sleep over at their house with their 5 year old daughter I will never know! They must be incredibly dumb - they really should have stopped to think, statistically the chances of anyone but Chris Watts being behind his family's disappearance were practically nil. But if there was even a shadow of doubt about him (and they knew there was, as police were interviewing him), they should not have risked their own safety and that of their little girl by having him anywhere inside their house - least of all, overnight! Are they crazy???
2
-
2
-
I heard that the child did tell his father "You stabbed me". I wish they had shown that bit! I agree, he was only 8 when it happened, and has probably blanked a lot out through trauma anyway.
The piece of shit Ronnie O' Neal is pretending his girlfriend attacked the children, killing their daughter with an axe and stabbing their son. That way he can claim he only killed his girlfriend in self defence because she was armed and dangerous. Obvious bullshit, how could it be self defence when he chased the girlfriend to a neighbour's house (poor woman ran there for help), and battered her to death on the doorstep, then he set fire to the family home to destroy evidence.
Unluckily for him the son survived to tell the world it was his father, not his mother, who attacked him and his 9 year old sister. Ronnie O' Neal had a long history of domestic violence and had recently fathered a child with another woman. He's so obviously guilty! If I was a juror I'd be very scared about what he could do when the guilty verdicts are read out, he could go nuts especially as it's a death penalty case.
He doesn't appear to be wearing handcuffs or any form of restraint. If there are armed officers in the court, I hope they keep a close eye on their guns!
2
-
The sketches look like a lot of men. Big woop! If cops can't catch this highly dangerous child killer when they have a photo, video and voice recording of him, sketches are irrelevant.
Let's face it, 4 years on without a single suspect much less an arrest, that dumb chief cop Supt Doug Carter has bungled the investigation. As a result, there is a predatory paedophile out there emboldened by getting away with not one but two murders in broad daylight. It's not a question of if he'll kill again, but when.
Doug Carter's suggestion he'll give himself up someday is ridiculous and naive. Sex killers are highly motivated, which makes them the most dangerous category of murderer. I believe it will take another crime, or crimes, for police to catch him. I pray that crime isn't a murder, but after such an audacious double homicide, there's every reason to believe it will be.
My heart goes out to Libby and Abby's loved-ones. To lose them on the brink of womanhood, and in such an horrific way, is a grief beyond measure. That police have not made any progress but have actually bungled aspects of the investigation adds hugely to their burden. #JusticeForLibbyAndAbby
2
-
Ruby and Jodi had to have been in an intimate relationship. They won't admit it, because of their pseudo-religious backgrounds. But I believe this child abuse happened after Ruby left her husband for Jodi, and they began sharing a bed. It's significant they were both present/living in the house, when police arrived to rescue the children. They were a couple.
Franke and Hildebrandt were initially loyal to each other - no one should forget that. Only when they realised they were in serious trouble and each facing significant jail time, did they turn on each other.
When the case reached court they disowned each other, to do the predictable, mutual finger pointing. But the systematic campaign of abuse, physical restraint and sadistic violence they inflicted on those poor kids was very much a joint enterprise. I'm glad the public finally gets to see this horrific police bodycam and interview room footage, showing the aftermath of the children's abuse.
People also need to see how defiant the two women were when they were first interviewed by police. Their early, arrogant behaviour in custody is a far cry from the contrite, apologetic and crying pair we saw in court, convicted of these horrific, heinous crimes of violence against children. It's obvious they were both initially very confident they would get away with it!
The psychological damage they've done to those children is immeasurable. The little girl's silence around police and her hesitation to eat - though she was clearly starving - speaks volumes about her terror and suffering at the hands of those monsters. Her spirit is broken.
It's a miracle they survived. If that little boy had not managed to escape his bonds, and Jodi's house which was his prison to raise the alarm, there's no question at least one of the kids could have died. That evil pair were treating their young captives' wounds themselves, and would never have taken them to hospital because it would have revealed their crimes. I don't believe 15 years in prison is sufficient for what they did - it's only by sheer fluke that this wasn't a case of child murder. Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt should both die in prison.
I hope the authorities think long and hard before returning those children to the care of their father. Where was he when they needed him? They had two parents, one of whom was torturing them in her girlfriend's dungeon! Their dad could not have been in their lives or he'd have presumably noticed the abuse and called police/saved them. Why wasn't he seeing his kids regularly? Had he allowed their abusive mother full custody?! He has some serious questions to answer.
I would also ask why the children's grandparents weren't seeing them. These children had been isolated from other people by their abusers - which is a textbook abuse tactic. Were the maternal and paternal grandparents asking to see them, and just as important, asking questions about their whereabouts and well-being?
It may be safer for the children to remain in loving foster care until they are adults, than be returned to what is clearly a very dysfunctional family - even without the abusive mother Ruby Franke present.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very easily - women are overpowered and killed by lone men all the time, in fact is is very unusual for two men to be involved in a woman's murder. Jodie was petite and weighed no more than 120lbs, and the evidence points to her behind thrown into a van, not a car.
Witnesses saw a white van in the parking lot outside her home and heard the sound of a vehicle door slamming twice.
This abductor/killer obviously came prepared. He grabbed unsuspecting Jodie from behind as she was putting the key in her car door. She screamed - he may then have held a chloroform soaked cloth to her face to knock her out, or may literally have knocked her out with a choke hold around her neck. The two slamming doors were her being put into the back of the van, then the abductor getting into the driving seat and speeding off.
Statistically Jodi was far more likely killed by a man she knew, than by a stranger/stalker. I believe her killer was John Vansice, a friend 20 years older who was obsessed with her. Bizarrely he had organised and paid for a big 27th birthday party for her a few weeks before her death - she wasn't his girlfriend or even a work colleague, so it was inappropriate.
Jodie didn't return Vansice's romantic feelings, and when he learned she had met a man she was keen on (10 days before she disappeared), he was enraged and plotted her kidnap and murder. The motive was jealousy by a spurned man who felt 'If I can't have her, no one else will'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sex offenders are often charming, apparently respectable, very plausible men. Huw Edwards has clearly lived a double life for years, a BBC celebrity posing as a happy family man with his poor wife and five children, while secretly lusting after little boys.
That he is the father of three sons, while eliciting hardcore pornographic videos and photos of other people's sons being horribly sexually abused by grown men, confirms just how depraved a pervert he is.
The creep is not of 'exceptionally good character', as his barrister ludicrously claimed in court today. He is a sex predator who targets innocent, vulnerable children for his jollies. He fully deserves a prison sentence - if anything his enormous privilege, high status and wealth means he has even less excuse for his crimes than any more typical pervert on the street!
If Huw Edwards escapes a proper prison sentence in December, it will be a huge stain on the reputation of British justice. We watch and wait. The BBC has huge questions to answer about their handling of this scandal, not least why to this day they've launched no inquiry into his offending, and why he's continued to receive his massive, near £500,000 annual salary in full, even after he was arrested by police 8 months ago for these appalling child sex crimes he admitted and plead GUILTY to in court today! #BoycottTheLicenceFee
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think the video concludes with great wisdom. It's too simplistic to dismiss the cause of an air crash to just 'Pilot Error', the story is always way bigger than one person's mistakes on the day of the incident.
I want to know why the SYSTEM allowed an individual who repeatedly showed significant skill deficiencies, to not only become a commercial pilot but to get promoted to Captain? That this man was so determined to be promoted to that senior role, despite struggling in his tests, tells a story of its own. It suggests he put personal ambition and gain above the safety of the public, and that points to arrogance, irresponsibility and self-serving priorities that don't serve the ends of public safety.
Had he been a decent, responsible human being with some humility, he'd surely have taken time to reflect on the fact he was struggling with his pilot exams/tests. Then he'd have privately asked himself some serious questions about his own life and priorities, and whether piloting commercial aircraft was the right career for him.
The Captain's last words were a belated acknowledgement he had messed up. But there were two other men in the cockpit with him that day, who could potentially have identified his mistake and confronted and corrected it. Why didn't they? More to the point - why was communication so poor between the three pilots? To me it hints he was a dominant personality who pulled rank and didn't react well to anyone challenging him, no matter how politely. This personality type is sometimes a feature of serious plane crashes involving pilot error - usually a Captain with a God complex, whose colleague/colleagues were too scared to point out his mistakes and address them before it was too late.
I wonder how much the interpersonal/professional relationships between pilots are studied during their training? How well those operating the plane communicate together, and that they respect each other and feel 'safe' enough to troubleshoot problems without anyone taking offence or bullying the other, is surely crucial - especially in a crisis when good communication and mutual respect can mean the difference between life and death.
2
-
Thanks to gender-cult, we are living through a bizarre age of misogyny, homophobia and anti-child safeguarding, the like of which our grandparents and indeed the Suffragettes, would never have believed possible. George Orwell himself would have been staggered that his futuristic novels didn't go far enough in predicting state-sanctioned, mass delusion.
There's no such thing as 'trans kids', or being 'born in the wrong body'. Most children/teens are insecure, confused about themselves, their bodies, sexuality and identity, as puberty arrives. That's totally normal. They should be supported through it - not fed the toxic lie that they can 'change sex', and all their troubles will be over.
It's no surprise that the number of kids identifying as 'trans', features disproportionately high numbers of gay and autistic children. Being gay/autistic can present additional challenges, which make the difficult teenage years even more challenging.
Butch girls and effeminate boys have always existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Humans are created on a wide and varied spectrum - that is true diversity, and we should celebrate it. We should not be telling girls and boys who don't fit 'feminine' and 'masculine' stereotypes they were 'born in the wrong body'! From that dangerous lie, follows sinister medical pathways from which there's no turning back.
There is a ticking time bomb of de-transitioners, already emerging. At a tender age, these people were told by medical professionals they needed powerful synthetic hormones and life changing, irreversible surgeries to 'change sex', ie hysterectomy and double mastectomy for girls, and castration for boys, forever robbing them of all sexual and reproductive and sexual function and causing serious health implications including early menopause and brittle bones for girls.
Like all lies, gender-cult is built on sand, and cannot last. It will be universally condemned around the globe - and when it is, I hope the unethical, money-grubbing medics who ruined so many lives will be sued to Hell as they fully deserve. Until that day, many well-meaning but misguided people are actively supporting a fake philosophy, that's causing terrible harm - not least to trans people.
2
-
@ninjazmbeegrl396 And don't you think Brian Laundrie's parents have invited such speculation, with their bizarre, indefensible conduct since Gabby was reported missing/murdered by their son?
The way they have mollycoddled him, hired a lawyer, refused to speak to police or to Gabby's desperate parents, and let their son hide behind his mother's skirts is appalling. It's also reminiscent of other narcissistic killers like Chris Watts. His mom and dad were also inappropriately protective of him. Indulgent parents breed dangerously entitled men! No one is saying they should reject their child, but to go so far the other way and protect him from the consequences of his behaviour is weird, warped and wholly unacceptable.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr and Mrs Laundrie are soon victim-blaming and publicly criticising Gabby, as the Watts family slandered their murdered daughter-in-law Shanann. If you study true crime as I have, this killing follows a depressingly predictable pattern seen in many domestic murders. Brian Laundrie is far from unique - alas there are many dangerous covert narcs like him out there, and more are walking free than are in prison!
My concern is that women learn about narcissistic abuse so they can recognise the red flags in a perpetrator's conduct and escape him before it's too late. If Gabby had been wise to her boyfriend's deeply toxic behaviour, she would probably be alive today.
2
-
2
-
Bravo Derek! It's reassuring to see a young man calling out Brian Laundry's appalling domestic abuse. Abuse we now know escalated to Gabby Petito's homicide at his hands, just two weeks later. It breaks my heart to see that lovely young woman so distressed and desperately covering-up for that evil, manipulative shit-bag!
Bizarrely, this bodycam which exposed shocking mishandling of a domestic abuse situation by police, attracted a lot of online victim-blaming. Who were the culprits calling Gabby, not Brian, the abuser? Young single males of course, who don't want to see another inadequate man-child like Brian Laundrie have his abuse called out!
It's become clear Brian is some kind of 'hero' to the Incel brigade. These guys, watching the bodycam from their momma's basement, love Brian Laundrie. He's their hero! They can't believe a guy as desperately unattractive as him pulled a woman like Gabby. Not only did he pull her, he abused and gaslit her so she was totally under his control. That's a wet dream to an Incel. If fuckwit Brian can wield power over an attractive, eligible young woman, it gives them hope they might some day do the same, and ditch their inflatable girlfriend.
Incels idolise peanut-head - that's why they victim-blame, and try to find excuses for his abuse in Gabby's behaviour. The scratches on his face show she was abusive, they say - when in fact such scratches are typically seen on males who abuse females. Those scratches were evidence of his abuse and her attempts to defend herself. He probably received a few more of those marks two weeks later, when he killed her.
If only such idiocy were solely the work of Incels. But as this video so powerfully shows, police are guilty of victim-blaming in domestic cases too. The way cops accepted Gabby's self-blame at face value, and were totally taken in by Brian's 'nice guy' act, shows officers desperately need better training on domestic abuse. It is staggering after two independent witnesses reported Brian assaulting her that morning, they never once confronted him over those serious allegations! Nor did they prioritise Gabby's safety, as a woman.
While men can be victims of domestic abuse, its victims are overwhelmingly women, and murder victims are almost exclusively female. So it was Gabby, not Brian, at potential risk of serious harm. Police should know this! Law enforcement more than anyone, should be fully aware of the statistics: Domestic violence is a global pandemic far more deadly for women than Covid! Gabby's care and safety should have been the police priority, not Brian's.
Instead they sent her off alone and distraught, at the wheel of a van she'd told them she wasn't confident driving. Cops instructed her to sleep alone in the vehicle that night, telling her as an afterthought where she could get a shower. Meanwhile they chauffeured her abuser Brian to a comfortable hotel, to enjoy a night of home comforts on Gabby's credit card. Unbelievable! This is what two public spirited guys called 911 on Brian for, after seeing him slapping a woman around??? Police did everything but kiss his ass! Those cops should face serious consequences for their appalling judgement.
No wonder Brian looked so smug at the end of the video. He knew the next morning his girlfriend would be more emotional than ever after a night alone in the van - and willing to reconcile with him totally on his terms. Police actions isolated Gabby, making her more vulnerable, and in effect endorsed Brian's abuse, feeding his feelings of entitlement to not only continue mistreating her but to escalate his violence. Two weeks later he killed her. To say those police officers let Gabby down is a massive understatement. They are a disgrace to their uniform, and to all the women they are paid to serve and protect.
Excellent video, superb analysis - thank you!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
God he's such a revolting little creep, The judge, jury and entire courtroom must be sick of the sight and sound of murdering scumbag Darrell Brooks! He was toast from day one because of his outrageous, public crimes of mass murder. But his best chance of any mercy from the jury was of course to be represented by a professional attorney, who could at least have submitted some mitigating evidence eg mental illness.
Watching him drowning under the weight of his own stupidity as he gave a poor impression of a TV lawyer (eg repeatedly referring to himself as 'the alleged defendant', when there's nothing 'alleged about it), was at times, hilarious! Big baby Brooks showed the jury exactly who he is. The phrase 'Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself' springs to mind. At times I half expected the long-suffering judge to shove a giant dummy in his mouth to shut him up!
This pitiful excuse for a man's total lack of remorse, empathy or even acknowledgement for the multiple innocent lives that he and he alone ended and ruined, is chilling and reveals exactly how dangerous he is. His only concern throughout these proceedings, has been for himself, first, last and in the middle. His fight to deny responsibility getting more and more desperate.
Darrell Brooks felt all-powerful that day, hood up, head down, speeding through crowds of people, murdering and injuring them one by one, tossing many in the air like so many human skittles. What a 'big man' he was behind the wheel of his Momma's SUV (which he was also sleeping in, 'cos the loser was homeless at 40, and not even his own family would give him a bed). What thrills he must have felt, hitting all those defenceless men, women and children, expressing his rage at his own inadequacies and pointless life of failure. They didn't stand a chance. The amount of blood on that crumpled red vehicle after mowing down more than 60 people, can only be guessed at.
But once police had him cornered and shackled, the snivelling rat was once again powerless. In custody, he fast realised in killing others, he'd also ended his own life. Thank God this dangerous narcissist will die in a cage, and no longer have access to any women - who he targeted as abuse victims throughout his life. My sympathies to the prison staff who must deal with his toddler tantrums from now on.
It's only a matter of time before the short-arse catches the eye of a way bigger psychopath - and then justice will really begin! Don't drop the soap lil' Darrell! 🤣🤣🤣
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BLUEEYESLIKETHEOCEAN-ql8kw If Melody shot Gary out at the fire pit, why is his blood - and a bullet fragment - plus evidence of blood clean-up, present inside the house? (Melody even visited Target the following day to buy more house cleaning products, as listed on an itemised till receipt).
The forensic evidence tells the story - Gary was shot inside the house, and his body taken outside to the fire pit. Besides, Melody would not have dared fire a gun outside, at around 10pm, with the attention/questions that could attract. Bad enough that someone heard two shots fired from inside her home at that time (more evidence it happened indoors), but clearly the noise wasn't loud/obvious enough to warrant further investigation by that witness.
Melody made sure she was alone that afternoon/evening (even refusing a requested sleepover from one of her granddaughters - who she never refused). She had decided Gary had to go, and when Melody makes her mind up, there's no shifting her. I don't know how she got her 300 lbs hubby's lifeless body from the house to the fire pit, but I have no doubt she achieved it. Adrenaline is a powerful energiser!
2
-
2
-
TOO RIGHT Kevin O' Sullivan, well said. Is anyone taken in by Holly Willoughby, the simpering, back-stabbing narcissist? I'm not! Her icky, insincere speech today, was the embodiment of 'The smiling assassin'!
Yet Again the vile Holly Willoughby lies, and takes the viewers for fools. For YEARS she was front and centre of the sex-scandal cover up, thick-as-thieves with Schofield and ITV bosses who ordered the 2020, fake 'coming out' stunt to save Phil.
Holly knew exactly why she was hosting that bizarre, sudden 'coming out' segment - Schofield's recently sidelined & scorned young lover looked likely to spill the dirt on him, after his recent emotional meltdown at the National TV Awards. This was all about hiding Schofield's predatory behaviour with a teenage boy, and saving his image, career and 'This Morning' job!
If Holly had any moral backbone SHE would have given ITV an ultimatum years ago, when his inappropriate relationship with a sickeningly young male was first common knowledge at 'This Morning' - him or me. She is a mother of three - yet she clearly cared nothing that her co-host was fiddling with such a creepily young man (after engineering him a job on their daily show). Where are Holly's morals? Where is her integrity - or conscience?
But Holly didn't take any stand against Schofield and his appalling workplace misconduct. Instead she towed the ITV line and actively colluded with them and Schofield in the cover up. That fake coming-out stunt succeeded for a time. It held back the flood for three years - while the truth continued to swirl across the internet. But inevitably the dam broke, and the true story emerged!
Yet still Holly makes out she was totally ignorant of her co-host and buddy's intimate relationship with a boy young enough to be his grandson - conducted day-in, day-out in front of the entire 'This Morning' team. They ALL knew about it! How dare she treat the public like we're lobotomised!
Holly Willoughby fully colluded with Schofield and ITV bosses to protect him, and enable his exploitative, FIVE YEAR sexual relationship with a 34 years younger junior tea boy/runner! But when the truth eventually, inevitably emerged (as it generally always does), Holly was not so loyal to her 'friend' Phil that she'd let him take HER career down with his. Oh no!
This mealy-mouthed, prissy, self-serving little speech today, was all about putting the final boot into Schofield and stamping her new ownership on 'This Morning'. Holly only further revealed how ruthlessly ambitious she is. She was never Phillip Schofield's friend - when he was deep in the doo-doo she fled from her persona non grata sidekick faster than a farter in a buffet queue. Some friend she is!
The blonde backstabber is clinging to her 'This Morning' contract with a white knuckle death grip, because she has dozens of multi-million pound advertising deals dependant on it. Some say she could easily go to the BBC - but leaving ITV for a public service broadcaster would present all kinds of major financial losses for her.
Kevin O' Sullivan is right - Holly Willoughby is damaged goods. Light has been let in on the so-called 'magic' - and the public has seen the 'This Morning' brand and Ms Willoughby for what they really are - a cheap confidence trick. Scammers every bit as toxic, arrogant, narcissistic and duplicitous as Phillip Schofield.
The scandal is way bigger than Schofield alone - as Eamonn Holmes rightly said, the show is toxic and rotten to the core. Holly won't suddenly start caring about the 'little people' on the team who work so hard to make her look good. She'll remain the same snooty, egotistical self she always was - the difference now, is that the public knows! She is not who she pretends to be, any more than Schofield was. Nor is 'This Morning' anything other than a 'family' as dysunctional as Charles Manson's! She and 'This Morning' are finished.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Speak for yourself. Dirty Diana was a home-wrecker par excellence, whose sexual adventures from 1985 when she was bored of her husband, made Camilla look like a nun!
She only pretended to be heartbroken over Charles, to win public sympathy and demonise the father of her children in the media. In reality Diana was too busy bedding anything with a pulse to care who or what her hubby was doing! And she had the morals of an alley cat, caring nothing if an attractive man had a wife and kids at home, and even wore a wedding ring - if she wanted him, she gave him her phone number and slept with him. She may have been a virgin on her wedding day, but she soon made up for it!
Diana seduced her married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee, newlywed England rugby star Will Carling (who she had propositioned at her Chelsea Harbour gym knowing full well of his recent wedding), and her husband's old friend Oliver Hoare, who she stalked with 300+ malicious phone calls when he refused to leave his wife for her.
Diana was a vain, vacuous, self-serving, vindictive narcissist, who went into that marriage with her eyes firmly fixed on all the glittering, VIP prizes that would land in her lap as the future queen. She didn't marry Charles for love, but for global fame, adulation and 24-7 luxury. The way she batted her lashes and played the victim for public sympathy, and to demonise the father of her children, when she'd been sleeping around for years, was sickening hypocrisy.
If Diana hadn't got herself killed hanging around with the shady Al Fayeds, the scrutiny of the imminent internet age would have exposed the ugly truth about her bed-hopping and bad character.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, Lori Vallow, her brother Alex Cox, and her lover Chad Daybell's diabolical crimes have taken an enormous physical and emotional toll on the many surviving victims closely tied to this case.
Sadly, Colby Ryan has not escaped his malevolent mother Lori's dark influence totally unscathed. Last year, September 2022, he admitted raping his estranged wife at the home they once shared, during an access visit to see his kids. It's said he apologised to the mother of his children, and told her it would never happen again.
She initially, bravely pressed charges against Colby Ryan for rape. But I suspect all the inevitable publicity (due to Colby's infamous criminal family connections), deterred her from proceeding. All rape trials are an horrendous ordeal for the victim. but In this case the global publicity made it an even more stressful and terrifying prospect for her.
The sexual assault case against Colby Ryan was dismissed 'without prejudice', meaning it could be picked up again and resurrected at any time. I hope that serves as a reminder to him to keep his hands off unwilling women, and NO means NO.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@denisedagostino7195 Bored of her husband after 5 years of marriage, Diana abandoned him to their country house Highgrove, while she moved full time to Kensington Palace, where she could live a fast London bachelor-girl lifestyle, and have umpteen meaningless affairs - many with married men!
Diana was a shameless home-wrecker, with no conscience about slipping her phone number in an attractive man's pocket, while his wife was standing right next to him! Oliver Hoare was only one such married lover - and she went psycho when he refused to leave his wife for her, making over 300 malicious silent phone calls to his home at all hours of the day and night. Diana was vicious when people didn't do what she wanted - as her long-suffering husband Charles found out.
Left alone, it's no wonder his old friendship with Gloucestershire neighbour Camilla, also trapped in an unhappy marriage, turned to love. Contrary to the lies Diana told about wanting to save her marriage, she was having far too much fun re-living her teen years in London to care a damn what - or who - Charles was doing! She was bored to tears of her husband, as she made perfectly clear on their joint public appearances when she was blatantly frosty towards him, to the embarrassment of onlookers. It's pathetic the way she batted her lashes and played the innocent, wronged wife in the BBC 'Panorama' interview, admitting to just one affair with James Hewitt when her sexual conquests actually ran into double figures and included several women's husbands! Look up the word 'Trollop' and you'll find a photo of Diana. Next to the promiscuous princess, Camilla was a virgin!
She fought tooth and nail to keep the Princess of Wales title on her divorce - and Charles generously allowed it, though she wasn't actually entitled to retain it, and she'd dragged that ancient and noble title through the mud with her umpteen vicious vendettas and sexual adventures with unsuitable men.
It's great to see the prestigious Princess of Wales title finally restored in status, now Catherine has taken ownership of it. Catherine is a wonderful, loyal and steadfast wife, mother and royal, and fully deserves that honour. Her late mother-in-law did not - as confirmed by the fact she survived only one year outside the protection of the royal family, after receiving her generous $17 million divorce settlement.
Almost a year to the day after her divorce was finalised Diana got herself killed in a stupid road accident, because she didn't give her kids a thought and wear her seat belt, and allowed a reckless, drunk, drugged and uninsured driver to chauffeur her alongside her latest conquest - a coke-addicted Arab playboy. Queen of Hearts? Queen of Tarts is nearer the mark!
2
-
2
-
@angiealvarez214 Diana died in a stupid, needless road accident, entirely caused by her own foolish choices. No assassin could have made her fail to wear a seat belt! And before you spout more ill-informed garbage, all seat belts in the Mercedes were in full working order. Had Diana only given her two little boys a thought while she was running around Paris with her coke-head lover, she would have survived and spared William and Harry the trauma of losing a parent.
Failing to fasten her seat belt was just one of Diana's bad decisions that cost her her life. The first was on her divorce, when she peevishly refused the Queen's offer of her own world class security team (bodyguards and drivers) at her disposal for life.
Then she made another fateful mistake, in failing to employ her own full time security team with the generous £17million divorce settlement Charles gave her.
Her next terrible misjudgement was being flattered by the attentions of the shady Al Fayed family. Diana was so dumb, she couldn't see the Al Fayeds were cynically using her for her royal prestige. Were it not for her failed marriage to Prince Charles and her status as a senior royal, the Al Fayeds would not have cared less about her!
Mohammed Al Fayed pimped his playboy son out to Diana, matchmaking them to stick 2 fingers up at the British establishment and raise his own profile and prestige. He even ordered Dodi to break off his engagement with American model Kelly Fisher! Diana should have been smart enough to see she was being used as a pawn in a wealthy megalomaniac's game, but her narcissism blinded her to the truth.
She disastrously put her personal safety in the hands of that crook Mohammed Al Fayed. And he provided her with reckless, star-struck, drink and drug addled 'chauffeur' Henri Paul, who sped her at 100mph to her death - and he was not even insured to drive her home!
Diana was the architect of her own doom. She should never have associated with the Al Fayeds - or slept with that joke Dodi. It was to cost her her life. Silly woman! If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
2
-
@winterskymoonranch 'Psychopathic abuse?!' Behave yourself! You sure fell for narcissistic Diana's self-pity party, hook line and sinker!
Diana was no wide eyed innocent when she accepted Charles, the future King's, wedding proposal, after meeting him just 13 times. You think she was in this for love?! Of course not - she had her eye firmly on all the glittering prizes that would land in her lap as Princess of Wales!
I don't blame her - after all, what else would she do with her life, after ending her expensive education at 16 with no qualifications?
Diana was a top, blue-blooded aristocrat, who grew up around the royal family and royal palaces - the Spencer family's links with the royals go back centuries. Queen Elizabeth attended Diana's parents Johnny and Frances' 1954 Westminster Abbey wedding!
So don't be taken in by the fictitious Andrew Morton book Diana secretly commissioned as PR piece for herself - and a hatchet job on the royal family. She did very well out of her doomed, arranged marriage to the heir to the throne (doomed because they were totally incompatible from day one).
She walked away from the divorce with princess status, a Kensington Palace home, two fine sons and privilege for life. Sadly she threw her golden life away when she chose to intimately consort with the shady Al Fayeds, and failed to wear her seat belt. Diana killed Diana. Case Closed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@onemuckypup9823 You don't believe people in unhappy marriages should be allowed to divorce then? Diana wanted out of that marriage just as much as Charles did - he bored her to tears, as she made perfectly clear to the world on their joint public appearance from the late 'eighties.
Why shouldn't he be happy with the woman he loves and has remained faithful to, since his doomed, arranged marriage failed? Why is Diana's approach - sleeping with umpteen different men (some of them married), judged by you to be morally superior?!
You Diana fans are the ultimate hypocrites - just as she was! She had some brass balls pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, and playing the innocent, betrayed wife, when in truth she was sneaking about behind the media's back, seducing any man with a pulse - and often, a wedding ring! And in the case of lover Oliver Hoare, launching a vindictive stalking campaign against him, with 300+ malicious silent phone calls, cause he refused to leave his wife for her. Diana was no wronged wife. Grow up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diana introduced her little boys to many of her lovers, among them James Hewitt and Will Carling - she was utterly shameless! At least Charles'affair was with just one woman who he loved and went on to marry. Diana's many lovers were just casual shags!
You will never hear that William and Harry have a problem with Camilla, because they don't. She's a warm, kind, down to earth step mum, who fell in love with their father after his marriage to their mother broke down.
The marriage failed on both sides, it was mutual. Diana only pretended to be heartbroken to win public sympathy - she was sleeping with other men from the mid eighties, and some like Oliver Hoare, were married! It was rich Diana pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she herself was a mistress many times over. Ask Mrs Mannakee, Mrs Hoare and Mrs Carling what they think of Diana, the Queen of Tarts who pursued and bedded their husbands!
2
-
@RiyanRishitha Ha! Ha! Priceless! Diana was not a child, she was a grown woman, responsible for her own choices and her own mistakes. Yet she behaved like a child - she wouldn't take responsibility for herself, and instead went round blaming other people for her problems, always.
What was she bleating about anyway? Many marriages fail, especially arranged marriages! She got what she wanted out of the marriage - the title, fame, status and glamorous lifestyle of a senior royal. That's the reason she married Prince Charles - she admitted, she only met him 13 times before their engagement, so she wasn't in love with him! It was all about the glamour for Diana.
And she came out of the divorce free of a man who bored her, with two healthy sons, £17 million in the bank, a Kensington Palace apartment, a team of servants and the VIP status and title Princess of Wales.
Some victim!
She had it made, and was set to enjoy a life of unimaginable luxury and privilege - all thanks to her one achievement, marrying Prince Charles. Yet she threw away that glamorous life by trusting the crooked Al Fayed family to provide her security staff, and failing to wear her seat belt.
Ultimately Diana, no one else, was responsible for her death at 36. If she had only behaved like a grown up and taken care of her own security arrangements and fastened her seat belt, she would not have died in that totally needless accident. That she was running around Paris with a coke addicted Arab playboy really said it all - Diana had found her level. The royal family were always way too good for her!
2
-
@RiyanRishitha You're a good soul, I can see that. That's why you've misinterpreted Diana's character. Charles was not the villain Diana portrayed. The marriage was happy at first, and both Charles and Diana both went into it with high hopes. But sadly they were a total mis-match in every way. That is why arranged marriages are such a bad idea - they rarely work out!
If Diana had been a wiser, more mature and well-balanced person, she'd have handled the end of her marriage very differently. Instead of trying to crucify her husband and turn the public against him, she'd have respected him as the father of her children and made a new life for herself, grateful for all the advantages her marriage into British royalty had given her.
Marrying Charles transformed Diana's life - exactly as she knew it would! Thanks to Charles she was a world famous VIP, with untold riches, servants, a palace for a home and two fine sons. But true to form, Diana never once acknowledged that! Without Charles and the royal family, she'd have been just another aristocrat's daughter, divorced from a banker.
It's unfortunate for everyone concerned - especially William and Harry - that Diana was so hell-bent on punishing Charles for the fact they weren't compatible. How was that his fault? Marriages fail, relationships end. And when they do, the two parties should move on gracefully - especially when there are vulnerable children involved!
If Diana had been a better mother, she never would have done that explosive 'Panorama' interview that hurt and embarrassed her sons so much. Stabbing Charles in the back like that backfired on her big time - it hastened the divorce she didn't want, and that ultimately led to her own death. She was a very silly, self-centred and damaged woman.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juanitarichards1074 Thank God you did. I've been stunned by your story before, and your impressive strength in helping others affected too.
Your always insightful comments on videos like this one help many, many people. Knowledge is power - it's crucial there's a platform to discuss and analyse the M.O. of abusers like Chris Watts, so the red flags can be recognised. I believe there will have been many, many red flags in his behaviour during the 8 years Shanann spent with him. A man couldn't be capable of committing and immediately shrugging off the obscene crimes he did, without being seriously out of step with emotionally-functioning people in a million different ways!
I thought this was an impressive video, did you? I've watched so much content about this crime, it's rare to come across anything original. But his insights were sharp and strongly expressed, and the editing was brilliantly done. The 'jump cuts' from that empty house on 13th August 2018 to it's previous glory as a family home with Shanann and the girls running round it, were heart-stopping and starkly showed the tragedy before your eyes.
The victim-blamers should think about Shanann's house standing cold, empty and silent on Christmas Day, when once it rang to the sounds of laughter, children playing, and a kitchen bustling with warmth and home-cooked food. Just too sad for words!
2
-
Absolutely right, narcissistic abusers like Amber Heard are pathologically self-serving parasites, who will drain the life-blood from you, if you are conned by one into letting him/her into your heart.
The Depp vs Heard trial was a salutary lesson to us all, in the destructive power of narcissistic domestic abuse. Thank God Johnny finally got that cruel, gold-digging vampire off his back. I pray he'll now focus on getting healthy and kicking the addictive substances - and hangers on - who are subtracting from, not adding to, his life.
I would love to see him clean and sober, surrounded by people who genuinely love him and deserve his trust, and focusing on doing some of his best acting work, as he enters the last 10-20 years of his career.
Johnny Depp is one of the finest actors of all time, how wonderful if he were to land a fantastic role and win the Oscar that has so far eluded him. Millions of people like myself who only got to 'know' him through the recent, high-profile trial, will be rooting for him all the way.
2
-
@voice2voiceless I don't excuse or approve of home-wreckers, ie women who knowingly pursue other women's husbands for casual sex. That's why I can't stand the late, promiscuous Princess Diana.
Ask a few of the ladies whose husbands Diana shamelessly pursued and bedded, what they think of the self styled 'Queen of Tarts'. You'll find Susan Mannakee, Julia Carling, Diane Hoare and the rest don't buy into her manipulative, entirely fake 'wronged wife' act. She was a brazen hypocrite.
Diana had a damned nerve pointing the finger at Charles for his one affair with the woman he loved and later married, when she was boffing anything with a pulse - and often, a wedding ring!
Dirty Diana regularly introduced her innocent little boys to her casual shags too, a nasty habit that came back to haunt Prince William as an adult. As the older child, he bore the brunt of his unhinged, narcissistic mother's emotional abuse. This is why he chose to champion the issue of mental health.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not hard to work out what happened that day in 1994. Gavin Samer was alone, as his girlfriend was away for the weekend. Emboldened by drink he booked a pricey home visit by prostitute/escort, Revelle Balmain, knowing he had no money to pay her. He clearly never paid her for her services - when she arrived, he no doubt fobbed her off with some story about fetching cash later.
Her last proof of life was when she called back a girlfriend from his home at 7.15pm, in response to a pager message. She told her friend she was about to leave. She answered 'yes' when the friend asked if Samer was in the room with her - the friend deduced from that she could not speak freely. The fact she made that call, suggests the 'escort-client' appointment had been normal up to that point. If Revelle was under any duress, or had been raped or kidnapped, obviously Samer would not have let her call her friend back.
The women made a casual agreement to meet later that night at a pub, and ended the phone call. Revelle disappeared from the radar after this, and could not be contacted. When she put the phone down to her friend, the question of Gavin Samer's payment had to be resolved. This was when Samer turned nasty. He was known to be violent in drink.
There was obviously a violent physical confrontation, during which he killed her and got various scratches and a bitten finger, as Revelle fought for her life. Samer was alone that weekend, and able to dispose of her body successfully, using his car. Washing the bed sheets was part of his post-crime clean up. It's unlikely he dismembered her - when police belatedly searched his home a week later, they could not have found major blood evidence, as an arrest would have followed. It's likely he murdered her by a bloodless method - strangulation or suffocation - then put her dead body in his car after dark, and either buried it somewhere, or disposed of it in deep water.
Samer knew he'd be suspected, as the escort agency had his name and address. So he scattered her shoes and bag around town to lay a false trail for police, and support his fake story about dropping her off alive and well. He had this story ready, when police knocked on his door. He must have initially thought police bought his lies, as the earliest TV appeals presented that false scenario as truth. In fact no one saw Revelle at the time and place he claimed they said goodbye. The reconstruction using a lookalike didn't bring forward a single witness who saw her. Samer only ever drove Revelle from his home dead. Police should have forensically searched his house and his car immediately!
Shoddy police work has allowed this highly dangerous man to remain at large for 29 years, a clear risk of serious harm to females. At least one other woman is dead as a result - who knows how many other women he has terrorised and attacked? Women must be protected from men like him!
It was disheartening to see the most recent images of him, looking well, having gained weight. His life is clearly on the up - he was grocery shopping and driving a nice car with a lady companion. Having got away with killing two women, he no doubt feels he's untouchable. Perhaps he's right!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimnasium7700 Yes, that dumb 2019 media conference, fronted by useless buffoon Supt Doug Carter, was a total $hit-show. He announced the new, much younger suspect sketch and age estimate to huge fanfare, like it was some major break in the case. It wasn't - it was yet another wrong turn, in a flawed investigation full of glaring eff-ups.
Frankly I doubt Doug Carter could find his own a$$ with both hands if someone shut the lights off. Whatever the verdict, when this murder trial is over, Carter and the Indiana Police should be held fully, publicly accountable for their incompetence, which let a highly dangerous sex killer walk free for five long years. If Allen didn't kill again during those years of freedom, it's no thanks to the Keystone Cops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@suej9329 Diana was a narcissistic, promiscuous airhead, yet her deluded fans believe she was a more photogenic Mother Theresa! And that's what it's all about - how photogenic she was, and the fact she died young and beautiful. They are just as shallow as she was.
If Diana had given her two children a thought, fastened her seat belt and survived that crash, her fans would have abandoned her years ago! Because the truth is, the shine was already wearing off Diana when she died. Her cynical games-playing, courting the press, was starting to catch up with her.
Journalists and photographers were starting to feel used by the princess after her vicious PR war against Charles, and many were on the verge of double crossing her. She died just as the internet was starting up, and that would have been a game-changer, exposing the REAL Diana, not the fake image she'd created. The public would soon have worked out she was not the wide-eyed, innocent victim of a cheating husband she portrayed, but a scheming, manipulative, married-men-shagging Queen of Tarts! Diana broke up Will and Julia Carling's marriage before their second wedding anniversary, and she threatened several other marriages by seducing husbands. She was a mistress many times more than Camilla, she was an utter hypocrite crucifying her for her one affair with Charles (a love match), when she herself was dropping her drawers left, right and centre! Diana was careful to keep all her casual sex out of the papers, getting her creepy butler Paul Burrell to deliver her illicit lovers to her, in the boot of her car.
Diana was fast approaching 40, and she'd have majorly struggled with ageing. I so wish she'd lived, it would have been hilarious watching the has-been princess get more ridiculous with every passing year - the face lifts, the fallings out with her sons and their wives, because she resented the younger, more attractive Kate and Meghan stealing her limelight! Diana would have become a rather pitiful and undignified joke. Camilla was always the better woman, and that would have become patently obvious.
2
-
@sherryduggar8821 Damn right - Diana's shameless attacks on the royal family and the father of her children on 'Panorama' and the scurrilous Andrew Morton book were a disgrace. A case of bite the hand that feeds you - Diana owed everything to the royal family, if Charles hadn't proposed to her she'd have been another dim aristocrat's daughter with no bigger ambition than to marry a wealthy toff! She hit the jackpot when Prince Charles pursued her.
Without becoming a senior royal, Diana would have missed out on the global fame, privilege, luxury and VIP status she loved so much! It went to her head like strong drink - when they gave a press conference from a riverbank as newlyweds, Diana pretty much answered all the press questions, she was 'shy Di' no more!
Diana loved the media attention. It soon became clear she had no intention of being a supportive wife to her husband, the future king. She wanted to take the spotlight and be bigger than him. Poor Charles had been forced into an arranged marriage to a stranger - he had no idea this supposedly 'sweet' 19-year-old was so narcissistic and self-serving! Thank God his son William was able to really get to know his future wife before committing to her. Catherine is a wonderful wife, who loves and respects him in a quiet, genuine way quite different to the way Diana treated Charles.
It's ridiculous people still swallow the fairy tale Diana invented about walking down the aisle 'like a lamb to the slaughter', etc what rot! She emerged from that church triumphant, like the cat that got the cream! Diana admitted she only met Charles 13 times before she accepted his marriage proposal - she certainly didn't marry him for love!
I'm intrigued you say Diana should have lost the title 'Princess of Wales' on her divorce. Of course I understand about her losing HRH, as all divorcees from royals lose it (it wasn't the terrible snub Diana made out - and the fact she was so devastated people no longer had to curtsy to her, shows exactly how down-to-earth she was, lol). But I assumed the princess title was hers for life (or until she re-married), just as Prince Andrew's ex-wife Sarah is still the Duchess of York?
2
-
2
-
What a beautiful cat! He'll get adopted soon, for sure. I so envy the people who will have him join their family.
Scared, stand-offish animals have usually been hurt by humans. They can be unfairly branded 'aggressive', when all they are is afraid. And all they need to come round, and learn to trust people, is TIME.
Too often people rush this, get impatient and try to hurry the process. And make no mistake, winning the trust of an animal as hurt and neglected as this one, IS a process.
A friend of mine was asked by a rescue shelter to adopt a second cat from them, after he gave a male cat such a happy home. The rescue had unsuccessfully adopted out Jessie , a small, timid female, 3 times, but each time the family brought her back to the shelter after a week, complaining that she wasn't friendly and would not settle with them.
The shelter was losing hope of ever re-homing her, and were considering releasing her back into the wild. When my friend heard this he had to take her, he couldn't bear to think of her all alone, a small, vulnerable cat, living feral.
As soon as he got her home and opened the cat carrier she shot out, and hid under his couch. And there she stayed, for days. So he gave her all her meals under there, and put the litter box nearby. He didn't hassle her to come out, and neither did his other cat. After a week she finally emerged, and started exploring her new home. She was soon sitting on her new owner's lap.
5 years later she's the happiest, cuddliest, most affectionate lap cat you can imagine. She's a real home bird, who never goes out, loves pets from him, and is even friends with her feline brother. All she needed was TIME. People must be patient and not put pressure on a nervous animal. Take things at THEIR pace. Patience always pays off!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Harry and Meghan really aren't very smart, and this ridiculously stupid mistake on their part just proves it!
If they had any intelligence (or class), they would have seized the golden opportunity to name their daughter 'Elizabeth', a beautiful, dignified name, and a true, respectful and timely tribute to Queen Elizabeth ll, who at such a great age was not long for this world.
That choice of regal first name for their baby girl would of course have been universally applauded and respected - firstly by the Queen herself, who would have accepted the tribute from her grandson, and would naturally have been touched by the gesture. And then by the British public and the world, who would have recognised a grandson's deep respect for his beloved, and soon to depart this world, grandmother.
The Sussexes were so very lucky William and Catherine didn't name their own daughter Elizabeth (choosing instead the generic 'Charlotte', with Elizabeth as a mere middle name), and yet they failed to see - and seize - the golden opportunity that gave them, to use the much-loved monarch's historic name for their baby girl.
Harry and Meghan passed up the regal and gorgeous name Elizabeth - and the universal kudos and approval which would have accompanied that choice.
Christening their daughter as Elizabeth after the Queen, would have been a win-win for the couple (and the little girl herself), with no loss whatsoever to them. They could still privately call her 'Lillibet' or 'Lily' for short, as they do today. In effect they would still have got their way, and used the Queen's 'pet' name for her exactly as they wanted to, but they would have officially given her the proper and full name 'Elizabeth' with all the goodwill and respect it generated.
Instead they foolishly chose to adopt Her Majesty's childhood nickname - which is not a real name at all. Harry knew full well Lillibet was a wacky American choice - that's why he didn't have the balls to ask for his grandmother's blessing, but instead presented the moniker to her in a brief and cowardly, transatlantic phone call, as a fait accompli.
No wonder our beloved, soon to depart this world Queen Elizabeth was not touched by news of that private nickname for her great granddaughter, but incensed at the news. Why on Earth Harry and Meghan didn't name her Elizabeth and be done with it, only they know. But I believe it's yet further evidence of the Sussexes' pathological narcissism, self-absorption and fundamental lack of class and judgement. Their future looks bleak - I sincerely doubt they will remain together, raising their two children as a married couple. Time will tell.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aliciacoble7854 Interesting that the worst thing the vindictive Prince Harry could find to say about Camilla, is that she supposedly feeds positive stories to the media about herself - yet he provided no evidence of that at all!
Camilla is a good woman who has clearly been a kind and supportive stepmother to William and Harry. She has been unfairly demonised in the press thanks to Diana's vindictive, self-promoting campaign of lies and misinformation.
Diana had a nerve pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, painting herself as a blameless wife and victim when the truth is she was having umpteen affairs and couldn't care less who Charles slept with!
Charles didn't break Diana's heart, she only said that to win public sympathy and to demonise her ex husband. Their arranged marriage was over by 1985 - by mutual agreement. He bored her to tears, as she made embarrassingly clear on their joint public appearances.
Diana moved full time to Kensington Palace to live a fun-filled single girl's life, abandoning Charles to his country home Highgrove, in rural Gloucestershire (which bored her to tears). Charles was lonely, and turned to his friend, former love and neighbour, Camilla, also in an unhappy marriage. It isn't true that Charles cheated on Diana, they both cheated on each other after the marriage had failed.
2
-
2
-
@devonaeastman389 That's factually incorrect - and hardly surprising, since you've obviously swallowed Diana's warped fairy tale version of reality. hook, line and sinker!
If you ever grow up and want to know the true story of Charles and Diana from an impartial professional, scroll through these threads and read my posts. They're accurate, researched first hand through my interviews with people who knew the couple personally (I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties).
Camilla's affair was with one man only, her old flame Charles, (who she wound up happily married to), and was only resumed after his doomed, arranged marriage had failed. Diana however, had multiple affairs, broke up one marriage (Will Carling's), and tried her hardest to end others including Oliver Hoare's.
Unhappily for her, Hoare dumped her when she kept nagging him to leave his wife, and reported her to police when she harassed him in toxic 'woman scorned' style, with 300+ malicious phone calls. Diana turned nuclear when people didn't do her bidding!
But I realise as a deluded Diana fan, the truth will be of no interest to you whatsoever!
2
-
2
-
@susanrobb3447 Diana constantly slandered Charles - haven't you heard about her book with Andrew Morton, and her BBC TV 'Panorama' interview?
Of course you have, because that's when she talked about 'three people' in her marriage, knowing full well there were many more than three in her marriage - her own umpteen lovers, who the scheming, devious hypocrite hid from the media and public! Diana was a serial 'fornicator', and a brazen liar.
Prince William knew his late mother only too well, and far better than you do. Why do you think he has championed mental health issues in particular as an adult?
Diana was mentally unhinged, and a terrible parent to him and Harry, putting her lovers ahead of them every time - even failing to think of them and wear the seat belt that would have prevented them from losing her and being traumatised as children.
Princess Diana got everything she wanted in life. Ultimately she died at 36 because she got greedy, and took too much. All the wonderful gifts her ex-husband Charles gave her - global fame and positive publicity, wealth, and top VIP status, went to her head. She actually believed her own publicity, and came to think she was so special she was immortal. Her own selfish, hedonistic behaviour and priorities got her killed in Paris.
As the famous saying goes: "Take what you want", said God; "Take it and pay for it".
William and Harry have always got on very well with their stepmum Camilla. They are only too glad their father finally got a wife who loves and is loyal to him, after his sad, loveless marriage to their vain, self-obsessed mother. Camilla is all-woman, and big-hearted, down to earth and genuine with it. She'll make a fantastic Queen, as she fully deserves.
I wonder if the nutty dead princess wrote with the caps lock on, as you do?!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theresaedusei6123 And did Diana ever hold a job, beyond part time nursery school assistant, finger painting with 3-year-olds?! Please! That's no argument against Camilla, when you're discussing privileged aristocrats like the former Lady Diana, I'm afraid - none of them have to work!
But what's FAR more offensive, is your misogynist (and I might add totally false) slur, that Camilla was somehow promiscuous - and Diana was not. What rot! In the shagging stakes, Camilla is a virgin next to Princess 'Bury Me In a Cello Case' Diana!
Diana would slip married men her private phone number at parties where their wives were present! She was utterly brazen. No conscious at all about breaking up marriages - which she attempted to do more than once, and succeeded with rugby star Will Carling. One of her famous failures was married Oliver Hoare, who she harassed with over 300 malicious silent phone calls, after he dumped her in favour of his wife. Diana was a malignant narcissist of the worst kind - reject one of those, and my God they will make you pay!
I wonder if you'd be such a rabid Diana supporter, if it was your husband she'd aggressively pursued? No need to reply, the answer is only too obvious!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MsggieB.6870 And you know this how? Damn you Diana worshippers are so gullible, you bought into her self-pity party hook line and sinker!
Diana was no victim, she couldn't wait to marry the heir to the throne and become Princess of Wales. You think she loved him? She'd only met him 13 times before she accepted his marriage proposal! She wasn't marrying for love but for his royal title.
The Spencer family's close links with the royal family go back centuries. Queen Elizabeth attended her parents' wedding at Westminster Abbey in 1954 - Diana was no fish out of water with the royals, she was a top aristocrat and knew exactly what she was getting into.
It was an arranged marriage - and they are not based on love! Diana had nothing better to do with her life, despite her expensive education she left school at 16 without a single qualification. Marrying well was her only ambition - and boy did she hit the jackpot when the heir to the throne proposed. Becoming Princess of Wales and the future Queen was the best offer she would ever get!
The marriage was doomed from the start - not because of Camilla, or any of Diana's multiple extra-marital lovers - but because the couple were simply incompatible. This was clear to both of them 5 years in, and by 1986 they were living separate lives - Charles at Highgrove House, Gloucestershire, and Diana at her luxurious London pad.
Diana walked away from her 1996 divorce with a generous $17 million settlement from Charles, a Kensington Palace home, a team of servants at her beck and call round the clock, and VIP status for life as Princess of Wales. She was also blessed with two fine, healthy sons, and William and Harry were also set up for life thanks to the royal family she so despised!
Diana was not victimised by the royals - the royal family was the making of her! After her divorce, she was free of the husband who so bored her, and thanks to him was set to live a life of unimaginable VIP privilege. But incredibly, just a year out of that marriage and Diana had thrown it all away and self-destructed with her stupid choices, namely refusing royal protection/security/driver when it was offered to her by the Queen on her divorce, being flattered by the attention of the oily Al Fayeds who provided her with a drunk, drugged, reckless and uninsured driver, and unforgivably, failing to fasten her seat belt.
No parent of dependent children has the right to behave as irresponsibly as Diana did that night, forgetting she was a mother and not bothering to take a few seconds to belt herself in and be safe. If she had only done that, crash experts are unanimous she'd have walked away from that car wreck with nothing more than a broken arm and cruises.
Diana killed Diana. And not only has she been dead for a quarter of a century, she is now the former Princess of Wales. Diana has been replaced by a new Princess of Wales, the loyal and honourable Catherine, a wonderful woman, wife and mother, who fully deserves the title. Diana fans need to move on!
2
-
Utter garbage - Diana was too busy sleeping with umpteen different lovers, to care who or what Charles did! She only pretended her husband broke her heart to win public sympathy, and demonise him - she was as sly and vindictive as hell!
Diana was also a first class home-wrecker, with no conscience about bedding other women's husbands. She had the morals of an alley cat, and her sexual adventures made Camilla look like a nun. She had a fully equipped gym at home, but went to the Chelsea Harbour Club gym in tight workout gear to chat up all the eligible men who went there. That's where she propositioned the recently married England rugby star Will Carling.
Carling later told friends he'd had sexual encounters with Diana at her Kensington Palace apartments just three times - each time she gave him oral sex. They didn't even have intercourse! What a pathetic woman.
Carling laughingly told a pal: "I'll never forget looking down and thinking, 'That's the future queen of England giving me a blow job!" Classy, huh? Poor William and Harry - they must have been so hurt when they grew up, and realised how many of their mother's lovers they had unwittingly shaken hands with as children.
People are so gullible - they think Diana was Mother Theresa just because she was photogenic! If Diana had not got herself killed in a dumb accident with her playboy lover, she'd have aged and continued to misbehave in the scrutiny of the internet age. As she lost her looks and her true, ugly character emerged, all the soppy Diana fans would have abandoned her years ago!
Instead she died with perfect timing, still attractive at 36, before her sons were old enough to have minds of their own and displease her (she fell out with everyone sooner or later), and before the internet told the world who she really was. For Diana, dying in 1997 secured her myth - just as it was about to be exploded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@laurenjwolf You know, the 10 day delay could go exactly the other way for Amber Heard - because not only does she have to remember and keep straight all the historic lies she's told since she met Johnny Depp, she'll have the considerable, added pressure of remembering the lies she told most recently under oath!
The chance she's going to trip herself up, say "I don't recall" to a question she supposedly recalled with great clarity a mere 10 days earlier, and generally fail to keep her story coherent and credible, is I believe VERY high!
And Depp's legal team has that extra time to analyse all her evidence to date, identify the weak, creaking, contradictory areas, and polish their strategy to put several TRUTH BOMBS under her heinous, entirely fictional character assassination on their client.
I have a good feeling about this. What's another 10 days? It's been a long time coming, but truth and justice is finally catching up with Amber Heard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patmacrotch5611 Cops cannot be expected to be mind readers and I recognise domestic situations are complex. But with better training on abusive relationships like this one, I believe they would have handled it very differently.
The police made the fundamental mistake of failing to identify Gabby as a victim and Brian as a perpetrator. That is basic stuff! No, they should not have taken Gabby's silence about the abuse at face value. Her clear distress - and his cool, calm demeanour, spoke volumes about the reality of this toxic relationship and her abuse within it.
A missing piece of bodycam footage from that incident has just been released. It shows Gabby telling the officer Brian hit her (as he knew had been confirmed by the recent, independent 911 witness report), but she quickly retracts it. That should have been recognised by the officer as very significant.
Yet police never once confronted or questioned Brian about the 911 allegation that he 'slapped and hit' Gabby on the street. Why not? The truth is, these cops called it wrong right down the line, with the result they made the woman more vulnerable and the man more empowered. No wonder Brian was grinning broadly as he was driven off to spend a comfortable night in a hotel. He sure did a number on those cops, the same as he had on his girlfriend. Like a typical abuser, he's a master manipulator.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Will Smith should have been removed from the Oscars by security, backed up by LA Police. What he did in front of millions of people at a polite, high calibre global event was a total disgrace. Allowing him to stay and collect his Oscar, delivered an even bigger slap in the face to Chris Rock (whose only sin was a mildly misjudged joke).
Chris Rock handled it like a gent, and emerged with class. Will Smith acted like an immature, out of control teen, not a 53 year old superstar at the height of his career. He unintentionally told the world a whole lot more that he meant to about his toxic marriage to a malignant narcissist.
As Derek pointed out, Will laughed at the joke, then saw Jada's reaction and switched from smiles to rage in a nanosecond. He's clearly Jada's attack dog, she has full control of him. Will knew if he didn't defend her, there would be hell to pay later.
It was such a crazy overreaction to the gag, Smith's violence had to be about other stuff. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to know his wife's highly publicised affairs have made him the most famous cuckold on the planet - and the butt of many jokes WAY worse than the GI Jane line!
Will must attend every awards ceremony nervous it could turn into a roast of his wife's affairs with the late, legendary Tupac or more recently, her son's 22 year old friend August. If Ricky Gervais were hosting, he'd have gone for the throat with a joke about the latter, Jada's age-inappropriate seduction of her son's best pal, and 'sleepovers'. Gervais is British, so he doesn't give a shit about Hollywood - Will Smith would not have dared pull his shit with Ricky!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mattg4836 Me either. greed. As a journalist, sealing/suppressing the affidavit like this, especially in a murder case as high profile as Delphi, is pretty much unprecedented!
As soon as a person is charged with a crime, the affidavit is open for all to read, it's as simple as that. It's a public document! And as you allude in your post, such procedures are transparent and open for good reason - it protects all parties involved and above all, the ends of justice. All this secrecy creates all kinds of future risks and pitfalls for the prosecution, the defendant and for justice to be served.
I must say, something about this does not smell right to me. We literally don't know the half of it yet. But when we do find out the full facts of this near six year murder investigation, I've a feeling what we learn will not reflect well on Indiana Police.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KingofKlubs Thank God someone's talking sense in these comments. Frankly I would rather die than know I'm living out the rest of my days locked inside that crummy bedroom - and in solitary confinement because of all the hard-faced criminals who want to disembowel me - with only a shabby little library, and a musty charity shop of other people's cast off clothes for entertainment.
And not even the glimmer of hope of some day getting parole, to keep you going! That is a fate WAY worse than death! If people only used their imaginations, they'd realise being deprived of your liberty is a far worse punishment than a lethal injection.
Think of the charmed life Lucy Letby had just a few years ago - a high status, professional job, a nice house she'd just bought, the indulged only child of doting parents, a great social life with lots of friends, foreign holidays, a car, two pet cats, her health and her whole life ahead of her. And she threw it all away, because she's a spoiled narcissist who couldn't resist playing God with other people's precious babies.
Today she's the most hated and despised person in Britain. She brought shame on the parents who were so proud of her, they announced her 21st birthday and graduation in the local paper! What does she have to look forward to?
I can't think of anything more likely to need solitary confinement than a snooty, narcissistic baby-killer, pretending she's innocent and doesn't deserve to be there. Letby will have a target on her back for sure. It's only a matter of time before we hear she's been attacked inside. She's a coward who murdered the most defenceless - I doubt she'll cope well in any kind of physical confrontation with an adult. She must look back on the life she had with such regret - that's the price she's paying for her evil crimes, and I personally hope she lives a long and miserable life, waking up every day wishing she was dead!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flowrepins6663 Here in the UK, citizens are not allowed to carry guns - that makes us a less violent society, and our police do not need to be armed.
In countries like the US where ordinary people can legally carry a loaded gun while driving their kids to school, picking up their groceries or going out to a restaurant, the result is inevitably a more violent society where police too are armed.
More guns equals more violence, not less! It's a very simple, very obvious equation.
If guns maintain the peace, and law and order, as you suggest, why does America have one of the highest rates of homicide and violent crime of any country in the world?
Carrying a gun makes you more, not less likely to become a victim of violent crime. That's not an opinion, it's a fact borne out by crime statistics. America is living in a dream world thinking guns keep you safe. In reality, they do the very opposite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I believe most people are decent like you, and were shocked at the male mob violence they witnessed against tiny Posie Parker and other women in New Zealand. And that violence against women was enabled by the police, who didn't just look the other way - they were entirely absent!
Where was their crowd control? Police allowed misogynst male thugs to crowd the bandstand, where women planned to hold their lawful , licenced meeting, and assault women without a single one being stopped or arrested by police! It was a total outrage!
Posie was assaulted by a massive man in drag, who threw tomato juice over her, then the angry male mob surrounded her and she had to leave immediately on her security guards advice, as they could not guarantee her safety against 2,000 violent TRAs.
NZ is now a global laughing stock, and has shown the world women do not have free speech in their own country. The trans mob also demonstrated exactly why women don't want them invading their hard-won, female -spaces! #TransTerrorists.
Women won't submit to the toxic trans, male supremacists group. Women - and men who care about them - will continue to fight for the safety, privacy and dignity of ourselves and our daughters. Women won't submit!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No wonder Tammy was depressed, living with useless, spineless lump of lard Chad!
She carried and birthed his five children, and was sole breadwinner for the family for almost three decades, paying all the bills, putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.
All so her narcissistic abuser husband Chad didn't have to work. Thanks to Tammy, he gave up his job as a grave digger, and instead toured his inflated ego around various religious events promoting himself as the 'second coming', and an 'author'.
What a joke! His flat, monotone voice and total lack of charisma show he's no prophet - fake or otherwise! He's no author either, he can't write to save his life. The only way he would ever get his pi$$poor prose into print, was to self publish it.
No actual publishing house would have touched him or his badly written, ridiculous books with a dirty stick. He's an absolute joke! One of the most shocking aspects of this story, is that Chad persuaded one women to marry him, least of all two.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Giving up the throne was no sacrifice for the short-lived king! Marrying Wallis gave Edward the perfect excuse to escape the gilded cage of 'King-ing' and fly off to the life of shallow hedonism he craved - and bitterly resented any departure from once he was King. Courtiers and government found him a lazy, entitled oaf, who had no wish to do even the most basic clerical tasks required of him as King, and scant respect for duty.
When he finally got round to viewing confidential government documents provided to him regularly, he would leave them scattered around his homes for anyone to see. These important documents were frequently returned with the unmistakable stains where wine glasses and coffee cups had been placed on them.
One of the biggest clues to Edward's character, was his greed in negotiating his 'exit fee'. As the King, incredibly, he was the personal owner of Sandringham and Balmoral, which meant the royal family had to buy those historic royal residences from him (his brother Bertie and wife Elizabeth were insistent he and Wallis should have no bolthole in the UK, with which to set up a rival court!).
Despite receiving handsome settlements for those two great royal estates, Edward quibbled, pleaded poverty, and held out for more money when the question of his annual retainer was negotiated. After the deal was done, it transpired Edward had the sum of £2 million pounds hidden in offshore bank accounts - a staggeringly large amount today closer to £20 million. Needless to say, he had made no mention of his immense wealth when negotiating the retainer, insisting he needed to be generously recompensed for giving up his privileged life as King, and to ensure a lifestyle befitting his unique status as the former monarch.
He spent the rest of his days in a rented mansion in Paris, in pointless pursuit of pleasure, his plain American gold-digger by his side and treating him like a disobedient dog throughout! In the final analysis, Edward and Wallis deserved each other. But it's quite wrong his role as a traitor to his own country former subjects during WW2, supporting Hitler's Nazis and pushing behind the scenes for appeasement - and unforgivably, to stop America acting as Britain's ally - was covered up.
It's said many documents held at Windsor Castle proving his treachery, were personally destroyed by Elizabeth the Queen Mother. I don't doubt it. She wisely recognised if the ugly truth ever got out about her wayward brother in law, it could very well bring down the monarchy, and tar them all with the same brush. Many of us have seen the black and white home movie footage of 'Uncle David' teaching the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose how to do a Nazi salute! Edward was a Nazi sympathiser and anti-Semite to his manicured fingertips - and fully deserved to be exposed as such.
2
-
2
-
Typical media hype! These family murders had nothing to do with witchcraft, and everything to do with a dysfunctional mother cruelly favouring two sons over their elder half brother - prompting a legitimate anger and resentment in him, which tragically escalated to a murder plot.
To understand all is to forgive all, and Donald Hartung was badly mistreated by his family. In no way am I defending murder outside of self-defence, it is no way to resolve conflict. But to be cast aside and disinherited by his mom (even when he was arriving at the home she shared with his two half brothers every week, to cook them all a delicious dinner), was mean and heartless. No wonder he was angry!
Donald Hartung lived down the road with his beloved dog, in a modest bungalow, struggling to pay his bills on little money. Meanwhile his Mom had hundreds of thousands in the bank, a nice house and a steady income coming in from her two, working youngest sons (and they both had savings in the bank too). She was so well off she was a hoarder, constantly ordering so much stuff she didn't need off QVC, that half of it stood in her home unopened and still in its boxes!
Why did she disinherit Donald when he was so loyal to her?Is it because she hated his father? We will never know. But it clearly devastated him - and led to her murder, and the murders of her younger sons by him. You reap what you sow in this life, and I have very little sympathy for that self-centred, heartless mother!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diana was far more masculine than Camilla, with that gangly frame, broad shoulders, big nose and boat-sized feet. Camilla was always a much more feminine and attractive woman, real, down to earth and self-effacing - not a brittle, mirror-obsessed narcissist like Diana.
I know who I'd prefer to go on a girls night out with - Camilla, every time! William and Harry love her, she's been a wonderful, warm and approachable stepmum to them, that's why you never hear a bad word said about her.
2
-
2
-
You're exactly right, very insightful post. That disgraceful queue-jumping business at the Queen's lying in state last Autumn was the first big indication the public got of what Holly & Phil the gruesome-twosome are REALLY like behind the scenes. And for Phillip Schofield, it turned out to be the beginning of the end of a scandal which had been brewing off-camera for many years!
The pair are nothing like their manufactured, cutesie, cosy, sofa double act. Because ITV has pandered to their every whim for so long, they've created monsters who actually believed they could jump a mega-queue that others, including way more famous names like David Beckham, stood in through the night for thirteen freaking hours!
Beckham even bought a huge box of Krispy Kreme donuts to hand around - it's hard to imagine the snooty 'This Morning' hosts doing similar!
No one who has worked with Phillip Schofield or Holly Willoughby likes them. They are a pair of simpering, self-satisfied, full-of-themselves fakes. And yes, as Eamonn revealed, those two are in a special category of self-important TV presenters - along with others I can name from personal experience, eg Anne Diamond, Jonathan Ross, Angela Rippon, Anthea Turner and Jeremy Clarkson - who don't bother to find out, least of all use, production team members' first names.
They are far too grand to even acknowledge colleagues when they pass them backstage in the corridors!
In contrast, Eamonn Holmes and his wife Ruth Langsford are genuine, down to earth people with good hearts and no airs and graces. The fact they couldn't stand Schofield - and nor it seems can most other presenters, including his former 'bestie' Holly Willoughby - says it all! He's a conceited creep with no manners, decency or integrity, and a massively inflated idea of his own talent.
Incidentally, I love that Eamonn got in that dig about no one in the industry rating Schofield as a TV presenter! He's spot on - not only is Schofield insufferably rude and arrogant, he's a lousy live anchor. He looks like a startled rabbit in the headlights while reading autocue, has a grating, nails-down-a-chalkboard broadcast voice (good point Eamonn - Why does he shout like that?!), and performs with all the poise and charisma of a tailor's dummy!
It's typical of the man's overweening narcissism that he tried to cling onto his plum job at 'This Morning' til the last possible moment, then when he realised he had to go, clung by his fingernails to his remaining ITV contracts til they too were rightly ripped away.
This isn't some recent, short-lived little affair, and ITV were caught napping. It's a major deception perpetuated with ITV's active help and support over FIVE YEARS!
Schofield got his 34-years-younger lover the runner job on 'This Morning' in 2015, and he was finally booted off it after his emotional meltdown at the National TV Awards, when he tearfully confronted Schofield and Holly Willoughby (because Schofield had finished with him/replaced him with a younger model), in 2020.
We're now learning not only did the ITV bosses give McGreedy another job to keep him sweet after taking him off 'This Morning' (on 'Loose Women' - where the existing, hard-working runner was unceremoniously ousted to make way for him), when they finally got rid of him they gave him a big fat pay-off to keep his trap shut about Schofe. Money no doubt goes a long way to explain McGreevey's ongoing silence and discretion.
In my over 20 years working in television, I've never once heard of a runner (who is essentially the tea-boy or girl), leaving a job with a golden handshake!
2
-
2
-
2
-
Posie Parker was almost torn limb from limb by the trans male supremacists cult - her life was in danger, while police were not just idle, but entirely absent (no doubt on the orders of New Zealand's rabid pro trans, anti-women government). And why? Because she says women don't want men invading female-only public spaces! We don't.
Allowing men into female-only facilities including women's toilets, hospital wards, domestic violence shelters and prisons, compromises the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls.That's because a percentage of ALL men, however they identify, is a danger to women and children. That's a statement of fact. There's no way of knowing which men are harmless, and which could assault or kill you. As Dominique Samuels mentioned, trans identified men in prison are many times more likely to be serving sentences for violent and sexual offences, than non-trans prisoners. So women have no reason to assume male cross dressers are safer than conventional men!
Plus female privacy and dignity is compromised when men invade female spaces - because no mammal, including humans, can change sex. It isn't possible - trans women are biological males from birth til death, and no amount of synthetic hormones, surgeries or make up will change it. As soon as trans identified males are allowed to use females' single sex spaces, they are no longer single sex! If the misogynist TRAs had their way there would be nothing permitted for the exclsuive use of females.
For defending women's hard won rights to their own toilets and changing rooms, girls' rights to have a male-free rest room at school to change their tampon in private, and to compete in their own sports without males muscling-in and stealing their places and trophies, these men and their penis-pandering handmaidens feel entitled to physically assault and silence them.
The 'Let Women Speak' New Zealand outrage exposed the true, ugly face of trans activism, lurking behind the disguise of 'Woman-Face'. It's a toxic, totalitarian male supremacists group. There is plenty of video showing exactly who trans activists are, and what they are about - silencing, intimidating, and assaulting women and girls who dare to tell them NO.
What 'abuses' has Posie Parker ever committed against trans supporters, as alleged by the woke-joke blokes on this panel? They couldn't give a single example! Does she gate-crash trans rallies uninvited and try to stop men from speaking? Has she physically assaulted her opponents? Does she ever threaten TRAs with violence, frivolously report them to police for Tweets she doesn't like, doxx them or threaten their children? No. But all of those crimes have been committed against her and other women, by the vile trans cult mob! Women are not the dangerous aggressors here - Men are!
New Zealand was not the victory for the trans mob they are claiming on Twitter etc. They are such unintelligent thugs, they actually believe physical violence against women is a win! They think young men punching old ladies in the face - as was caught on video - is the way to shut women up and stop them defending women's rights. They have LOST their war on women, and shown their true, woman-hating colours to the world. The rainbow flag is now a shameful hate symbol of rabid misogyny.
TRAs have badly underestimated the female sex! We are 51% of the global population, we fought hard for decades for the modest women's rights we have. We won't meekly hand them over to men in dresses. Never Gonna Happen! Women won't submit.
#WomensRightsAreHumanRights #TransWomenAreConMen #SexNotGender #NoSelfID #SaveWomensSports ♀♀♀♀♀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChrisP3000x Ha! Ha! Thanks for the laugh! No idea what your definition of the well-known term 'played' is. But 71-year-old, confused, vulnerable and decrepit senior citizen Dr Thomas Burchard fully believed that ruthless, 25-year-old wannabe model Kelsey Turner was a decent person who loved and respected him.
If that isn't 'played,' Lord only knows what is!
Unlike yourself, Judy Earp, Burchard's loyal girlfriend of 17 years, fully understood the meaning of 'played', and how it applied to her elderly, vulnerable partner. Ms Earp was painfully aware of his escalating dementia and penchant for attractive young women in distress - drug addicts and prostitutes being the typical recipients of his patronage. She knew Kelsey Turner's game from the start.
Dr Burchard had a 'hero complex. He was overly trusting and generous to manipulative, much younger females like Turner, and saw himself as Santa Claus. And he was fast treated as such, by cynical women on the take who were young enough to be his granddaughter!
His partner Judy Earp knew Burchard's faculties were failing him, and that sadly it would be all too obvious to any young woman who exploited him. He started getting lost in parking lots he used frequently, didn't recognise Judy's adult daughter (who he'd known for years), when he ran into her at the supermarket, and forgot how to use the TV remote control.
Throughout his growing confusion, he remained his usual trusting self, typically carrying $1,000 cash everywhere he went, along with a little black book in which he'd studiously written down all his various bank account passwords. It may have looked like a sugar daddy relationship, but Kelsey Turner never actually slept with Dr Burchard. She didn't have to. The single mother exploited his dementia to the max to blackmail him into bankrolling her, threatening to tell law enforcement he was a paedophile - a totally unfounded allegation.
Within days of getting no response to her text messages, Judy was certain Thomas had been murdered. What's more, she knew precisely who had killed him - Kelsey Turner and her thug boyfriend. She was right of course. Dr Burchard was found dead in the back of his hired Mercedes, his head caved in through blunt force trauma.
He'd flown to Vegas in response to a cry for help from Turner, believing he was on a mission of mercy. But his blonde angel, was nothing of the kind - she was his nemesis, and he was walking into a deadly trap. You bet he was played! Though in fact 'played' is an inadequate description for the ruthless, cruel and horrific exploitation and murder of this vulnerable elderly man.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Odo55 Oh the timeline of the Schofield sex scandal makes it very obvious Holly Willoughby and ITV's top executives knew all about his inappropriate sexual relationship with the runner for YEARS.
By all accounts PS was flaunting it in colleagues' faces. The teen would walk into Schofield's dressing room without knocking, and he started telling people he was his 'Personal Assistant' (as well as being the show runner), presumably to explain why they were spending so much time together, sharing car rides etc.
The young runner had been dumped by Schofield by the time the 'National Television Awards' were held early 2020. He got drunk and emotional that night over the split, and confronted both Schofield and Holly Willoughby outside the awards venue (witnessed by ITV execs), angry at his rejection, and the fact Schofield had him banned from the awards party - no doubt in part because he'd brought his unsuspecting wife Stephanie along that night as his guest.
The teen felt used by the presenter, and angrily threatened to spill the beans to a tabloid - soon after he approached The Sun newspaper. The tabloid then did the dirty on him. After taking down every detail of the affair from him so they had all the facts, they approached Schofield's agent with an ultimatum: Either he comes out exclusively to our newspaper (and 'This Morning'), and we write a sympathetic article about him being gay with no mention of the runner, or we will print the runner's story - which will trash him.
Schofield was backed into a corner. He had no choice but to 'come out' to The Sun and on his own TV show. Despite denying it on camera to co-host Holly Willoughby, he absolutely WAS coerced into coming out!
During that ridiculous, suspiciously sudden 'coming out' stunt hosted by Holly, top ITV executives, senior management of The Sun and Schofield's agent were all standing off-camera on the studio floor, watching.
Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford were hosting that Friday show, and were only told about the coming out thing at the very last minute, as they drove into work. They were somewhat baffled by it - even more so when they spotted the ITV bosses and executives from The Sun watching the whole performance live from the sidelines. Holmes has since said he smelled a rat - and watching how he behaved today, it's obvious he was not comfortable with the whole strange and suspicious set-up.
Of course ITV and Holly Willoughby knew about Schofield's affair with the runner - having their host 'come out' was just a cynical smokescreen to cover up the scandal, and protect his job and his image!
It's utterly ridiculous of Holly Willoughby to pretend she didn't know the real purpose of him coming out to her on the 'This Morning' sofa - she was fully involved the the entire conspiracy, as were ITV executives and Schofield's agent - The Sun/the runner, were holding a gun to Schofield's head!
Schofield, his expensive lawyers, and ITV then swung into action shutting down the REAL story - the affair - and ensuring it never got into print. He took out a very pricey 'super injunction' to ban the media from printing anything even alluding to the runner.
And you can be sure a large sum of money was paid to the young man himself, to keep him quiet. Whether such payments were made to him from Schofield's own pocket or by ITV, we cannot be sure. It's a very important question and MPs at yesterday's committee should have got to the bottom of it when questioning ITV executives - but failed to.
So far the Schofield scandal stinks to high heaven of a top level conspiracy and cover up. Yet the ITV executives have got away with it - as has Holly, still acting like little Miss Innocent as she feigned ignorance of her former co-host's grubby affair with a junior colleague, stabbed him in the back, and stamped her new ownership on the show.
Willoughby and ITV bosses should have been forced to leave - they are every bit as sly and duplicitous as Schofield, and their careers should have followed his down the toilet!
2
-
@user-pm7nf9uv5z Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
2
-
2
-
@claytondavis7415 I suggest you read my previous posts again, and try harder to focus this time. I've fully explained where the police officers went wrong. I'm not the only one to deduce that, many other intelligent men and women agree - and even senior law enforcement officer Sheriff Grady Judd condemned police inaction against Brian Laundrie.
You're confused about a great many aspects of this case. Police did not randomly stop the van - they stopped it due to two 911 witness reports of Brian Laundrie hitting Gabby Petito. Therefore they were well aware that he, not she, was the perpetrator of domestic abuse.
What's more, as the female, it was Gabby not Brian at risk of serious harm or worse. Females are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic abuse, and males overwhelmingly the abusers. More to the point, the victims of domestic murder, are almost exclusively women. Police above all, should be aware of these facts!
People don't dial 911 for no reason. Nor do they call 911 on seeing a slight woman hit a man - Get real! Everyone but the most obtuse misogynist knows exactly what happened here - Gabby's homicide by Laundrie two weeks later proves it.
I've tried to educate you, but it's now totally clear you have no interest in anything that blows your dumb misogyny out the water. Seriously - find something more useful to do with your time than sucking Brian Laundrie's undersized dick. You are dismissed!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Glad that thug Nicole was named and shamed. I hate domestic abusers - and this cowardly, narcissistic PoS verbally abusing police after she was witnessed and reported for assaulting her boyfriend, is only 20! Her arrogance and entitlement are extraordinary. She will only get more dangerous with the years.
I pray this police intervention is a wake up call for her boyfriend, and he gets out - while he still can. Domestic abuse/violence never gets better, nor does it stay the same. It only ever gets worse. Make the mistake of sticking around hoping such an abuser will change, and you might not live to tell the tale.
I believe police intervention was such a wake up call for the late Gabby Petito, whose roadside assaults by her boyfriend Brian Laundrie were witnessed and reported on 911 by two different people. I think after many similar assaults and long term abuse, having cops called on him finally showed Gabby she had to end it. But tragically she was on a van tour with her abuser, and not in a safe location to end the relationship.
Most domestic murders happen when the killer sees that his victim is about to leave him, or has already left him. Laundrie was a control freak, who couldn't face the humiliation of going home alone, after being dumped by Gabby. So he strangled her to death, dumped her body to rot in an outdoor location, and stole her van, driving himself safely home to his parents. Oh, and stopping en route to steal himself some cash from his dead girlfriend's bank account. The cowardly scumbag killed himself a few weeks later, robbing Gabby's loved ones of his murder trial and some small measure of justice.
If you are in an abusive relationship, please leave without delay. There are too many good people laying dead in grave yards, because they hung in there hoping things would get better. They will only get worse - and could end your life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dianaprince3176 If you are a former lawyer, I'm amazed an ex professional would conduct herself in such a rude, undignified manner on a public forum.
You threw dumb insults at the original poster, calling her a 'Karen' and telling her if she doesn't like the US way she should move to Saudi Arabia (seriously?!). You even used childish 'Clown' and 'Rolling Eyes' emojis - the hallmark of every tragic troll who ever lost an argument.
The best, most compelling attorneys engage with the arguments, they don't just dismiss them out of hand! Nor do they lose their cool and sink to ill-mannered insults and name-calling. Were you struck off? It could explain your anger issues.
As a retired public defender you should know that a country's laws are not dictated by lawyers but reflect the wishes and values of ordinary citizens, most of whom have no legal qualification. The clue is in the historic term; 'The People Versus'. The original poster's eloquent condemnation of this child interrogation by his would-be killer was widely supported, with 207 upvotes to date, proving she made a perfectly reasonable and valid point.
It is arrogant, deluded nonsense, for you to claim nobody but a lawyer (practising, retired or struck off), can have a valid opinion on the law!
Nor does a poster have to be American to have a valid viewpoint on the US Constitution, law, and the unacceptable questioning of an 11-year-old child by the family annihilator who disembowelled and set fire to him aged 8, after murdering his mother and sister. It's a scenario reasonable, decent human beings of ALL nationalities find shocking and wrong, and are entitled to state a view on. It's a human rights issue. Your position: 'You're not American, therefore have no right to express an opinion on our courts', is just plain stupid!
It's disappointing you lack the intellect and basic courtesy to enter into an intelligent, respectful discussion on this fascinating subject. That the civil rights of the accused in America trump the rights of the child - which are rightly sacrosanct and the number one priority in every other forum in the US and other civilised nations - is a curious anomaly.
Here in the UK, greater efforts to protect minors involved in criminal proceedings are ongoing. In May 2019, a new law was passed unanimously in Scotland, meaning under-18s called in the most serious criminal cases can now provide their evidence in pre-recorded form. This spares them the traditional, formal court proceedings and the trauma of facing the accused either in person or via live link, as poor Ronnie O' Neal Jr had to endure.
The new legislation is based on the Scandinavian system of 'Barnahus' or 'Children's House', because minors are questioned in a sympathetic, informal environment, where they know they will not encounter the accused. It puts the care and welfare of the child at the centre of all decision making - a priority which was conspicuously lacking in Ronnie O' Neal's murder trial!
'Barnahus' puts all support services for child witnesses under one roof, recognising the trauma that multiple interviews in different locations with different agencies, can cause. To America's credit, 'Barnahus' was first developed in the US, before being adopted in Iceland in the late 'nineties, then rolled out across other Scandinavian countries where it is lauded as a big success story. Now it has arrived in the UK. It's deeply regrettable that the US, which was so brilliantly progressive in originating 'Barbahus', has yet to adopt and implement it.
Child psychology experts have long documented the harm that can be done to child victims/witnesses in cases of murder, sexual crimes, domestic violence and human trafficking, by re-traumatising them with an examination by lawyers, or worse as in this case, by the accused.
A major advantage of the 'Barnahus' system, is increased conviction rates in these serious crimes. Which suggests it not only benefits the young people it was set up to support, but also promotes justice.
As I've said in other posts, the laws and legal practices of any country cannot be unchanging, and forever set in stone. They must be organic, constantly monitored and if needs be amended, to accurately reflect the ever-shifting values and priorities of the ordinary citizens they represent. While you cling to a bad practice that negatively impacts on children, and repeatedly justify it with the 'C' word - constitution - you stubbornly stand in the past and deny the possibility of change.
I believe a child involved in serious criminal proceedings, has the right not to be confronted and terrorised by the accused as part of due process. Unlike you, I believe that is an injustice and a fundamental transgression of children's rights, which will inevitably be addressed and abolished in the future. Advancements in human rights always take longer than they should.
If you'd been around in the 1600-1800s, no doubt you'd have presented the same arguments you've constantly parroted here about the US Constitution, to defend slavery in America! In the centuries in which slavery was enshrined in US law, you'd have told me it would never be abolished, nor should it be.
For hundreds of years the prevailing attitude (even among those with some social conscience), was that black people were inherently inferior, and slavery was inevitable and would never end. Thankfully the Abolitionist movement in the US challenged and fought those blinkered, bigoted assumptions. Their courage and refusal to be defeatist, finally resulted in the adoption of the 13th Amendment of 1865, which officially abolished slavery.
In closing, I must point out you sent TWO responses, to something I wrote over a month ago. Poor Diana. You're obviously frustrated in your retirement, feeling impotent, irrelevant and unloved.
Who knows how many years of dreary stagnation lie ahead? Try to find better uses of your time than posting tetchy, ill-tempered drivel on public forums. All you're doing is exposing your poor debating skills, and revealing how rude, cantankerous and intransigent you are. And those are not admirable or appealing qualities at any age!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@midnightprizm1583 You must have missed Kathy Friday's son's evidence. He testified his mother was in a relationship with Jim Propokovitch from the start of 2013, ie months before Victoria's disappearance/death. And that was only one part of a patchwork of evidence showing Jim Propokovitch murdered his wife.
He and Kathy both admitted to perjury, confessing that they had lied about the circumstances of their first meeting to police and under oath in court. Why on earth would they have lied about it, if there was nothing to hide? C'mon now - you surely aren't as gullible as all that!
A jury has to use their intelligence and common sense in a case like this, and in fact, in all criminal trials. Truth does not come gift wrapped on a silver plate with a big bow! The work of a jury - and make no mistake, it is work - is crucial to any civilized society. Of course juries sometimes get it wrong and the justice system is imperfect - it's bound to be, it's run by human beings. But when it works as in this case, and delivers justice for someone murdered 8 years ago, whose killer believed he had beaten the system and got away with it, we see it at its best.
And I'll tell you this much - if society ever becomes' insensitive and unemotional' about the crime of murder, you and I are in big trouble my friend!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Disgusting to see JOSEPH (James) UNUMADU, the murderer of an elderly woman, browsing in a men's clothes shop, driving a big swanky 4 x 4, and living in the nice house of another woman he's conned (he's a born parasite) without a moment's conscience for battering Marea Yann to death in her armchair, as she watched TV.
That genuine, big-hearted family welcomed a viper into their lives - and he destroyed the loving matriarch at its centre. Her former son-in-law, who she'd loved like a son, Unumadu brutally murdered her in her own home. The most despicable, cowardly and evil betrayal imaginable.
Marea's daughter Pauline - Unumadu's ex wife - does not appear in this documentary, and claims he didn't murder her mother. Garbage! She clearly can't face the guilt of the role she played in her mother's horrific final months and is in denial. I would bet she has children with the monster - as he impregnated other women during their marriage. But denying the ugly truth about her children's father doesn't help them, or all the females in danger while he continues to walk free. There's a TON of evidence of his guilt - which disastrously, the jury didn't get to hear.
Pauline is very lucky to be alive - he is a killer and was a violent domestic abuser for many years. However in the end he murdered his wife's mother, not his wife. That is a rarer type of domestic murder. He told a witness at his trial he did it to punish his wife, and no doubt that's true. But he was punishing the victim too, for daring to reject and stand up to him.
He's highly dangerous, especially to females, and needs to die in a locked cage. It's hard to believe that jury could have got it so wrong and judged him an innocent man. No doubt an element of 'benefit of the doubt' was at play from liberal-minded jurors, simply because he is black - exactly the same mistake the victim and her family made in accepting that snake into their hearts!
Marea and family's acceptance of Unumadu into their family does them credit. But there's no escaping the fact some cultures are better than others! Nigeria is a primitive culture (they use witch doctors FGS!), where women are regarded as less than second class citizens. It is generally accepted that men are superior and dominant over their families. Nigerian males expect to live their lives as they like, without consideration for their womenfolk. They are frequently adulterers - but woe betide any woman who cheats on a Nigerian man!
This man was a disastrous choice of partner by Pauline. She is lucky to have survived that marriage - though she won't admit it, she unwittingly brought her mother's murderer to her door. Marea was a warm, loving Empath, and fell for the classic, bogus claims of victimhood so typical of manipulative narcissists like Unumadu. I have no doubt he saw her as the perfect sucker for his hard luck tales, and she was gifting him large sums of money within months of their first meeting.
When he showed his true, vicious, self-serving nature, Marea withdrew from him - he lost control over her, and a narcissistic abuser cannot stand that. They are all about control! The legal system should have protected this vulnerable, elderly woman. Her son-in-law was stalking and harassing her, and had made threats to kill her. She feared for her life - and she was right to. Why wasn't he arrested over that harassment? She lived alone, a sitting duck for this vicious, enraged narcissist who wasn't going to accept rejection by his wife and her family. He was a ticking time bomb.
Marea's murder was only too predictable, when it happened everyone must have known the identity of her killer! And with his ex-wife Pauline effectively standing by him by denying his obvious guilt, Unumadu not only killed the family's beloved matriarch, he ripped apart the Yann family. The sooner he's locked in the cage he belongs in, the better. Great investigative work by SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA I await news of an arrest and a murder suspect in custody with great anticipation!
Sending love and respect to all of Marea's loved ones, who bravely participated in this important documentary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@errolrosa8720 Where was the 'theory' in my earlier post? I stated only facts. The victim's body was never found - FACT. A missing body is in itself suspicious and indicates not suicide but foul play - FACT. The defendant had means, motive and opportunity - FACT. The defence could not produce even one witness to back its claims - FACT. The defendant, so emphatic in his denials to police, chose not to take the stand and appeal his 'innocence' to the jury - FACT.
I repeat - what could this strange set of circumstances add up to, but a domestic homicide?
Juries have to navigate complex evidence and use their critical thinking skills (if they have them), to join the dots and find the truth between the prosecution and defence narratives. It's a tough job. Seems you want them to be handed incontrovertible facts on a plate, but life - and criminal trials - are not like that. They require much more brain work from the jury!
Murder trials such as the Jessica Chambers calamities, have shown juries to be sadly inadequate to the tasks requested of them. Thankfully this jury took their time, paid close attention, and reached the right verdict - Guilty.
it's shocking how many people fail to recognise the value of circumstantial evidence, putting all their faith instead in forensics. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and pieced together can paint a picture more clear and compelling than forensics.
2
-
@Peace2humankind You are over simplifying what I said, of course you don't convict someone solely on the basis of 'what else could it be'. That was simply my overview of a mass of compelling circumstantial evidence, which together told the story of Victoria Propokovitz' murder by her husband.
The point is, it was the job of the defence to convince the jury 'what else ' it could be, other than murder.
In the absence of an alien abduction, the only alternative possibility to murder the defence could present was suicide, which required them to exaggerate Victoria's historic mental health issues, and throw great significance onto two, long-ago, supposed suicide attempts. One could not even be confirmed as a suicide attempt, and both happened so long ago as to be utterly unconvincing. One by one, her children and stepchildren took the stand to confirm she was in good spirits when last seen, not suicidal at all, but upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
One of the biggest challenges for the defence was explaining what happened to Victoria's body. The absence of a body was a huge problem for them, because it points not to suicide, but to third party involvement and murder.
Mr D' Angelo had to ask the jury to believe that somehow Victoria, who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night unseen minus her dentures, cigarettes and purse, left no suicide note or footprints, killed herself and hid her own, fully clothed body so well that no trace of her was found in 8 years, despite many, exhaustive professional searches. It was a big ask!
Thanks to police inquiries there was actually little mystery as to Victoria's tragic fate. In an early interview with law enforcement, Prokopovitz let slip he had a key to the industrial sludge pools he used in his work. When a senior detective took the stand and revealed this fact under defence cross-examining, it was a huge slam-dunk moment for the prosecution - as D'Angelo's obvious shock at the news and subsequent stammering showed! The chemical waste pools were easily accessible to Propokovitz 24 hours a day, and had no CCTV cameras. It doesn't take a genius to work out where he dumped his wife's naked body, minus her teeth, on the night of her murder. The powerful cocktail of chemicals contained in those paper by-products rapidly accelerated degradation, and made short work of her remains. As Propokovitz himself said, he was fully confident she'd never be found. He even mentioned her lack of identifying teeth, which of course reflected his certain knowledge of both her violent death and her squalid disposal.
I'll tell you what is (to use your words), "insane, cruel and grotesquely unjust": An abusive husband killing his sick wife and expecting to get away with it, because he successfully destroyed her corpse.
James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity to murder his wife Victoria. A strong, multi layered and corroborated, primarily circumstantial case showed beyond a reasonable doubt he did. Like so many wife killers before him, he chose murder over divorce to avoid splitting the jointly held marital assets 50-50. He had a new girlfriend - and a gambling habit - to support! The pornographic photos he took of his girlfriend Kathy in a hotel room, and the staggering, six-figure sums he blew with her gambling in casinos, revealed the self-indulgent hedonism at the core of both the killer and the crime.
No one but the defendant had any reason to want rid of Victoria. This case had all the ingredients of an all-too common, spousal murder, with the predictable, age-old motives of money and sex. Why would Propokovitz have conspired with his girlfriend to commit the serious crime of perjury, without very good reason? He had to lie to the authorities about their affair and persuade Kathy to do the same, to cover up the murder he'd committed! Perjury after all, is a far lesser criminal offence than murder. For Kathy, the burden of conspiring with her lover in his murder cover-up was too much. She committed suicide while in custody awaiting sentencing for perjury and obstructing police.
It is concerning that some people put such blind faith in forensic evidence (which is far from irrefutable and open to manipulation), and regard circumstantial evidence as somehow inferior. Thankfully this was a smart jury, with the common sense and critical thinking skills to navigate a primarily circumstantial case and see that it clearly reflected the defendant's guilt.
Sadly some juries are not up to the challenge, and practically expect to be handed a photograph of the murder in progress, signed by the killer, before they will convict. The Jessica Chambers mistrials are a good example. The circumstantial evidence was powerful and considered in totality, showed a clear and compelling story of defendant Quentin Tellis' guilt. But jury members lacked the basic logic and analytical capacity to work that out. After hearing all the evidence, the questions they asked from the jury room showed they were totally out of their depth. When a jury literally doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'Unanimous', you know justice is in big trouble!
Quentin Tellis remains in custody and will face charges this year for the murder of another young woman, which should finally see him convicted. But thanks to two woefully inadequate juries, no one has been convicted of Jessica Chambers' murder, and her family has been denied justice.
I'm seeing that same deficiency in some of the comments here questioning the guilty verdict. James Propokovitz had a fair trial and was convicted on more than enough, very compelling evidence. I hope people will start to realise circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and that the truth does not come gift wrapped on a silver tray, wrapped in a big bow! It requires a smart jury to search for the truth, among the known facts. You can be sure the truth is hidden among all the evidence, both circumstantial and forensic. But it can only be found through an in depth process requiring common sense, critical thinking and intelligent, grown up analysis.
Thankfully this jury was equal to the task, and their guilty verdict taught James 'Curly' Propokovitz some important truths. He learned, to his obvious surprise, he isn't smarter than all the detectives and lawyers who pursued him. He also learned that destroying his wife's corpse did not destroy the case against him. And finally he found out all those years he spent napping in his recliner with a beer, vacationed with his girlfriend and generally enjoyed life to the full without the loyal wife he'd killed, he had not got away with her murder at all.
He was wrong when he assumed he'd beaten justice. Justice was watching him, biding its time, waiting in the wings until finally, 8 years after Victoria took her last, desperate breath, justice caught up with him in one, life-changing word in a hushed courtroom. GUILTY.
Any other verdict would have been a travesty. Propokovitz will rightly die in jail, a convicted murderer who cruelly ended one life and ruined many others. May Victoria now rest in peace, and may all the people hurt by this evil man begin the long road to healing.
2
-
How sad that this beautiful young girl with everything to live for, was able to do this to herself in an impulsive moment after her boyfriend had dumped her - all because her brother kept a loaded gun in the house! This is the madness of America, where an ordinary family home containing children, also contains a deadly weapon. Without a gun in the house, this 18 year old girl would have cried, and called her friends, and talked to her Mom, and watched movies and eaten candy and she'd have got over her teen heartbreak. She would have been told "His loss, you were too good for him, there are 100s of better guys out there" etc and she'd have been fine. Because that was all it was, a blow that feels devastating to a kid, but everyone goes through it and survives. Unless they have easy access to a loaded gun! Her parents seem like really great people and very supportive. To see their daughter like this must be devastating for them - and I bet they have kicked themselves over and over that they allowed any gun inside their family home! For people who seem bright, that was a very dumb decision. They are all paying the price now, God bless them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Vinnie hasn't been paying attention to this murder trial if he thinks it's 'Complicated', 'Different people have different motives', 'It's all over the place', and 'It's not easy for the jury'. Huh?! Has he been watching the same court case?!
In fact it's pretty simple. The defendant Melody Farris is the ONLY family member with a motive to kill Gary Farrer. She and she alone stood to inherit his $4.5 million estate - as his wife of 38 years it all automatically went to her on his death, along with a hefty life insurance payout, and their four kids would not get a look in! In addition Melody was having a hot and heavy affair with a man who'd discussed marriage with her. Motive was strong for her to want hubby gone!
Melody was the only person present at the location of her husband's murder, at the relevant time (cellphone records - BOOM!), plus there are indications she borrowed the murder weapon from a relative. It's only too obvious why prosecutors honed in on her exclusively!
Forensic evidence of a post-murder clean-up inside the marital home (Gary's blood and a bullet fragment), plus a Walmart receipt for cleaning materials purchased on a shopping trip Melody made alone the day after, are powerfully incriminating.
Testimony from multiple witnesses, some of whom have no 'dog in the race', paint a grim picture of the defendant's character and the marriage. Money and material possessions were Melody's obsessions, and along with her multiple affairs with different men, big sources of friction in the marriage. Love had left their relationship many years before. Melody's affairs seemed to get more intense in her middle age - to the embarrassment and anger of not only her husband, but her four adult children too.
Melody actually left Gary for another man at one point. She returned to their home a few months later and the marriage resumed, with no discussion about the crisis, or indeed, any explanation or apology from Melody. Naturally this created major unspoken resentments within the family, and Gary's trust in his wife was irreparably broken. It also prompted him to tighten the purse strings and cut up his wife's credit card. His response to her infidelity was to control her by financial means - and she hated it. She is a woman who spends lavishly, as photos of their palatial home decor confirms.
After that affair, Melody and Gary were a couple in name only, living and sleeping in separate parts of the house. Melody positively flaunted her next affair with a man called Rusty, the not-so-secret relationship she was having at the time of her husband's murder.
Around a year before he died, she had invited Rusty to their daughter's big society wedding. She shamelessly kissed, danced, cuddled and canoodled with him in front of all the guests (as could be seen on multiple photos of the wedding dance floor, shown at trial). Gary kept his cool in public, but was secretly seething, and later told his kids: "That's the last time she embarrasses me like that". He was correct, it would be the last time, but for tragic reasons he could not have predicted.
The defence attempt to frame the victim's son Scott for the murder, despite his clear lack of motive to kill his dad (and indeed zero evidence he did it), smacks of desperation. No wonder the attorneys seem half-hearted in their delivery - they know jurors are highly unlikely to buy what they're selling!
In fact Scott, who lived and worked on his parents' farmstead after a military career, stood to lose the most from his dad's death - his home and his job. In common with his older brother Chris and sister Emily, his relationship with his mother was strained. Without his dad's patronage, she was unlikely to continue the arrangement his generous father had set up. Gary's death left Scott very vulnerable - and as with all the children, no financially better off, as the entire estate went to Melody.
All four of the children gave evidence, and all four showed authentic, heart-breaking grief when discussing their father's violent murder and squalid end, his body destroyed on a fire pit. They loved him, and though there's a three-to-one split with Chris, Scott and Emily opposing Melody, against the youngest child Amanda who supports her and testified for the defence, they are united in grief at the loss of their dad and the ruination of their family. I cannot imagine jurors believing any one of Gary's children capable of killing him.
Amanda is the only child to remain loyal to her mother, and to believe in her innocence (though her answers on the stand about that were cagey to say the least). This is a sad case of a narcissistic parent manipulating an emotionally needy child. Bad enough that Melody robbed her kids of their loving father, but in addition she's divided those siblings, by adopting Amanda as her personal confidante, cheerleader and spy.
Amanda as a result is estranged from the brothers and sister whose support she (and they) need more than ever, since the murder. The older siblings have reluctantly recognised their mother's guilt in their father's murder. They've seen a ton of evidence, throughout their lives, of her callous contempt for him, her repeated betrayals, and the way she prioritises money and possessions over people. Her ruthless treatment of her kids was a regular theme running through even the loyal Amanda's evidence.
Sadly Amanda is in denial about the depths of her mother's depravity, and her status as her dad's killer. I hope the inevitable Guilty verdict will ultimately move the siblings on, and prompt healing. Their dad Gary would not have wanted his beloved kids to be estranged because of his murder by their mother. The toxic, destructive Melody has done quite enough damage to people she claimed to love. When justice is served and she's locked in the cage she will die in, I pray the rest of this emotionally battered and bruised family can start the long road to recovery, as I'm sure their dad would want for them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
THIS! Agree 100% what the hell does Johnny's booze and drug intake have to do with anything? He told us about it himself, and freely admits it! But he totally denies ever laying a finger on his ex wife or any other woman.
I believe him and I don't trust a word that comes out of Amber Turd or her supporters' mouths. She's a toxic, manipulative, narcissistic abuser and a pathological liar. SHE was the monster and abuser in the relationship, not Johnny Depp. You only have to hear her yelling obscenities at him on the audio recordings, or read her obsessive, bossy texts to him (sent repeatedly, over and over, when he was not replying to her), to know she's dangerously out of control!
It's frankly terrifying that dreadful woman now has sole custody of a defenceless child she paid a surrogate to carry and birth for her. The Turd is such a lazy, gold-digging grifter, she didn't even give birth to her own baby!😱😱😱
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sunstar441 There have been a few similar murders in recent years, in which a spoiled, twenty-something man-child still living with parents and financially dependent on them, kills them when he fears his free ride is coming to an end and he might have to - shock, horror - live like an adult. The murders committed by Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jnr, among others, have obvious parallels with the Chandler Halderson case.
They are intriguing stories, on many levels. Obviously for a non-killer, it's impossible to fathom how a person could brutally kill any human being, least of all the humans who birthed, raised and nurtured you all your life. As a journalist for many years, my default position is nosiness - I want to know how and why bizarre, unexpected things like this happen. Particularly if reaching a better understanding of it, could potentially prevent future tragedies.
The reasons are obviously complex, even if you are the killer, it's doubtful you'll ever fully understand it. But the similarities between this and other parental murders by entitled sons are striking, and surely provide some significant clues. In all three murder cases I referenced (and others I did not), the killer's mom and dad's parenting styles were the polar opposite of each other - with mom playing 'good cop' and dad as 'bad cop'.
In every case the mom was over indulgent, a helicopter mom too invested in her adult son, as though he were still a child, too generous and too tolerant with him, delighted he was still living at home, despite being an adult. Picking up after him, not expecting him to do any housework or chores - failing to show him boundaries or expectations of good behaviour. In all cases, there was a sense the son disrespected/despised his indulgent mother. Krista once sent Chandler a text thanking him for waving at her that morning as she left for work, saying it had 'made her day'. She expected so little from him, and was pathetically grateful for the least little show of affection!
The mom will generally be a walking ATM machine, forever giving or 'loaning' him pocket money that's never re-paid, funding vacations and other treats, picking up his favourite snacks/candy/drinks for him while she's at the shops, cooking his favourite meals etc. She's also typically in daily contact with her son via cellphone, sending texts throughout the day and making sure he knows where she is and what she's doing at all times.
The father in these cases, is very different to her, but is also very much a traditional male just as she's a traditional female. He is generally a rock solid, reliable and dependable breadwinner in a good career, who worked hard all his life to keep his wife and kids (an example his son did not follow). With workaholic tendencies he was physically absent from the home for long periods, doing overtime and putting in extra hours. But in addition to being physically absent, the father was emotionally absent. Where mom was very hands on and affectionate with their kids - sometimes to the point of clingy - dad was a little stand-offish. He'd get home from work shattered, and the mom would pamper him, take his jacket and get his dinner. As head of the house, he expected to switch off, sit there and relax in front of the TV ,without paying the children much attention.
Where the mom is over tolerant and generous with their adult son, dad isn't - he is the one challenging him about why he isn't working, paying rent, tidying his bedroom, doing better things with his life, etc. The son generally stays out of his dad's way as much as possible to avoid conflict. In every case I've followed, the parents' murders followed a confrontation between father and son about his lazy lifestyle, involving some kind of deadline or ultimatum about him getting a job/moving out/becoming more independent. The son instead chose to kill both parents, believing it would provide a solution that would extend his dependant status.
With Chandler, the father-son showdown was about him dropping out of college and covering it up with an elaborate web of forged emails and hoax phone calls. Once that secret was out, all his other lies about jobs and disability would surely have quickly unravelled.
Grant Amato's parents were understandably angry after discovering he'd spent their $200k retirement fund on a Bulgarian 'cam girl' he chatted to online but would never even meet. After that discovery, Grant's father let him continue living with them at home, but made him obey a long, written list of rules - including never to contact the girl again. If he broke the rules, he was told he would be thrown out. His dad caught him reaching out to the woman on Twitter, and was furious. Enraged at this intrusion into his private life, Grant shot both parents in the back of the head, execution style, waited for his elder brother to return home and did the same to him.
You probably know the Joel Guy Jnr case, a parental murder by a 27 year old son who had never earned a cent in his life, because his Mom Lisa literally worked full time to give her entire salary to him. He'd been a student his whole life, supposedly training to become a plastic surgeon. But in his late twenties, there was no sign he was any closer to achieving that prestigious career. When his mom and dad told him they couldn't continue bankrolling him, as they'd decided to retire and would no longer have the income, he was silently seething. He set about secretly plotting their murders, buying the equipment to kill and dismember them, using his mother's cash. The murders and disposal of the bodies in this case was particularly horrific, and points to huge anger.
One lunchtime, during a Thanksgiving visit, Joel Jnr viciously stabbed dad Joel Snr to death as he was exercising on a step machine in a bedroom. Then he awaited his mom Lisa's return from Walmart, called her upstairs and launched a similarly frenzied and bloody attack. After cutting the clothes from their dead bodies, he set about dismembering them. He dissolved their torsos in two plastic tubs he'd filled with corrosive drain cleaner. He 'snapped' his mother's head from her shoulders with his bare hands, carried it, dripping blood, downstairs to the kitchen, and boiled it in a large saucepan on the stove. They were yet another couple whose devotion to their adult son was rewarded with horrific violence. He didn't love them back - quite the opposite, he hated them!
Another similarity in these three cases, is that despite the mountain of evidence against them, every killer pleaded Not Guilty. This forced a full jury trial, at which the victims' loved ones had to give evidence, and endure all the terrible details of their last moments. Why did they want those full trials? They must have known they hadn't a hope of getting away with their murders - unsurprisingly, none of the defendants elected to take the stand and speak in their own defence! I think they were proud of what they had done, and the televised murder trial was their last hurrah, a final farewell and Eff You to the world.
You pointed out Chandler's brother Mitchell was a 'normal' guy, and the other murders I've mentioned also feature apparently harmless, decent siblings. Obviously in 99% of cases this kind of parenting won't play any role in a son becoming a family annihilator. I was clear in my original post that Bart and Krista did nothing to deserve their murders - nor did the other cruelly annihilated family members. But I think it would be dishonest to suggest their parenting styles played no role whatsoever in the tragedies that ensued. It has to have been a factor, and one piece of the jigsaw among many others, that created the perfect storm for parental murder.
There are too many similarities in the family dynamics in which these homicides occurred, for it to be mere coincidence. I want experts to study people like Chandler Halderson and Joel Guy Jr while they're costing the taxpayer money living out their days in prison. I say, study them like lab rats, whether they like it or not! If it prevents even one more murder like these by an entitled man-child, it will be effort well spent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's hardly surprising Victoria Propokovitz had depression, living with an abusive husband like him! The police bodycam showed exactly what kind of man and partner James Propokovitz was, a belligerent, arrogant, aggressive bully. He had abused his first wife too, the mother of his children, but she escaped with her life. Victoria wasn't so lucky.
The defendant's motives for murdering the wife he repeatedly referred to as "That woman", were clear. She had become an inconvenience to him, her cancer treatment and medical bills were trying his patience and their finances. He had a new girlfriend and wanted to be a free agent to see her - without handing over half of the jointly owned marital assets in a divorce. Once he had got rid of Victoria, his lifestyle changed suddenly and dramatically. He was having a high old time, taking pornographic photos of his girlfriend in hotel rooms, and blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars with her, gambling in casinos. Hedonistic, selfish pursuits he could not have got away with if Victoria was alive.
Suicide was the only possible alternative to murder the defence could come up with, but it just wasn't credible. Victoria was too physically weak to have killed herself away from the house - she could hardly walk, and didn't drive. And how would she have made her own, clothed body, totally disappear? Over the last 8 years, police have done many exhaustive professional searches for her. When a woman vanishes into thin air in suspicious circumstances, it strongly points to foul play and spousal murder. Human bodies don't disappear unless someone worked very hard to make them disappear! The chemical sludge ponds Propokovitz had a key to, gave him the perfect opportunity to destroy his wife's corpse quickly and efficiently. He thought he'd committed the perfect murder, and could not be prosecuted. He was wrong. Victoria's children had a gut instinct this was not suicide, but murder. Soon police felt the same way, and they worked tirelessly to provide quality evidence that proved it to a jury. Kudos to them for helping deliver justice to a murder victim and her loved ones.
James Propkovirz is guilty as sin. Thankfully this was a smart jury, able to navigate all the evidence, see the truth and deliver the right verdict. This case and other 'no-body' cases like Patrick Frazee's, tells abusive men they cannot assume they'll get away with murdering their partner, if they successfully dispose of her body. And justice can catch up with them, many years later!
2
-
2
-
@kdfulton3152 I agree, you're spot on. Agent Tammy Lee was absolutely right when she told CW before his (failed) polygraph test "You're a terrible liar!" I'm amazed anyone believed that crazy fiction he told visiting detectives last year. You could practically hear his brain cells straining under the pressure of making it up as he went along!
His fabricated tale of murdering his two children on the back seat of his truck at Cervi was especially unconvincing. Because he isn't bright and has no empathy, he's very bad at inventing dialogue. So his accounts of statements the victims supposedly made to him that night, never ring true. And he recycles old lies!
Remember his first fake account of the murders, in which he claimed he strangled Shanann only, after she had strangled the children? In the police interrogation room he told his dad Ronnie: "I did to her what she just did to the kids".
Fast forward to his new, February 2019 version of the murders with gratuitous, horrific embellishments. He claims after killing Cece in his truck in front of Bella, Bella said to him: "Are you going to do to me what you just did to Cece?" Sound familiar?
And he claimed he'd never forget Bella's last words, saying they were "Daddy - no!" before later contradicting himself and saying they were: "No - daddy!" HUH?! You said you'd never forget them Chris, but you already did!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Craig121000 In fact Boris Johnson is the only party leader who has publicly stated what a woman is (an adult human female), and has condemned men invading female-only public spaces (ie female toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, domestic violence shelters etc), and males like swim cheat 'Lia Thomas' muscling into women's sports.
In contrast, Labour leader Keir Starmer (the son of an NHS nurse), won't state what a woman is or even that men don't have a cervix and can't get pregnant - his late mother must be spinning in her grave at her gutless son's outrageous antics!
I'm a lifelong Labour voter, but I have no other option but to vote for the one political party who acknowledges as a woman I belong to a unique category of people, which men should not be able to 'identify' into (in the majority of cases, without even sacrificing their penis!)
All women, and the men who care about them, should vote Conservative at the next election, and show Labour that while they have no concern for the female 51% of the country, the majority of British citizens DO!
2
-
Wilma is so adorable! It's wonderful to see how deeply loved and appreciated she is by her humans - as all pets should be. She's clearly a momma's girl, and closely attuned to her mom's moods in particular. Dogs have such powerful empathy for the humans they love.This family has adapted brilliantly to Wilma's sight and hearing issues, so she has followed suit and taken it in her stride.
I lost my beloved little dog Dolly to cancer, almost 4 years ago. I still cry when I think of her, and still tell her I love her, in hopes that somewhere, somehow, she senses it. I will always love and miss her. This lady has an awful bereavement ahead, when she loses sweet Wilma. I hope that won't be for a very long time.
We make a deal with the devil when we take on an animal, knowing that sad day of parting will come. And it always comes far too soon. You can't prepare yourself for such a loss. You just have to go through it, and accept that your grief and heartbreak are the price owing, for all the love and laughter they gave you. Is it a price worth paying? Hell yes!
May this lucky family enjoy many more happy times with their precious girl Wilma. ♥💛❤💛❤💛❤
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joycemarie9702 Exactly! Chandler clearly had no ambition whatsoever, beyond a wholly unproductive life as a parasite. Ironically, murdering both parents, dismembering and dumping their remains, is the hardest he ever worked in his 23 years on the planet.
More ironic still, is that he killed the only people in the world who loved him deeply, and would continue to care for him regardless of his narcissism and entitlement. No one else cares a damn about him now!
He has many long, lonely hours ahead of him in a prison cell to think about that. And to realise there's no more mom and dad to call on - no source of emotional support or even cash, as thanks to his ruthlessness and greed every cent of it (a cool $1 million), has gone to his brother.
Not the sharpest tool in the box, is he?!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Guppyg53 Yep - that's the situation in a nutshell.
There are many men out there like Chris Watts, who are incapable of feeling love or empathy for other humans, but go through the motions of marriage and fatherhood to fit into society. In most cases, those men are ruthless enough to dump their wife and children when they get bored and a new woman and lifestyle comes along.
But a few, like Chris Watts, are at the most extreme end of the narcissist/sociopath scale. Males so utterly without love, empathy, guilt or even fear of getting caught, that they are capable of murder to eliminate people from their lives who are no longer of use to them.
How many women out there right this moment, who are sleeping soundly beside men who have married them, promised to love them forever and take care of their children - but who could kill them and their babies as easily as swatting flies. Chilling, isn't it?
2
-
2
-
She keeps bragging that she's a local person, went to the school nearby, loudly and proudly names a resident she knows etc, etc. Yet she is totally alone throughout this incident - she has no friends with her, not even one!
She's a 40 year old, friendless woman, fighting to get back into a gay bar full of hostile men who do not want her there - and make it very plain to her, with bitchy cat calls both when she exits and re-enters.
Why does she want to be there so bad that she even returns after cops were called on her, told her she was trespassed, and repeatedly warned her she'd get arrested if she did?
What the hell went wrong with this woman? I would love to hear the back story of this life gone very badly awry.
It's sad, pathetic, undignified and infuriating behaviour, and alcohol does not even begin to explain it!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@florencehenry5267 Diana used Charles for royal VIP status, fame, glamour and untold wealth.
Ar 16 she left her expensive private education without passing a single exam, and had no career ambition beyond marrying a rich man. She hit the jackpot with the Prince of Wales! No wonder she was smiling like the cat that got the cream as she emerged from St Paul's Cathedral as Princess of Wales.
Diana was perfectly happy to have two children with Prince Charles the heir to the throne, to secure her long-term royal status as mother of the future king.
By the time she gave birth to Prince Harry 5 years into the marriage she was bored to tears of her husband, and sleeping around with umpteen unsuitable men - many of them married. She had the morals of an alley cat, and no conscience about seducing other women's husbands for kicks.
Ask Julia Carling, Susan Mannakkee, Diane Hoare or any of the other wives whose husbands Diana slept with, what they think of the 'Queen of Tarts'. She was a homewrecker who broke up at least one marriage for the hell of it, and did her damnedest to end many more.
Yet Diana had the cheek to point the finger at Charles and Camilla while she was boffing any man with a pulse (and frequently, a wife!) She was a shameless hypocrite. When Diana famously told Martin Bashir there were quote "three people in the marriage" she badly miscounted, because she deliberately failed to mention all of HER many lovers!
As the eldest con, poor William suffered greatly at the hands of his manipulative mother. She would lean on him emotionally, introduced him and Harry to her secret boyfriends and badmouthed their father to them, selfish acts no decent parent inflicts on their child (Charles never criticised Diana to his sons, despite her promiscuity and general duplicity). William had long-term therapy to come to terms with the harm done to him by his narcissistic mother. That helped him to recover, and he chose in Catherine a woman with all Diana's glamour, but none of her nasty character traits of vindictiveness, vanity and manipulation. Catherine is the intelligent, steadfast, loving and loyal wife and mother Diana could never be.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Anne-pk8gs That 'giant, rude & aggressive bully' as you slander murder victim Chad Oulson (who incidentally weighed less than his big, burly killer), was SHOT DEAD by the supposedly vulnerable 'elderly man'.
Curtis Reeves was 71 years old when he swaggered into that movie theatre and started a fight with law abiding husband and father Chad. A man whose only 'crime' was to text his 3-year-old's childminder during the TRAILERS, as he and his wife (and everyone else), awaited the actual movie, during an afternoon, matinee date.
Chad and Nicole rightly expected to watch a movie without the threat of murder. They could have been any couple that day, sitting in the dark when a belligerent ex cop - who thought he still was one and worse, believed he had a licence to kill - threw his considerable weight around. It's pure luck he didn't kill other innocent movie goers that day - he clearly didn't give a damn who he killed just as long as he 'won' the crazy argument he started.
We can only imagine the abuse Curtis Reeves must have got away with when he wore a police uniform. He was still drunk with power years after retiring!
I sincerely hope you meet a bully like Reeves someday, Anne. You really deserve that. Chad Oulsen and his widow Nicole, however, did not.
Karma is coming for his killer, and for toxic creeps like you who support him. You're disgusting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
How did a couple everyone describes as so special, loving and generous, produce a child who was the polar opposite of themselves - pure evil? Lisa's stepdaughters, her husband's biological children, take after them, smart, loving and likeable. So why, when they had a child together, did he turn out as he did?
They obviously put so much love into him, but he didn't love them back. Lisa was working so he didn't have to - a 31 year old man who never had a job or earned a day's pay in his life! His mother paid for his apartment, car, and all his bills.
Is it possible to love a child TOO much? I think so. When your child has always been protected from consequences and responsibilities, he feels so arrogant and entitled, he believes he's entitled to kill you when you pull the plug on his funding!
Today it's widely recognised, some of the most evil killers didn't get that way because of abusive childhoods, but indulgent ones. Thankfully we now recognise the out of control narcissism innate in many killers, started in their childhood with parents who spoiled them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Her story makes no sense at all. She and her boyfriend were having a great day together at her place, and next they're having a spontaneous game of hide and seek (two grown adults playing hide and seek, in a tiny, 2 bedroom apartment, yeah, right, lol).
Then for no good reason he gets into a suitcase - and suddenly he turns into this 103lb ogre she's too terrified to allow out of the suitcase? Huh? When did Dr Jeykyll turn into Mr Hyde?! And when did she intend to free him - a week later?!! GUILTY as charged.
Yes he was abusive, and so was she. He shouldn't have even been at her damn house that night - she'd taken out a restraining order against him. Yet there they were, drinking wine and having fun together - until she pulled her nasty, drunken revenge trick, went up to bed, and left him alone in the dark in that canvas tomb, to suffocate to death.
2
-
@kendralynn897 Exactly! Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage - and they usually fail! Her divorce was not the tragedy she pretended, to win public sympathy and crucify Charles. They simply weren't compatible - it happens.
Diana got a lot out of that marriage - she walked away from the divorce with two fine sons (one of whom would be king), £17 million in the bank, top VIP status, a Kensington Palace apartment and a team of servants at her beck and call 24-7 for life. Why was she so full of self pity?
Charles and Camilla are obviously well suited and should have married in the first place. But marrying Charles made Diana a global star (as any woman who wed him would have become internationally famous), and gave her a lifestyle of wealth and privilege unsurpassed by any mere celebrity. She was bored to tears of Charles - as she made very obvious at their joint public appearances from the late 'eighties. Frankly she was sleeping with so many different men while married (though she only admitted to one, James Hewitt, on that sly BBC 'Panorama' interview), she couldn't care less about her husband and Camilla!
Diana was a total hypocrite pointing the finger at Charles for his one affair (with a woman he genuinely loved), when she was throwing her knickers to the wind with umpteen different men, all of them casual, sexual liaisons - and several of them with married men she had shamelessly chased.
Her pursuit of the recently married rugby star Will Carling was especially cruel. Diana was never in love with Carling, and in fact they never had full sex. On two occasions she invited him back to her private Kensington Palace apartments and gave him oral sex. He was just a notch on her bedpost, a celebrity conquest and dirty secret she giggled about with her girlfriends - caring nothing about his new bride Julia's heartache, or the divorce her sexual scheming would bring about.
When Diana famously said "There were three people in the marriage" she badly mis-counted - she forgot to mention all her own extra marital affairs!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Adele is embarrassingly ignorant, she should wear her Spanx on her empty head - PRIDE is homophobic, AND misogynist!
PRIDE used to defend gay rights, but now it pushes homophobic, gender-cult garbage, like telling Lesbians they are 'bigots' and 'fascists' if they refuse to date men in frocks who 'identify' as women.
In case anyone isn't clear - Lesbians are gay - ie same-sex attracted - women, who exclusively fancy females only. To put it bluntly, Lesbians don't do dick. And no one has the right to tell them they should!
It's hard to think of anything more offensive and homophobic than telling gay people they should sleep with the opposite sex. If someone in the audience responded to Adele's homophobic propaganda with "PRIDE sucks", good on 'em, they are defending the rights of gay people, women and child-safeguarding, and I say respect!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bellakruizenga9679 How old are you - 12?! Love isn't just about a person's looks you know, there's a bit more to it than that! Diana may have been more photogenic than Camilla, but so what? It doesn't make her a better woman - or wife!
Diana was totally incapable of being a loving, stable, supportive wife to Prince Charles, or to any other man come to that. She was immature, self-centred and pathologically vain and narcissistic. It's ridiculous to blame Charles for falling out of love with Diana. Do you blame her for falling out of love with him too? Because despite what the princess said, the split was totally mutual. She was bored of Charles and sleeping with other men from 1985 onwards! It was an arranged marriage which failed, as they often do, they were totally incompatible.
Your comment is actually very revealing. Diana fans champion the long-dead princess with such passion, primarily because she was pretty and died young, staying 36 forever.
If she'd lived and grown older, losing her fresh-faced, youthful good looks, people like you would have abandoned her years ago. You're even more shallow than she was!
Her increasingly bizarre behaviour as she struggled with ageing, falling out with her sons because she resented the media attention her younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law Catherine and Meghan got, would have put a lot of people off her. Boy did those two young women dodge a bullet - Diana would have been the mother-in-law from hell!
Diana died in 1997, just before the internet took hold, and that additional scrutiny would have fast revealed more of the flawed woman behind the false, media image.
By the late 'nineties, many journalists had started to realise how two-faced and fake Diana was. She played fast and loose with news reporters, slagging off Prince Charles and Camilla while she herself was having umpteen extra marital affairs. She was as sly as a fox, thinking she could manipulate the press for her own ends. And for many years she did just that!
But Diana (and her hypocrisy), was about to be rumbled, big time. Once journalists started telling the ugly truth about her and how manipulative and vindictive she was, the public's love affair with Princess Diana would have quickly soured. She left the stage just before her immorality and spite were exposed, allowing people like you to believe she was some kind of Mother Theresa! Diana the Queen of Tarts was no saint!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not only is The Turd clearly making it up as she goes along (her speech and mannerisms confirm those are not genuine memories of domestic abuse she's recalling, but fabricated lies), she's an astonishingly bad actress!
No wonder Johnny Depp can't stand to look at her. This must be bringing back the nightmare he lived with this sadist, being used as her punchbag, sent to the ER with the tip of his finger missing, verbally abused and humiliated in front of his friends, family and colleagues, and even finding she had DEFECATED in his bed! Amber Heard is clearly unhinged, and in the years since they split her accusations against him have only become more outlandish, outrageous and defamatory.
If he had ever raped her or been 'sexually violent' as she now claims, why has she only just mentioned it? There is literally NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of him having instigated any physical assault on her. But to escalate that slander now and suddenly call him a rapist, is an appalling and highly suspect escalation in her abuse claims. I don't believe Johnny Depp is a rapist or any kind of 'woman beater' - to see his abuser now try to get him categorised as the worst kind of predator along with REAL perpetrators like Harvey Weinstein and the rest is utterly sickening.
It's shocking Amber Heard recently bought herself a baby through a surrogate. Her millions aside, with her history of abuse she should not be allowed sole charge of a defenceless child! Sickening too that Heard claims to be a 'feminist', yet participates in the cynical exploitation of poorer women's wombs through the modern scandal of surrogacy. She's like a latter-day Joan Crawford, who back in the 40s adopted babies carried and born to other women, and raised them as a single parent. Crawford then had total control over those children to abuse them, without any intervention by a second parent - and thanks to her immense wealth, none from child protection officials either. We may well see a modern version of the book 'Mommie Dearest' from Amber Heard's surrogate daughter, decades from now!
I believe Johnny Depp was lucky to escape that dangerous egomaniac alive. Her explosive physical and verbal violence against him, as seen by multiple reliable witnesses and heard on tape, shows she is the worst kind of domestic abuser. It's abuse more typically seen from men, but she is a rarer female example. I believe she was probably capable of putting a knife in him or pulling a gun on him, and he may only be alive today because the marriage was so short and he physically left her and went to Europe as soon as he told her it was over. Abusers typically escalate their violence to murder when the victim rejects them/ends the relationship. Depp's music tour of Europe right after he finished with her, may well have saved his life.
Heard is an abuser who flies into blind rages, with no basic respect for human boundaries or dignity (defecating in his side of the marital bed is another sinister example of her abuse). There's no question she put him in hospital, requiring the attention of a surgeon to reattach the tip of his finger. Imagine the furore from her lawyers if Depp had ever put her in the E.R., or for that matter taken a dump where she sleeps! He would be crucified in court - as I hope we will soon see Amber Heard be for her multiple, heinous abuses of him both during and after the marriage.
Time and time again we heard Amber Heard's crazy rage against him on the audio tapes she secretly recorded. As she yells at and insults him for having the good sense to retreat from her when she assaults him, he frequently responds quietly, pleading for calm. It's clear she, not he, was the aggressor and abuser in the relationship.
Johnny Depp was the best thing that ever happened to her, a super-rich superstar who loved her and was generous and supportive - and she abused him! Viewers following this case should learn from it. Narcissists like Amber Heard target Empaths like Johnny Depp, loving, giving people they can dominate and abuse. Depp grew up an Empath because he experienced severe emotional and physical abuse from his narcissistic mother Betty-Sue as a child. Sadly it's well documented victims of childhood abuse can be drawn to
You can ever make a narcissist happy, they are a bottomless pit who will take everything you have to give them, and then spit you out. You'd better call it quits and get away from them soon as you can - stick around and you may not live to tell the tale.
It's sickening that she exploits Depp's addiction issues to pretend he's a woman beater, when the two things are poles apart - and she abused alcohol and cocaine too! But there are no depths a narcissistic abuser like her won't sink to, and no fight too dirty, in order to win. That's all they care about - a narc is never wrong about anything!
I hope this jury does the right thing and sends Amber Heard and all abusers like her a strong message that her abuse of Johnny Depp is unacceptable. That decent man has been vilely slandered by her disgraceful lies for far too long. ENOUGH!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeanhealy3132 Totally right! The fact the failed adopters were not willing to invest even a modest amount of time in that poor bird (whose difficult life history they knew all about), shows just how shallow, selfish and demanding they are. And totally unsuited to meeting the needs of ANY vulnerable rescue animal!
Any sentient creature who suffered (as this poor bird suffered, for a very long time,) will likely find moving into a new home challenging. Who can blame him, he has been to hell and back! Why didn't they grasp that fact, and step up to help him? I am astonished they weren't willing to provide the emotional support he so clearly needed, not even for just one week, to ease that transition for him. They returned the poor boy to the shelter after mere days! Unbelievable. Apparently he wasn't behaving like the perfect pet - how ridiculous, and how horribly, coldly selfish of them! Shame on those people. It's a great shame they apparently can't be named and shamed.
Had the poor Cockatoo only gone to loving, empathetic people, there's no question he'd have been given the gentle love, acceptance, time and space to settle down that he needed, and he would soon have bonded with his new surroundings, and new carers.
Whoever the people are who rejected him, they should be placed on an official blacklist of would-be animal adopters/carers who are totally unsuited to such a role. Such individuals only want 'perfect' pets, who behave on their own, narrow terms - they clearly aren't remotely interested in supporting and nurturing these traumatised souls. And that isn't what animal rescue is about - it isn't a cut price pet shop!
Such people must be booted out of the animal rescue system. If such a blacklist existed, they would be found out immediately they walked into any rescue or shelter seeking a pet. Sub-humans like this only want animal companions for their own benefit. And that is simply unacceptable!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Totally agree with your summary, the Richard Lester directed Musketeer movies of 1973 and '74 (released just 6 months apart) are quite brilliant, and totally stand up today.
In my opinion their all-star casts cannot be surpassed by any other version of the Musketeers (and certainly not that ghastly Charlie Sheen abomination of 1993).
Christopher Lee was perfection as the villain Count de Rochefort, and the great Oliver Reed was perfectly cast as the brooding, charismatic Athos. There isn't a single duff casting - even the great Spike Milligan strikes the right, surreal comedic note!
The third and final Dick Lester Muskateers movie, 1989's 'Return of the Musketeers' was a disappointing affair. 15 years on, the cast were no longer in their exciting, physical prime, and we'd lost the two sublime female leads of the first two movies. Raquel Welch and Faye Dunaway.
Sadly British actor Roy Kinnear who'd featured in all 3 Dick Lester Muskateer movies, died during the making of the third aged 54, after falling off a horse. The movie was dedicated to him as a result.
They cheated the third movie by bringing Back Christopher Lee's villain the Count de Rochefort, when he was clearly killed with a sword to the heart by Michael York's D'Artagnon in the second, 1974 film. In the final '89 movie, Rochfort mentions that he lay bleeding all night on the cathedral floor where that duel took place, but survived to be thrown in the Bastille for many years. As If!
2
-
Big balls? Testicles are in reality, tender, desperately vulnerable little things. The male scrotum is a quivering jelly, that can reduce its owner to a quivering jelly with the slightest injury. Your 'big balls' analogy makes no sense at all - the bigger the balls, the more vulnerable their owner!
At least Sunak, unlike Gutless Keir Starmer, had the balls to know what a woman is and publicly acknowledge that any owner of balls is not female, and never can be. Ditto Boris Johnson was clear on this biological fact. The Labour Party's wholesale submission to misogynist gender--bollox is a total disgrace, and exposes the party as no friend of women, gay people, or child safeguarding.
Kemi has a proud history of defending females and children against this woke garbage, and fully deserves to win the Conservative leadership. Sadly they don't have the courage to elect her. More fool them.
2
-
2
-
The defence was reaching, big time! Common sense tells you Victoria was talking about being found in time to save her - it was a reference to her second suicide attempt in 2003 (ten years before her murder), when her son Wes found her in time, and she was rushed to hospital and survived the prescription pills overdose.
Victoria had swallowed the pills out of anger that her husband, the defendant, was cheating on her. When she came round in hospital she was still angry with him and said she had wanted to die, and was angry she had been saved. She told her family she didn't expect her son to come home and find her - her plan was for her husband to find her later that day, dead. Hence her comment 'Next time you won't find me'. She was getting at her cheating husband, saying next time she'd make sure her suicide was successful and no one found her in time for rescue.
She was not saying no one would ever find her dead body! That makes no sense at all. Why would anyone think about their own corpse, or about hiding it from relatives?
The defence made a big deal of that statement and gave it a meaning it didn't have, because their entire case hinged on persuading the jury that Victoria wasn't murdered but killed herself and, ludicrously, hid her own, clothed body. Quite how she was supposed to have achieved that, they didn't explain!
James Propokovitz was confident he would get away with murdering his wife for two reasons. First because her history of depression and her two, historic suicide attempts would be an easy explanation for her disappearance, and second because he had access to a fantastic place to dispose of her corpse forever, his employer's industrial sludge ponds containing a powerful, mix of corrosive chemicals he knew would destroy her remains. Thankfully he was wrong!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@misspacman4709 If you grow up, you will learn that kindness and a loving heart are far more important than good looks. Diana was photogenic, Camilla not so much. That doesn't make Diana a better person!
Diana fans are as shallow as she was - they worship her because she was pretty and will never grow old, 'cos she got herself killed in a totally needless accident aged 36. Her fans forget she was a self serving, narcissistic airhead who had dozens of affairs to Charles' ONE. And Charles married the lady, so it was the real deal - Diana had so many lovers smuggled to her home by her butler in the boot of a car, there weren't 'three people' in her marriage as she claimed, but a cast of thousands!
Self-centred Diana was a lousy wife. As future Queen and consort to the King, part of Diana's role was to support her husband. The prince was the reason she was famous after all, without her marriage to Charles, Diana would have been just another anonymous, privileged aristocrat's daughter. But she soon forgot that the royals made her famous. The fame went to Diana's head big time, and she started to believe her own publicity.
Soon she was poring over the newspapers every day looking for stories about herself. Her ego was out of control!
And what exactly were Diana's special talents? She couldn't deliver a speech to save her life, despite the help of top voice coaches and stars including Sir Dickie Attenborough. She had no bright ideas for ways to help the sick and underprivileged, beyond her twee empty platitudes about 'giving them a hug' (UGH!) After her divorce she promptly dumped most of her charities without warning, a cruel trick that lost them all immeasurable, much needed funds.
Diana's biggest assets were her looks, and her gift for playing the victim!
Diana walked away from her marriage to Prince Charles with two healthy sons, a cool £17 million in cash, a Kensington Palace home, and round the clock staff and VIP status for life - chauffeur cars everywhere and first class flights when private jets weren't available.
She did very well out of what was essentially an arranged marriage. But was she thankful for the privileged lifestyle and VIP status the royal marriage had given her? Not a bit of it - she constantly played the victim and was hell bent on winning a petty popularity contest with her husband, while doing her best to scupper him becoming king. He was the father of her children - for their sake she should have kept a civil relationship with him. But she fixated on Camilla - hypocritical as hell, when Diana herself was bedding umpteen men while the wedding ring was still on her finger!
Camilla is a good woman, a 'girl's girl' who genuinely loves Charles, as evidenced by their happy marriage. Diana fell out of love with Charles, just as he did her, she was no victim as she cynically cast herself for public sympathy. And Diana pursued other women's husbands with gusto, slipping them her phone number at parties within sight of their unsuspecting wives. She had no right to point the finger at her husband's adultery, when hers was far worse and with many more lovers than his ONE!
I know who I would prefer a night on the town with - Camilla, every time! She may not be as photogenic as Diana, but she's a lovely, down to earth, big hearted, fun woman who likes other women. William and Harry adore her - and we can imagine how hard Diana would have worked to prevent that happening if she'd lived!
Diana would also have disliked her younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law Kate and Meghan, and been jealous of the media attention tey got. Camilla is aging with style and confidence - Diana would have hated getting older, terrified of losing her good looks which were everything to her. What are looks when your personality is as manipulative, devious and narcissistic as Diana's? Looks are meaningless - you'll discover that for yourself some day!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, 'Harry Potter' author JK Rowling is a LEGEND to speak out in defence of women, against the misogynist madness of trans politics. Challenging widespread attacks on women's basic rights by trans cult, has got her hate mail and even death threats from the men in dresses. But JK Rowling simply cannot stay silent in the face of the sinister trans agenda, which represents a far bigger threat to women's rights than the Suffragettes faced 100 years ago!
Back then Emmeline Pankhurst and co were fighting for the vote. Today women are fighting to keep the very NAME woman, and their recognition as a unique, sex group. Make no mistake, women ARE an exclusive group - one that deluded men cannot claim membership to!
This policy of 'acceptance without question' (ie you are what sex you claim you are - even without sex change surgery, or dressing as your chosen sex), has now got so out of hand, senior politicians including Labour Leader Keir Starmer will not say what a woman is, for fear of offending the less than 1% of men who call themselves women! Yes - the Labour Party has chosen to support less than 1% toxic trans cult, and throw women, 50% of the population, under the bus. If you cannot accurately define what a woman is, how can you possibly defend women's rights?
As a woman, I am massively disappointed in the usually outspoken Joan Collins zipping her lip. She of all people should be using her platform to speak up and defend her sex against the trans war on women! If you can't speak your mind at 89, a national treasure with a bloody Damehood, when can you? She has two daughters she should be defending too!
What happened to Dame Joan's legendary guts and chutzpah? We all know she doesn't believe be-penised men should be classed as women - they're NOT women, and they don't belong in female-only spaces like ladies' loos, changing rooms, women's domestic violence shelters, prisons etc. It is too easy for sex predators to claim a bogus 'trans woman' identity to access female-only spaces, and be a threat to the dignity, privacy and safety of the women and girls who use them.
Last year, a woman on a supposedly female-only NHS hospital ward in England, was raped on that ward in the middle of the night. She reported the attack to police, and when they investigated, the hospital staff said she could not have been raped, because there were no men on her ward. Surprise, surprise, when they were pressed to look into it further, they had to admit there WAS a man on that ward - a trans identified man, calling himself a woman!
Like 90% of self proclaimed 'trans women' today, that rapist was fully male bodied, with functioning male genitals. Women's prisons increasingly house men who claim they are 'trans women'. Male rapists/sex offenders and other criminals are now demanding to be sent to women's prisons on conviction, and many succeed just because they claim they are a 'trans woman'.
A British rapist called Stephen Wood successfully persuaded a judge to send him to a female prison, arguing his safety would be compromised if he went to a men's jail because he 'lived as a woman' called Karen White. Before long 'Karen White', a burly, be-penised male sexual predator in a bad wig, had to be removed and sent to a male jail, after he sexually assaulted three female prison inmates.
Incredibly, that dumb judge prioritised the male rapist's safety, over the safety of all the women prisoners in the jail he sent him to - just because that male rapist claimed he was 'trans'. Female prisoners should not have to be locked up with dangerous men - that is not part of their punishment!
Ricky Gervais has finally spoken out on the modern scourge of trans cult. His latest stand up performance opened with him pointing out how utterly farcical it is that today men with beards and penises are claiming the identity 'woman'. And even more crazy - anyone who points out the King's New Clothes and denies they are female, is automatically called a 'bigot'! Predictably there's been a trans backlash and he's been criticised. But Ricky's doing fine, because his critics hold the minority view - the MAJORITY oppose the modern, misogynist trans agenda.
How can it be fair for men to compete against women in competitive sports? Men who experienced male puberty have a lifelong, huge physical advantage over females in multiple ways, regardless of any artificial hormones they take. Just look at the size of 6ft 2ins male swim cheat Will 'Lia' Thomas - his massive shoulders are wider than the female swimmers' are tall!
What's more, be-penised Thomas (a straight man), has the NERVE to use the female changing rooms, where women frequently see his male genitals and feel uncomfortable, but are told to put up and shut up. Thomas is abusing those female swimmers in multiple ways, stealing their places and medals in swimming events, and invading their female-only changing rooms, causing embarrassment, distress and fear. He is a misogynist woman abuser, and should be condemned and called out as such - not applauded as a 'trans hero'. How is he even trans anyway, when he retains his penis and testicles and has no wish for sex change surgery to lose them (therefore he doesn't have gender dysphoria)? The truth is, like so many other so-called trans women today, he isn't 'trans' at all, but a transvestite, ie a man with a sexual fetish for dressing in female attire, some or all of the time. Today many transvestites - including Eddie Izzard - are bogusly calling themselves 'trans' to gain the sympathy and special treatment that comes with that fashionable identity.
Dame Joan's out of character reluctance to speak out on this particular issue, shows exactly how aggressive and vile the MALES are pushing this trans bullshit! Trans activists are Nazis, who won't tolerate any dissent. They've long promoted a #NoDebate policy, because they know their views are unacceptable to the majority, and that their non-scientific, anti women, homophobic, anti child-safeguarding agenda will not hold up to scrutiny.
That's why it's critical women - and the men who care about them - speak out and spread the world about the trans war on women. It's real, and its making life hard for women and girls around the globe. Public figures like Joan Collins surely have a duty to speak out. As the famous poem "First they came for the Socialists' makes clear, we all have a duty to say something, when we witness injustice as serious as this!
#MenAreNotWomen #WomensRightsAreHumanRights ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No - misogynist, homophobic, anti child-safeguarding trans cult is the scourge of the modern age, people need to discuss it not look the other way!
It's such a toxic men's rights group, 89 year old Joan is terrified to say anything to bring their death threats down on her, and be unfairly branded a 'bigot' because she doesn't happen to think a man with a beard and penis is a woman, or should be allowed to enter female-only public spaces (toilets, changing rooms, women's hospital wards, prisons etc), or thrash women at their sports!
It really is as ridiculous as that - Ricky Gervais just did a brilliant routine exposing the idiocy of the trans mantra 'Trans Women Are Women'. Predictably he was branded 'transphobic' by trans activists, just for repeating their own garbage back at them - so ludicrous, it's a comedy routine in itself!
Now Gervais has finally located his backbone and spoken out, we know the tide is turning against gender-woo ideology. And not before time!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, I think the lady wanted to build up her part a bit don't you, and as she clearly thought the family were involved (along it seems with most of the public, despite an inconvenient lack of hard evidence), the programme makers were only too delighted to put the spotlight on her! I was decidedly unimpressed by the group of so-called crime experts the show assembled too, (at least one, Laura Richards, is so discredited in Britain she can no longer work here). These 'experts' were clearly working to a brief given to them by CBS, that Burke was the killer. If any one of them had challenged the premise that Burke was guilty, they would have been thrown off the show with no fee! Truth is, none of us knows who committed this sickening crime. All we know is a little girl died a cruel unnatural death and her killer has not faced justice. The police were woefully inadequate!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Like so much 'evidence' presented in the CBS show, the 911 recording is inconclusive and ultimately comes down to personal interpretation. The programme makers deployed the power of suggestion to influence viewer perceptions throughout - and reading some of the comments here, it was effective! Take a look online at 'Rolling Stone - 3 Big Ways the Case of JonBenet Ramsey' Got It Wrong'. The fact is, not a single piece of solid evidence has come to light to incriminate a Ramsey family member in the twenty years since the crime was committed. The CBS documentary, while piecing together a case against Burke Ramsey based on circumstantial, anecdotal and at times totally fabricated 'evidence' (pineapple chunk, anyone?) produced not a single scrap of new evidence against him or his parents. Most outrageously of all, in order to make their case against Burke they had to dismiss the most compelling evidence of all that the family were not involved - the unidentified male dna on the child's body. How convenient that they decided it was the dna of a factory worker on JonBenet's underwear - 'forgetting' to mention the same male dna was found under her fingernails and elsewhere on her body! The Ramseys may have played a part in the death of that little girl but no one has succeeded in proving it, not the police, not the media and certainly not the keyboard warriors who would send Burke to the electric chair because he lacks social skills and smiles inappropriately in a TV interview! This lynch mob mentality leaves me cold. I prefer to see people tried in a proper court of law not on a sensationalist, ratings-chasing TV show and definitely not on internet chat rooms!
1
-
@afritimm So your definition of 'a happy marriage', includes adultery. Interesting!
Wallis Simpson was all about social climbing, that's beyond question. In all three marriages she 'married up' - and with Edward she got the ultimate gold-digger's prize, a man rich and privileged beyond her wildest dreams, who could shower her with priceless diamonds and top VIP privilege for the rest of her life.
However, her David could not bestow the HRH title on her, giving her equal social status with himself, despite his repeated entreaties to his brother over the years to relent. And that slight gave Wallis a useful stick to beat him with for the rest of his life. Theirs was very much an S&M marriage!
Karma caught up with Wallis soon after her husband's death, when her own health began to seriously fail. She had no living family, and never bothered to cultivate any genuine friendships after marrying the Duke, only shallow freeloaders much like herself. So she ultimately found herself vulnerable, isolated and at the mercy of a ruthless French lawyer called Suzanne Blum, who set about stealing from her, selling personal jewellery and ornaments, and publishing private correspondence between her and the late Duke.
The rented French mansion became a prison for Wallis in the last sad years of her life. She was bed-bound and skeletal, sedated and tended to round the clock by an impersonal team of nurses. Her memory lapses got worse, and her increasing mental frailty was capitalised on by Blum. Anyone who tried to visit her was kept away - the lawyer did not want any interference! With the powerful and protective David gone, Wallis became a tragic victim. He really should have foreseen that without him, she would be ripe for exploitation, and made plans with her in advance for a new life after his death.
The Queen's cousin Louis Mountbatten had tried to support Wallis when it became clear her husband was dying, and she would soon be left alone in that huge house. Mountbatten wrote to and met with Wallis, gently offering suggestions that she prepare for the inevitable. When she was widowed, he asked her to consider moving into a suite at a top hotel in New York. He had worked out that her finances would allow her to live out her days in lavish style in the Big Apple.
She could have enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle, tended to by hotel staff, her every need answered with just a phone call. And many wealthy society friends would have been only too pleased to entertain her, and offer an exciting social life - curtsying and buying into her royal status. But alas for Wallis, it was not to be.
Once dementia and the scheming French lawyer got a grip, Mountbatten found his letters went unanswered, as did his requests to visit. There would be no 'merry widow', final act for Wallis, as the toast of New York.
Who knows how grim her final years were as a powerless invalid, trapped inside that huge house at the mercy of people who cared nothing for her? A candid photo taken with a long lens, gave a glimpse of her sad widowhood, emaciated and hollow-eyed, bedridden in the powder blue boudoir she never left. And all the while, surreptitiously robbed and exploited by the money-grubbing Ms Blum.
It was a far cry from the glamour and excitement of her years beside the doting former King. A horribly a bleak ending, to an entirely self-serving life.
'Take what you want, said God. Take it, and pay for it'. Ultimately, Wallis' greed and hedonism came at a very high price!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cmont4064 Yep Brian wouldn't want other men to know the van belongs to Gabby, because that goes dangerously close to his true identity as an inadequate parasite who still lives at home with mommy & daddy, never held down a job and pimps off his girlfriend. If the truth about who he is emerged, it would emasculate him!
He's created a false persona and values for himself to explain away his obvious lack of achievements at age 23. He claims to be anti technology because it's another way for him to claim the moral high ground and fake superiority over others. Yet he's more than happy to help himself to Gabby's phone and computer - and her money too, as we discovered when he emptied her bank account of $1,000 after killing her.
He loved being in the driving seat of that van, literally and metaphorically, and used it as a weapon against her. Locking her out of it as punishment for saying or doing something that displeased him was one of many red flags to his abuse that cops missed. On a long road trip, the vehicle assumes central importance as your home, security and protection. For one person to hold control over the keys and deprive the other one from entering is a big power trip and very sinister.
I think a road trip like that could make or break any couple. Brian was likely stressed and out of his depth, away from his over-indulgent parents for the first time in his life. I think he was struggling without their emotional and practical support, and his abuse escalated to an horrific degree - culminating in her murder. The sooner that evil POS is caught and locked in the cage he'll die in, the better!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Janette Webster There are an awful lot of unproven assumptions in your statements! I don't for a moment say Charles was perfect - as heir to the throne he was spoiled (of course) and as you rightly say his own father was not a great role model.
But as I stated before, it's bogus to judge this marriage by any conventional measure because it was a wholly untypical union in many respects - not least that it was an arranged marriage, underpinned by a clear business contract. Diana was committing to a personal role as wife, but you have forgotten the equally significant professional role she accepted as a senior royal. Key to her future duties would be the crucial job of supportive Queen to her husband when he became King. Through the years we have seen many women fulfil this challenging public role with aplomb, being there for their husband while allowing him to shine. Princess Grace of Monaco (who ironically Diana met shortly before she was killed in a car crash) had a loveless marriage to Prince Rainier. But she had made her bed and she would lie in it, never considering divorce or affairs. And for her loyalty, she got to live a life of unimaginable wealth and privilege.
This was a role Diana was totally unsuited to, as became very clear early in the marriage with her tantrums, eating disorder and love of the media spotlight. Diana was not going to be the selfless wife, proudly standing beside her husband the King. Once she experienced fame and adulation, she wanted to be centre stage and higher status than him. The media loved her because she was photogenic, and it went to her head like strong drink! Every newspaper was delivered to Diana daily, and she studied them obsessively for stories and photos of herself. People didn't talk much about NPD then (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), but there's every reason to believe Diana was a textbook case.
Diana cared much more for media adoration than her husband's good opinion. He bored her to tears, and little wonder. Not only was there a near 13 year age gap, they had absolutely nothing in common! Charles' varied interests included Buddhism, organic gardening, spirituality, polo, comedy, environmentalism etc etc. Diana's interests were limited to tabloid/magazine celebrity gossip (especially if it was about herself), and hedonistic pursuits like shopping, the gym and exotic holidays. She wasn't mad keen on motherly pursuits, despite playing on her status as a mother for photo opportunities. Diana wasn't inconvenienced by her children too much as she happily sent them both to boarding school, declining the option of having them at home. This gave her the freedom to pursue umpteen affairs once her marriage was over.
On many occasions she actively sabotaged and upstaged her husband in front of the world's cameras.
So please let's not pretend Diana was ever a wonderful, loving and selfless wife who Charles selfishly took for granted. That's not true, and it's not who she was! She was 19 when she accepted his proposal, and it's clear she was attracted to the international fame and fabulous privilege life as a Queen in waiting would bring her.
Charles and Diana were two needy people, looking for a devoted, nurturing partner to take care of them. Neither could help the other. Diana just wasn't willing or able to be that rock for Charles. She was undoubtedly damaged by her own childhood - her father Johnnie (who she hero worshipped) was a lousy husband who beat her mother Frances. When he learned she had found comfort in an affair, he threw her out of the family home then dragged her name through the courts as an adulterer so he would get sole custody of their four children. He also badmouthed her to their children, with the result that Diana mistrusted women all her life and had absolutely no conscience about taking their husbands to bed!
I believe Charles went into his marriage fully intending to be faithful to his bride. Diana herself said she and Charles loved each other in the first years of their marriage, and I think people should respect that their children were conceived in love. Clearly Charles is no womaniser (like his father), as proven by the fact he is still happily married to the love of his life. But his union with Diana could never last, and both parties were to blame. Diana and Charles were both difficult and demanding, and neither could help the other. Camilla was the nurturing supportive woman Charles needed, and should have married. So is it really surprising he turned to her, his old flame, when he could not get on with his wife? Perhaps he did cheat first, who knows. But I don't believe your assumption Diana was heartbroken about it, because all the evidence suggests the marriage was already dead in the water when he turned to Camilla.
And Diana was very quick to take a long procession of men to her bed, she was a virgin when she married Charles but she soon made up for lost time! She played the heartbroken, wronged wife to get public sympathy, but it was incredibly hypocritical when her husband's affair was with one woman and her flings were with umpteen men, many of them married.
But because she was pretty, batted her big blue eyes and did self pity so well, people like you swallowed her 'poor little me' act hook, line and sinker. The infamous Panorama interview when she kicked Charles where it hurts and said he'd make a lousy king, then told us she didn't want to be Queen but instead a 'Queen of people's hearts' (more adulation - less work), was vomit making!
Prince Charles and the royal family did not make Diana a victim - they made her a star! She came out of the marriage a global superstar, with fabulous wealth, two fine sons and the power to do all kinds of wonderful, positive things - if she had only had the imagination or the generosity to focus outside of herself. Instead she chose hedonism, cavorting with sleazy Arabs who she should have known were only using her for her royal status. And on that fateful night in Paris, she made herself a victim by her choice of company (entrusting such people with her safety - they gave her a reckless drunk driver), and her choice not to fasten her seatbelt.
You asked me a question, I will ask one back. Do you honestly believe Diana was capable of making a happy marriage with anyone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed - I realise everyone has the right to legal defence, but this made me so sick to my stomach I had to switch it off. The sooner this freak is locked in the cage he'll die in, the better.
He stalked Aimie, and when she made it clear she wasn't interested in a relationship and blocked his calls, he drove 50 miles to her home with a syringe of deadly poison, broke-in and lay in wait for hours, then strangled her, and threw her off her balcony. How on EARTH is that not murder?! He literally went there with THREE methods of murder in mind!
It's appalling that vile, abusive, pitiful excuse for a man is still here, and the beautiful, smart and charismatic Dr Aimie Harwick, who contributed so much positivity to the world, is gone. All because of the age-old, macho narcissistic motive; 'If I can't have her, no one will'. Sickening!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@imakeajiffypuff4525 The Vallow-Daybell case - and specifically the July 2019 murder of Charles Vallow - is extraordinary for many reasons, not least the bizarre inaction of the investigating police officers, which arguably allowed two child murders to be committed by the same suspects soon after.
I think there are strong grounds for a full and frank, independent public enquiry into the conduct of Chandler Police. WHY weren't Alex Cox and Lori Vallow arrested and charged with Charles Vallow's murder??? They weren't even detained that night, but were instead released to return to the crime scene, Lori's home, for a pool party. Neighbours reported it was loud - presumably the attendees were celebrating Lori's new status as a 'millionairess' (thankfully it never came to pass - Charles had secretly switched the beneficiary from Lori to his sister Kay, not trusting his estranged wife Lori to take financial care of his three sons).
Lori and Alex should not have been partying that night, they should have been locked up. And if they had been, Tylee, JJ and possibly Tammy Daybell too, would all be alive today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnzuMiruku Interesting post. Still so many unanswered questions! I hope Monday's police briefing will share some long awaited facts with us - but on police conduct so far, I doubt it!
To date, law enforcement has been ridiculously over-cautious and tight-lipped, due in my view, to their inexperience in handling a homicide investigation of this magnitude. And that information vacuum only helped the killer escape justice for nearly 6 years, and turned this into a cold case.
They should have called in the FBI from day one and deferred to their superior expertise. But Supt Doug Carter is an inflated ego on legs, who wasn't willing to surrender such a high-profile homicide - and all the publicity he personally got from it - not even to the FBI who would undoubtedly have done a far better job. IMO this was all about Carter's ego and image. If I were Libby and Abby's family, I would hold Carter personally responsible for the failed police investigation.
Assuming he IS the killer, Richard Allen obviously felt safe to remain in Delphi after committing such a massively publicised and shocking, double child homicide. He was a 'respectable' husband and father, with a responsible job as a licensed pharmacist. Local people would have trusted him due to his personal and professional circumstances - and he was the classic, upstanding white, middle class, middle aged male, who automatically commands respect above all other profiles.
The assumption is generally that murderers like this are loners and oddball losers, Allen would not fit the bill of what people expect. But in truth these sorts of crimes require immense narcissism and let's not forget, confidence too - the killer abducted, assaulted and murdered two children in a public place in broad daylight. He was obviously pretty certain he'd succeed in his sinister plan and escape justice, outwitting the various witnesses and the police, Narcissists always believe they are smarter than everyone else.
That said, I feel there has to be something strange and unsettling about Richard Allen, if he was capable of plotting and carrying out a sick, sexually-motivated crime like the Delphi murders. And living in the community, locals surely must have noticed some odd quirks and qualities in him they felt uncomfortable around, though they couldn't quite put their finger on why. He likely made women in particular feel unsettled around him. He may even have behaved in inappropriate ways sexually, in the presence of women and girls. I believe some locals will say they are shocked if he is charged with these murders - but equally, others will say they never liked or trusted him.
I'm desperate to know what evidence prompted police to arrest Richard Allen now. His name has been mentioned on social media in the past in connection with the murders, so he's NOT new to police. I keep reading that dog hairs were found on the victims' bodies (no idea if that's true) - have they finally been matched to a pet belonging to Allen? And whatever the evidence, why the hell has it taken so damn long to put him behind bars? Women and girls' lives have been in danger while Libby and Abby's killer walked free. Whatever we learn on Monday, police have some serious questions to answer!
1
-
1
-
@tjsquibbofficial 'Stalker'? I can't even remember this post - I wrote it two months ago!
The Phillip Schofield scandal is an important story - it involves the exploitation of young people. It - and the names of everyone involved - are in the public domain. Fully and 100% in the public domain!
Sex scandals like this have been hushed up for years, protecting the guilty. Jimmy Savile is one, heinous example, a serial rapist who offended for over 60 years, had literally hundreds of victims, and died aged 84 never even accused, least alone charged with a single one of his heinous crimes. No I won't be silent, and nor should anyone else .
There's no question of anonymity for anyone concerned, that ship has sailed. Behave yourself - and stop trying to police YouTube comments and tell other people what they can and cannot think and say. It's boring, pointless, and miles above your pay grade!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My first job in television was with Anne Diamond. She's another Phillip Schofield - a nasty, egotistical narcissist, who thinks she's better than everyone else. She never bothered to remember my name, despite the fact I had to brief her every day! She wouldn't even say hello when you passed her in the corridor - had her nose too far in the air. She doesn't bother with the 'little people'.
It's a mystery to me how she got on in television, she's a lousy interviewer, not terribly bright, and has zero warmth or charisma. Ah hang on - it's all coming back to me. She slept with her married boss at TVAM. There was a big scandal when he got her pregnant, and he had to leave his poor betrayed wife for her.
Like Schofield, AD is a nightmare who brings her nasty sex life into the office, and creates a toxic environment for the entire production team. Incidentally, wouldn't you think she'd have got the OBE for her cot death campaign when it was fairly new - say, 30 years ago?! She's been overlooked for literally decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toriellis190 Maybe it was 'lazy' of Ricky Gervais to repeat trans cult's OWN crazy propaganda, and let the audience react. But why not?
After all, trans cult bullshit is so ridiculous and off-the-chart misogynistic, he knew it was guaranteed to get belly laughs!
Gervais didn't say a single thing the trans lobby doesn't actively and aggressively push themselves - eg, that bearded, be-penised men are women. 'Acceptance Without Exception' and #NoDebate are the trans mantra. which is them telling society to shut up and don't dare challenge any man who tells you he's a woman & demands all the unique sex based rights of women! 🙄
Funny how we are told 'trans women' are women', and yet trans women display the exact same arrogance, aggression and entitlement as the worst kind of MEN. Hmmm... 🤔🤔🤔
If you are a woman defending misogynist trans cult which attacks the dignity and safety of women and girls, as well as undermining gay people and child safeguarding, SHAME ON YOU.
Go see Ricky Gervais, if you can get a ticket. If you can't see the hilarious madness of trans cult delusion, you're missing the joke of the century!🤣🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fatimarana547 Because he's a pathetic, poor and inadequate excuse for a man, who can only feel important by terrorising and stealing other people's lives from them.
Bryan Kohberger was stalking these good looking, popular students on Instagram - and he was of course insanely jealous of them. They did not return his interest - why would they? He knew they'd have despised his saggy ass on sight, and had no time for him!
But he was so impressed by the three women and one man, who seemed to have it all, he was desperate to create some kind of connection with them. He's such a loser, the only way he could hope to achieve a bond, was by murdering them.
They will be forever remembered with love, as the fabulous young people full of promise they were, when a coward invaded their home and stabbed them to death. Their killer won't be remembered at all!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SusanDevine-kv2rs Too bad Tammy read that devastating email from Charles Vallow, and chose denial. If she'd only faced up to her grotty husband's affair, thrown him out and got a restraining order, there's a chance she might have survived.
She bore Chad Daybell 5 children, she was the main breadwinner for years, working hard to pay the bills so he could just swan about posing as an author and prophet - and he re-payed her with the most despicable betrayals. The affair with Lori, her murder, and his rapid re-marriage while her body was barely cold, their new married life funded by her $460,000 life insurance blood money. UGH!
Tammy was always way too good for that self-serving, no-neck slob - if only she had known it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Piloting commercial aircraft requires unusually close proximity between colleagues, in the confined space of the cockpit. In a high pressure, emergency situation, the dynamics between the pilot and first officer, can mean the difference between life and death. This team got it right, and the result was a non-fatal accident. I'm glad the accident report mentioned that, those guys' remarkable professionalism deserved to be acknowledged.
If the two pilot professionals at the plane controls don't communicate effectively or worse, don't get on, the results can literally be disastrous. More than once I've heard of initially inexplicable crashes, which the black box ultimately revealed were due to a breakdown in communication between a domineering, authoritarian captain, and his cowed co-pilot.
In once such case, the captain (early sixties, approaching retirement), spent the first 10 minutes of the flight putting his twenty-something first officer through a humiliating verbal test of his aviation knowledge, then berated him on his results. As a result, the younger man went silent, no doubt feeling embarrassed and angry at the totally unnecessary and unpleasant dressing down. He then failed to engage promptly and effectively with the captain, when he got the plane into difficulties and couldn't get out of it. The plane crashed with total loss of life.
In similar vein, there have been cases when a captain is failing to respond to an emergency effectively, but his co-pilot is too intimidated by him to take charge and save the plane before its too late to recover.
I imagine it's very possible for a captain to get a 'God complex'. It's a glamorous job, and positions of seniority will always be abused by one or two narcissistic types. That kind of alpha personality dominating the flight deck alongside a less experienced, unassertive or even submissive personality type, could be a recipe for bullying. If the two pilots in charge of a flight don't treat each other with equal respect and courtesy, passengers could be in for a bumpy ride!
I know there are industry rules/standards regarding cockpit etiquette, like a sterile environment (no gossiping), during take off. I'm curious to know if the subject of captain/first officer etiquette, and specifically bullying, is ever raised during pilot training?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_birdie Yes, what you've said is totally unreal - because it never happened! My God, not only are idiots like you still swallowing Diana's lies hook, line and sinker, you're making up new ones of your own.
Diana left her expensive education without a single qualification and no career ambition - she was only too thrilled to marry Prince Charles and become a global celebrity. What else was she going to do with her life? You think she married him for love? Get real! She was in it for all the glittering prizes that landed in her lap as Princess of Wales and Queen in waiting.
But she never once gave Charles or the royal family any credit for the VIP status they bestowed on her. Instead she vindictively campaigned against her husband, the father of her children, embarrassing William and harry with her spiteful 'Panorama' interview. And what a joke that was, with her batting her lashes and complaining about there being "Three people" in the marriage - when she knew damn well if she'd counted her own, umpteen lovers there would have been many more than three. That was actually one hell of a 'crowded' marriage! Sly Di's hypocrisy and deviousness were off the scale.
Diana was toxic and unhinged, and anyone who buys into her lies and self-identified 'victimhood' all these years after she's been exposed as a vindictive, promiscuous hypocrite and liar, is even crazier than she was!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She's either pregnant or a nursing mother, God bless her - when she stood up at the start of the video, you could see her teats. That will explain why she's out looking for food in daytime. I hope Patrick can provide her with a few healthy snacks every day. Dried cat and dog food is very good (contains a wide amount of essential vitamins and minerals), as long as they have access to water.
Raw brocolli is especially good for nursing moms, due to its high calcium content - they go crazy for it! Raccoons also benefit from cut-up apple, pears, peaches, plums, apricots and many other such fruits.
Protein like small pieces of cheddar cheese, peanut butter spread onto anything, eggs raw or hard boiled, are wonderful sources. I appreciate Patrick won't necessarily want to encourage raccoons, but this hungry mama deserves a little support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yep - disgusting that when the child sex scandal first broke, Huw Edwards was able to go off 'sick' with sudden, never-before-reported mental health issues, and check himself into an exclusive, private medical facility costing thousands of pounds per week - all paid for by his employer, ie the BBC license fee paying public.
He's not ill - he's a child sex predator who got caught! After he was named as the mystery BBC star paying a child for obscene videos and photos, many young, male colleagues at the BBC came forward to report that Edwards had sexually harassed them, with inappropriate, lecherous comments, propositions and emails.
That to this day the BBC has never even investigated the very serious allegations against Huw Edwards - many of which happened during working hours on BBC premises - least of all taken any action against him, is a total disgrace. He was allowed to resign with a huge pay-off, and a mega pension. Thank God he is finally being prosecuted, and will be fully exposed at trial as the sex predator and criminal he is. Obviously he will hire the best barrister money can buy, and fight tooth and nail to cling onto his privileged life.
But there's no hiding his guilt in these depraved crimes, which victimise and sexually exploit children. Huw Edwards has no excuse for his sex offending, and fully deserves jail time. But I have a horrible feeling he won't get it. It's a strange, warped contradiction in humanity, that we have an instinct to go easy on wrong-doers who have enjoyed the privileges of fame, money and power. There's some warped logic in people, that a celebrity like Edwards who for decades was a high status, highly respected public figure, is deserving of sympathy because he has a longer fall from grace than the average pervert on the street.
That is very twisted non-logic. In fact a man with Edwards' charmed life should be held to higher standards of behaviour and morality, precisely because of all his immense advantages. There is no excuse for child abuse by anyone, whatever their circumstances. But it's particularly heinous when a wealthy, powerful man like Edwards uses money and fame to get his perverted jollies from a vulnerable child.
#BoycottTheLicenseFee
1
-
1
-
If Richard Allen is the notorious Delphi murderer of Libby German and Abby Williams, police will have some very difficult questions to answer about why it took them almost 6 years to make an arrest - when their suspect lived just a stone's throw from the crime scene!
What's more, Supt Doug Carter had himself addressed the killer in an early media conference and said: "I believe you are hiding in plain sight". With the arrest of Richard Allen, it seems that statement was absolutely true. So again, why did almost six years pass before his arrest - six years in which that highly dangerous man was free to kill and sexually assault females.
believe it will soon emerge Supt Carter and his detectives wasted time on a red herring, the fake 'Antony Shots' social media account, and bogus murder suspect Kegan Kline who had nothing to do with the double child homicide. Many teen girls are cat-fished by perverts like Kline, alas that's not unusual. But online predators rarely become actual killers - the murders of Abby and Libby in an outdoor, public location during a daytime walk were a massively rare event, and massively against the odds.
May truth and justice finally prevail for Abby, Libby and their poor, devastated loved ones. May all good people who followed this horrific case hold the Williams and Germans up in prayer in the difficult coming weeks and months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pamelafountain60 jones Your comment is sadly inaccurate, because you have your facts wrong. You have your facts wrong because you made the mistake of 100% buying into Diana's slanted narrative. You should be old and wise enough to know that when a marriage fails, it is rarely entirely the fault of only one party (as Diana presented it to the public). Life isn't black and white, and there is usually fault on both sides. Charles was not a perfect husband, nor was Diana a perfect wife and there was adultery on both sides (and in fact more adultery by Diana, with multiple different lovers). Diana would not admit this or accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failure of the marriage. That was childish and narcissistic - as was the woman.
When her marriage failed - as it was always going to, because she and Charles were wholly incompatible - Diana launched a determined and hugely vindictive campaign to trash her husband's image. She did this primarily by pretending he was the only one to have had an affair after their relationship had broken down.
Diana knew full well while Charles picked up with old flame Camilla, she had many short-lived sexual relationships with different men (several of them married to other women). Diana's promiscuous behaviour in the last years of her marriage was something she worked hard to keep secret. But the media's obsession with royalty meant occasionally reporters got a scoop on one of her extra marital affairs - for example the James Gilby telephone tape, her stalking and harassment of married lover Oliver Hoare after he finished with her (Diana was not one to go quietly when men rejected her), and her fling with rugby star Will Carling, which broke up his marriage.
Diana was not the heartbroken, wronged wife she pretended - far from it. She was just as bored with Charles as he was with her (you need only see her frosty behaviour towards him on their joint public appearances, when she took great delight in wearing a sour face to embarrass him). Would a loving, heartbroken wife really behave like that? Of course not - Diana was not heartbroken over Charles. But she played the role of victim for public sympathy, and pretended Charles broke her heart with Camilla. Utter nonsense!
Diana's conduct in the last years of her failed marriage was manipulative and malicious. She set out to demonise her husband by collaborating with the trashy book 'Diana - Her True Story' and secretly inviting BBC cameras into Kensington Palace to record the infamous, spiteful Panorama interview in which she questioned Charles' suitability to be King.
Narcissists often play the role of victim to manipulate other people's perceptions of them, and win sympathy. I think you're a decent person who has been duped, as many people were duped, by the charming Diana.
She cannot harm you but living narcissists can, and there are a lot of them about! Please research 'The Narcissistic Cycle of Abuse'. Education to key to spotting the red flags in a narcissist's treatment of you, and escaping them before they do you serious harm. God bless, stay safe and well. X
1
-
1
-
Pamelafountain60 jones That isn't what happened, or how it was. The truth is very different.
But I can see that for some reason you are heavily emotionally invested in believing sly Di's deception, that she was a sweet, innocent virginal young girl cruelly abused, not the spoiled, manipulative, promiscuous 30-something woman she actually was.
That's sad, as it's likely you have allowed narcissists into your own life, to mess with your head and abuse you. Perhaps you are married to one?
Google 'The Narcissistic Cycle of Abuse' and wise up. Diana can't hurt you, her vanity and selfish stupidity got her killed a long time ago. But most narcissists survive and thrive, and they walk among us hiding in plain sight every single day doing the unwary terrible harm.
Be careful out there! X
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bravo, Woman is not a costume or stereotype. What an insult to women and girls these self-identified, so-called 'trans women' who dress like hookers are. Their horribly revealing outfits, only confirm the cause of their cross dressing is not gender dysphoria/transgenderism at all, but a far more common sexual fetish known as transvestitism or autogynephilia.
The first, middle-aged, trans-identified male in this video, protesting at being correctly addressed as male in restaurants, showed acres of bare belly with every ridiculous outfit. He is a massively deluded, narcissistic bully, who would love to get decent waiting staff surviving on the minimum wage fired just for recognising he is male, He IS male - even his dog knows it!
Trans extremism has now got way out of hand. Anyone who cares about the most basic human rights of women and girls being trampled on by gender-cult, must belatedly challenge this garbage at every turn.
Women were kind, and gave deluded men with a sexual fetish an inch. We stupidly patronised them and propped up their delusions/kinks, calling them by female pronouns, and even welcoming them into our hard-won single-sex spaces. Facilities like public toilets, changing rooms, domestic violence shelters and women's prisons, which are single sex for very important reasons, ie the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. And like the arrogant, entitled men they are and always will be, they weren't satisfied with what we gave them, but took a further mile!
In 2024 these men are demanding to be recognised in daily life and in law, as women - with exactly the same lived experience and vulnerabilities as biological women. Many are so utterly shameless, they are muscling into women's sports, and taking great delight in thrashing female athletes, stealing their places and trophies - while exposing their male genitals in the female changing rooms. Step forward Liar Thomas, the previously mediocre male swimmer Will, who struggled to be placed at 500th competing against other men, but with longer hair and a name change easily steals top prizes from female athletes with his six-foot-three frame and shoulders like a barn door. He's a brazen cheat and unmistakably a man.
Today's trans activism is utterly ludicrous, hugely misogynistic and extremely dangerous for females. But finally Women are waking up to the disastrous implications for them, and their mothers and their daughters, of gender cult. Women are not some insignificant minority group. We are over half of the global population and a force to be reckoned with. as - these toxic males and their woke, hand-maiden supporters are finding out!
#SexNotGender
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@finallythere100 I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties and privy to good, inside information on the so-called 'War of the Waleses', so my statements on the marriage and divorce are accurate.
Your sources are clearly various nonsense in the public domain, selected to fit your theories. Your assumptions about Diana's personality and motives are I'm afraid sentimental and entirely misguided.
In fact all the evidence shows Charles and Diana would have split up regardless any third parties, because they were woefully incompatible on both sides! Diana was not broken-hearted over Charles, she was thoroughly bored of him and couldn't care less who he slept with - she was too busy conducting her own, multiple affairs!
She only played the devastated, wronged wife of an adulterer to win public sympathy and support. It was long ago proven she was an arch manipulator of the media for her own ends, with her sly collusion on the Andrew Morton book and the BBC 'Panorama' interview she secretly arranged. Diana was so short-sighted and fundamentally vindictive, she would hurt her own children for the satisfaction of publicly attacking their father's character. A decent woman and mother would have maintained a public silence for her children's sake - as well as for her own dignity!
Charles did nothing to deserve her spite - he was not a womaniser, nor did he deny her anything she asked for in both the marriage and the divorce. He couldn't help the fact the marriage was doomed to failure, any more than she could. What did she have to be bitter about? Nothing!
She was up to her old tricks when she died, working hard with various tabloid editors to get photos of herself with Dodi on the front pages, to make the man she was really keen on - ex boyfriend Hasnat Khan - return to her arms and commit to her. Diana met Princess Grace of Monaco shortly before she too was killed in a car crash. Now there was a lady! Princess Grace lived her life in the goldfish bowl of Monaco without privacy from the aggressive European paparazzi. But unlike Diana, she didn't run from the press - or ring them up and collude with them.
If Charles hadn't resumed his relationship with the woman he loved and went on to marry, if Diana hadn't embarked on umpteen casual affairs with unsuitable (often married) men, they still would not have remained married. Why not? Because in the modern age, people who make each other unhappy don't stay together - and nor should they!
Seems to me you are trying to appear impartial, but using words like 'fornication' about Camilla - who unlike the Princess of Wales was not promiscuous - shows you're a fully paid up member of the Diana fan club, and swallowed her fake, transparently malicious narrative wholesale!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucyloo6263 I think that's a fair assessment. Zulema deserves credit for being totally honest with police, and offering them as much assistance as she can in their investigation of her partner.
It's clear there's no question of her colluding with the evil troy Driver in his horrific murder. She fell for him - he's a narcissistic abuser, and they can be very plausible, especially in the early stages of a romantic relationship when they pull out all the stops to impress.
But there are clues in her recollections, that they were headed for the inevitable, dark stages of the relationship. The fact he wouldn't stay and host her family, when she said previously he was so keen to make an effort for her, with her kids and grandkids, is very significant.
Of course Driver had secret plans to abduct, assault and murder Naomi that weekend - and nothing would get in the way, not even his girlfriend's family gathering. By this time, the novelty had clearly worn off for him. He's a psychopath, incapable of loving anyone. But dangerous individuals like him are often skilled at faking love to get their target hooked and win power over them.
In the famous 'Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse', it's clear from her testimony she had experienced the first, 'love bombing' stage, when Troy Driver could not do enough for her. Now he had her hooked and emotionally dependent on him, the relationship was entering the 'de-valuing' stage. He was starting to withdraw from her, emotionally and in every other way, making himself unavailable, even insulting her, making her doubt his love and feel vulnerable.
If Driver hadn't committed a murder, I believe the relationship was on course for a nasty break-up. The last stage of the narcissistic abuse cycle is called 'The Final Discard', and with a man as toxic as him, you can guarantee his rejection of her would have been cruel, sadistic - and very possibly, fatal. She, and her children and grandchildren, have had a very lucky escape.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bonniehowell4259 Saying Princess Diana, the mother of two dependent children, was irresponsible to leave her seat belt off is hardly 'a reach'. She died aged 36, as a result of that reckless decision!
Most parents agree when you have young kids, wearing your seat belt on every journey is compulsory - no matter how short the distance. A good friend of mine, also a mum of two, doesn't even think about it, she just does it. It isn't a thought process, she fastens her seatbelt automatically, even in black cabs. However you dress it up, Diana simply wasn't prioritising her children!
And remember, this was no ordinary journey. Diana was parading her new lover, a notorious Arab playboy, around Paris to hit all the front pages. She was deliberately playing cat and mouse with photographers, flaunting the romance with controversial Mohammed Al Fayed's son Dodi. She sought the publicity to stick two fingers up at the royal family and to make her ex, heart surgeon Hasnat Khan (who'd recently dumped her), jealous. Childish, much?!
Diana knew full well the Mercedes would be chased by a pack of European paparazzi, desperate to get money-spinning photos of her with her latest fling. She had no excuse for acting so irresponsibly! Safety experts confirmed had she only buckled up, she'd have survived the 65mph impact with a concrete pillar with broken ribs, a black eye and broken arm.
If her mind had been on her identity as a mother first, and as a hedonistic single woman out on the town second, she'd have lived to raise her sons to adulthood and saved them the life-changing loss of a mother. Diana failed in every parent's first duty - to stay alive to take care of your dependant children.
I'll tell you what is 'a reach'. It's a reach to claim Diana was murdered by the royal family, or that the Mercedes' seat belts were deliberately tampered with and didn't work, or that Diana had her heart broken by Prince Charles, and didn't have umpteen extra marital affairs herself to his ONE. Ridiculous statements I frequently see posted by crazy Diana worshippers - yet you haven't challenged a single one of them! Instead you've challenged my widely held, uncontroversial view that Diana's irresponsibility that fateful night contributed to her death - a truth beyond question.
But Diana's craziest folly, was not even her fatal seat belt mistake. Refusing her former mother-in-law the Queen's offer of a Scotland Yard trained security team and driver for life on her divorce, was absolute madness! The Queen was gifting her former daughter-in-law security professionals who are the best of the best, world class experts in their field, adept at thwarting even sophisticated terrorist threats. Queen Elizabeth felt Diana was fully entitled to such amazing, round-the-clock protection in perpetuity, due to her unique high status as mother to the heir to the throne.
But with typical childish peevishness, Diana declined Her Majesty's offer. And she did not even invest some of her £17 million divorce settlement in hiring her own personal security team. That's how, a year after her divorce was finalised, Diana ended up without any security staff of her own on a foreign holiday. Instead she threw herself on the mercy of her hosts to arrange her protection - the shady Al Fayed family no less!
Most people were wise to the Al Fayeds - the kind of crooks who if you shake hands with them, you count your rings afterwards. Diana was a lousy judge of character - she was actually flattered by their attentions. She thought the red carpet treatment they provided was all about her! She was so vain and deluded, it never once occurred to her they were cynically exploiting her status and prestige as a former senior royal. And what crappy red carpet treatment it turned out to be. They provided her with a crazy drink and drug addled driver, and the rest is history.
1
-
@jamesneeson9825 TWO replies? You're obsessed man! Diana was put to bed with a shovel way back in 1997, get over it!
The airhead was only relevant when she was alive as mother of the future king - top, VIP status her much maligned husband gave her. Without Prince Charles, she'd have been nothing, just another brainless Sloane divorced from a banker.
Diana is less relevant than ever, now she's dead. Her kids are her legacy, plus a few salacious tabloid stories about her bunny boiling activities with other women's husbands (like the literally hundreds of silent phone calls she made to her husband's pal Oliver Hoare, when he ended their affair). An unhinged campaign of 'woman scorned' stalking which she blamed on her own, innocent 12 year old son William! Any man who dared finish with Diana got
Diana was a joke. Now she's a dead joke. The only thing more ridiculous than her are people like you, who worship the slapper like she was on a level with Mother Teresa!
Unlike Diana, Mother Teresa dedicated her whole life to the sick and dying, getting her hands dirty tending to them every single day. No beauty treatments or designer clothes for her! If Diana had ever had to do more for the sick than just shake their hand in front of the world's media - like empty a bedpan - she'd have passed out!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Diana famously told a TV interviewer there were 'three people in the marriage', a criticism of her husband's affair with Camilla, she badly mis-counted. Because she 'forgot' to include all her own secret lovers - many of them other women's husbands!
Demonising your estranged husband in the media for his one affair, when you are sleeping around and even chasing married men, isn't 'sincere', 'honest', or 'kind hearted'.
Princess Diana was a sly, self-serving, vain, vacuous, promiscuous, two-faced tramp, with the morals of an alley cat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelajohnson5728 Extraordinary how to this day Diana fans accept the false self-image she determinedly promoted, even while she was living a lifestyle quite different from the selfless paragon of virtue she presented!
In reality she constantly put herself, her lovers and her hedonism ahead of her two dependant children. Her skewed priorities ultimately caused her death, and William and Harry's traumatic bereavement at a tender age.
Experts agree, had Diana only give the boys a thought (boys she claimed to care about above all else), and fastened her seat belt, she would have walked away from the fatal crash with her lover with nothing more than a broken arm and bruising.
If she had prioritised her role as mother above lover, she would have survived to raise her children to adults. Diana's choices as a single woman were poor, meaning she lived only one year after her divorce from Prince Charles was finalised. Not only did she refuse the Queen's offer of a top Scotland Yard driver and bodyguards for life on her divorce, she failed to use her £17 million divorce settlement to employ a security team of her own, as her status as a senior royal and mother of the future King undoubtedly deserved.
Diana compounded this foolish omission by entrusting her safety to the shady Al Fayed family, then finally and fatefully, not taking 10 seconds to fix her seat belt. Though she constantly maligned him, Diana owed her glittering life of unimaginable wealth, privilege and global fame to her ex husband Prince Charles. And unbelievably, she threw it all away that night in Paris, because she did not take her responsibilities as a mother seriously enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mssaleha3273 You are mistaken. Diana's multiple affairs began before her husband resumed his romantic relationship with Camilla. There was no question of Diana 'twiddling her thumbs' - she was too busy twiddling the dicks of other women's husbands!
You and I probably agree this arranged marriage should not have happened. It's obvious it was a disaster! Charles and Diana were fundamentally incompatible.
However the union was far more of a disaster for Prince Charles, than it was for her. As the future King, his choice of bride was all-important - she would be his Queen. That Diana proved to be totally unsuited to that role (it became clear early on she was competitive with her husband, and not remotely interested in supporting him), left Charles publicly humiliated.
Meanwhile Diana was in clover, free of the husband who bored her stupid (it's laughable she pretended she was jealous of Camilla - she didn't care a hoot who he slept with while she was in London, partying with umpteen men).
Diana's divorce gave her top VIP royal Princess status for life, a multi million pound cash settlement, a Kensington Palace home and staff for life, and global fame. Diana emerged from her divorce with glittering prizes and privilege mere mortals could only dream of. Without Prince Charles, she would have been nothing. Yet she was never big enough to publicly acknowledge that. What a silly, petty woman!
It reflects exactly who Diana was, that just one year after her divorce, she threw her golden life away because she entrusted her security to the shady Al Fayeds, and 'forgot' she was a mother, then 'forgot' to fasten her seat belt. If she had only given William and Harry a thought and fastened that belt she'd have walked away from the crash with bruises and a broken arm. And two little boys would not have suffered the life-changing trauma of losing her. What a ghastly, self centred and shallow woman she was!
1
-
@Sugarplum99 Yet more misinformation! You obviously think 'The Crown' is a documentary, rather than a fictionalised - and sensationalised - dramatisation of royal history for entertainment, that bears little relation to the truth!
In fact Princess Margaret was could marry divorcee Group Capt Peter Townsend. But in order to do that, she would have had to surrender her own succession to the throne and that of any children she had. She could however have retained her Princess title and her generous annual fee from The Civil List. Status was always extremely important to the snobbish Margaret, as was her luxury lifestyle.
However, any such sacrifices became academic, because Margaret simply got cold feet about Townsend and decided not to marry him. 'Much loved'? Margaret was a spoiled brat who loved no one but herself!
It's ironic you're criticising Prince Charles on the day Ghislaine Maxwell, close friend and pimp to sleazy Prince Andrew, was convicted on sex trafficking charges! The bad apple among the Queen's children is perverted Prince Andrew, who had sex with underage girls provided for him by Maxwell and the late Jeffrey Epstein. Yet you condemn Prince Charles - for what exactly? Having a failed first marriage, and a happy second one? That's hardly a crime!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marciajones2993 It speaks volumes that in Phillip Schofield's two self-pitying TV interviews this week, he says the person he is most apologetic to is the young man he cheated with - not his loyal and faithful wife of nearly 30 years Stephanie, who he broke marriage vows and lied to, betraying her heinously and repeatedly for years!
That poor woman must be devastated, knowing her husband's grubby sexual pursuit of a teen 34 years younger than him was common knowledge at 'This Morning' among the staff. It is Mrs Schofield that lying rat should be most apologetic to - not the ambitious, fame-hungry young man willing to sleep with a married man in hopes of a leg up in showbusiness!
Phillip Schofield is a typical sly, self-serving covert narcissist - playing the victim, asking for public sympathy, and making this all about him. He's put his poor daughters through so much hurt and humiliation (one of them wanted to be a TV presenter - he has ruined that for her). And now his lies and arrogance over many years has come back to haunt him, he is leaning on them for emotional support! The nerve of him.
Those young women have been raised from birth to pander to Daddy - Schofield's wife had him on a pedestal too, it's what narcissists expect of their family and friends. In fact those two daughters should be supporting their poor, entirely blameless mother, not the father who put a bomb under their family!
And his talk of homophobia is garbage - one of the big reasons ITV not only covered up his workplace affair with a young man he first knew as a child but actively enabled it, was because it was a GAY relationship.
ITV and Holly Willoughby would not have been half so supportive and complicit in the cover up, had Schofield been sleeping with an 18 year old girl he groomed from the age of ten! Woker ITV supports gay men - even predatory gay men with a disturbing interest in underage boys. There is more to come!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now THAT'S something to get angry about!
1
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
1
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
1
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
1
-
@mediapark101 Kathy Burke publicly championed Woke just a year ago - guess you missed it. Her direct quote is @ 3:46 https://youtu.be/6WS24PMZ9yk?si=O5FjLju09fuKUFEd Glad to educate you - it's clearly long overdue, as you're utterly clueless about the source of conflict between Burke and Dreyfus! Did you even watch this excellent video?
You misquoted me too. I did not write the original post that specifically mentioned Twitter, as you repeatedly, incorrectly state (yet another mistake on your part), a poster called carolinethom3022 did. No wonder you can't write an intelligent defence of Kathy Burke here - you can't even accurately credit comments to their actual author!
You'd be far better off watching this fascinating interview with James Dreyfus and learning about the modern scandal of misogynist, homophobic gender cult, than writing all these long, utterly pointless rants defending an actress who doesn't care if you live or die. James Dreyfus is a thoroughly decent man who has been vilely persecuted, personally and professionally, purely for stating biological truth and defending women's rights. He's just one of many victims of the female and gay hating, extremist TRA mob (they even attack those decent trans identified people who call out their bigotry). Now that's something to get angry about!
1
-
1
-
Here in the UK, TV cameras - and indeed cameras of any kind - are banned from entering our law courts during criminal trials. As a result, we Brits don't expect our murder trials to be turned into daily TV soap operas.
Instead, we are content to follow high profile cases like this one via the media reports of the serious news journalists present, like the excellent reporter here.
As a true crime junkie I do understand your frustration. I would have expected at least live Twitter coverage/a live news feed from the journalists occupying the court's media benches - the judge in this case has gone hardcore in his reporting restrictions. But I feel the absence of cameras serves justice far better than the intrusion and distraction of live TV coverage.
In today's news-hungry world, people expect to see rolling court coverage of true crimes like the Frazee case. But isn't that just pandering to the public's voyeurism, and turning serious criminal proceedings into cheap entertainment?
Is it fair on the victims of crime, eg Kelsey Berreth's mother, for whom participation in such serious criminal trials is already an ordeal, to expect them to appear and even to give evidence knowing their every movement is being beamed live around the world?
I feel certain of Patrick Frazee's guilt. Even so, I want him to get a fair trial to ensure that his murder conviction, when it surely comes, is safe and won't be overturned by his lawyers on some technicality. I feel the best way to achieve this is to control the media circus and keep TV cameras out of court rooms. Law courts are serious places, doing a serious public service. Their work is surely best served in a serious setting, free of the media sensationalism and circus that so often accompanies TV cameras.
I realise I'm pretty much a voice in the wilderness on this subject - the genie's out of the bottle and the public's insatiable appetite for true crime means cameras in court will become the norm. I'd like to hear the judge in the Frazee case explain why he took such an extreme stand on the reporting of this murder, when so many equally dramatic trials ARE televised.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sherinaabdool8602 Congratulations on your critical thinking skills and smarts, in seeing through the entirely fake, two-faced Princess Diana's 'self-pity party'. Unfortunately, there are many gullible people around who still believe her 'innocent, Mother Theresa' act!
Diana was the ultimate gold-digger, who married Prince Charles (at the time the most eligible man in the world), for everything she could get! This was no love match on her part - don't be fooled by her 'heartbroken' claims.
Diana couldn't care less about her husband and Camilla - she was done with him, and sleeping with multiple different men. The fact Diana slept with married men without any any conscience, shows exactly the kind of ruthless, immoral tramp she was.
What a nerve Diana had attacking her husband for his ONE love affair, when she was secretly sneaking around having sex with umpteen different lovers - and working hard to keep it out of the media glare, so she could pretend to be an innocent. blameless wife. What a joke!
They should have buried Diana in a cello case, she must have been bandy from all the different men she'd had! My God she was a machine - and no husband was safe.
She went to Chelsea harbour gym in tight workout gear, to chat up all the rich and famous men who went there (she had no need to - she had a fully equipped gym at her home). That's where she met the recently married rugby star Will Carling, and propositioned him. That's how their grubby little 'affair' started - if you can call it an affair. Carling told his friends he met the Princess 3 times in private at Kensington Palace, and each time she gave him oral sex. They never even had full intercourse! What a pitiful woman.
Diana tried to seduce Duran Duran lead singer Simon Le Bon, who she frequently saw using the exercise machines at the Chelsea Harbour gym. Unluckily for her he was happily married to supermodel Yasmin, and he never took her up on her repeated propositions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vinnie Politan says he wishes the dog was inside the building to defend the family, instead of being tied up outside. It does seem ironic they apparently kept the dog for personal security, yet isolated and secured him in such a way he couldn't help them when they became victimis of crime.
That said, I doubt the dog could have protected the family against a man with a gun. As an animal lover, I'm just glad he wasn't killed too, along with his owners, as this psycho POS would undoubtedly have done had the family kept the dog with them.
What kind of cowardly freak murders a defenceless family, including a tiny, 8-month-old baby? I pray that walking piece of excrement survives his pathetic suicide attempt. He deserves to live a long, miserable life in a cage, looking over his shoulder every day fearing attacks by bigger psychopaths.
And the so-called 'professionals' who decided he was safe to be released from prison to walk among decent people again, should be named and shamed! He had a documented history of violence, no parole board on the planet could guarantee he wouldn't hurt someone again given the chance. Now he's killed four innocent people, including an infant. The people who decided to give him the freedom to commit that atrocity, must be held accountable for their disastrous judgement!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amber Heard has a documented history of using her younger sister Whitney as a punchbag. It is a measure of the abusive control she continues wield over her, that Whitney was willing to betray Depp, a man who has only ever treated her with kindness, committing perjury with false allegations of violence against him that echoed her sister's lies.
Whitney knows the truth better than most people, that the violent half of that partnership was not Johnny Depp, but her vile, abusive sibling Amber Heard!
Her evidence on the stand was wholly unconvincing. It was obvious she bore no real ill will against Depp, and that he had never tried to physically assault her, as they both claimed. Whitney may be another victim of Amber Heard's abuse, but she is also a grown adult, who knows right from wrong. She deserves no sympathy, as a spineless enabler who would have happily helped ruin a good man with heinous lies. Shame on her!
1
-
@BlazeCasey Agreed, that CBS '60 Minutes' show was sensationalist garbage, and barely a word of truth in it.
The global appetite for stories on Diana was immense in the months and years following her death. Mohammed Al Fayed cynically exploited that demand for new stories about the Princess to the max, to promote his false and highly contentious narrative of the fatal crash.
Needless to say Al Fayed totally dismissed any facts which pointed to his own culpability! Most damning for him were driver Henri Paul's shocking autopsy results. His employee Paul's unambiguous, three-times-the-legal-limit, blood alcohol result, pointed the finger of blame firmly at his reckless driving. In response, Al Fayed ludicrously claimed the autopsy was rigged, and that Paul's blood samples had been switched.
Mohammed had directed his son Dodi's movements with the Princess around Paris that night, and provided their drunk driver, two inescapable truths confirmed by the surviving bodyguards. So he could only attempt to overcome that, by arguing that the driver was entirely blameless.
Henri Paul's alcoholism and his reliance on powerful prescription drugs including Prozac, weren't the only reasons he should not have been allowed to drive the Princess of Wales. In addition to his blood alcohol equating to him having consumed a whole bottle of wine, he was not an experienced chauffeur and in fact was not licensed to drive passengers in the Mercedes at all!
Henri Paul owned and drove a black Mini - the polar opposite of the large, powerful Mercedes S280 Saloon he was responsible for ferrying the VIP party in. Those who knew him said he struggled to handle the car. As more and more uncomfortable truths about that night emerged for Al Fayed, so he switched his scapegoats for the fatalities from the media, to the British Royal family, and finally to MI6. Now aged 92, he has blamed this tragedy on so many different 'villains', he might even cite Elvis Presley next as driver of the famed Fiat Uno which the Merc allegedly clipped before hitting the 13th pillar at 70mph!
Al Fayed's lie about the Princess being pregnant was especially egregious and hurtful to her children William and Harry. It was a crucial lie for him, because it fuelled his conspiracy theory about Diana and Dodi being murdered by a racist royal family/establishment, who would not tolerate an Arab child being born to the Princess of Wales. Offensive fiction that slandered the royal family and security services, without a single foundation.
One only has to examine the timeline to the tragedy, to bring Al Fayed's lies into sharp focus. Diana was hardly likely to have become engaged to, and pregnant by, a man who only started romancing her three weeks previously! She could be impulsive, but she wasn't a crazy 16-year-old girl!
Mohammed Al Fayed's motives for his falsehoods were twofold. To give his son a special romantic status in Diana's life, therefore elevating his own position (and legacy), by association. And obviously - and most importantly for him - to absolve himself of any guilt in the tragedy. He failed miserably on both counts. No one of note seriously believes Dodi was any more to Diana than a holiday romance. And Mohammed Al Fayed clearly set the wheels in motion, literally and figuratively, to three tragic deaths, including his own beloved son's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 Dear God - did you seriously swallow Paul Burrell's self-serving spin? How naive! I suggest you do some research on this complex story. Google is your friend, but I'll give you a head start with the following facts:
The late Queen Elizabeth ll did indeed dramatically intervene at the eleventh hour to halt Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial after it had got underway. But no one with any capacity for critical thinking believes for one moment she 'exonerated' him, as he claimed!
What Her Majesty did was respond to the secret, behind-the-scenes blackmail and deal-brokering of Burrell's defence barrister, who privately warned Buckingham Palace his client knew where a lot of royal 'bodies' were buried, and would provide chapter and verse in court under oath, if criminal proceedings against him were not dropped.
It's understood Burrell's threats were primarily to reveal his late boss Diana's less savoury secrets - for example her many extra marital affairs, including a liaison early in her marriage with her Scotland Yard police protection officer Barry Mannakee.
However a very specific and sensational threat was made by Burrell's defence lawyer, to expose another senior royal. That scandal has not entered the public domain to this day, and would inevitably have ignited an unprecedented media frenzy.
Prince Charles was against prosecuting Paul Burrell for that very reason - he recognised he was a potentially very dangerous enemy for the British monarchy. Burrell's back was against the wall. There's no question he'd been caught red-handed stealing Diana's belongings, and was guilty as charged. He was facing a significant jail term, had absolutely nothing to lose, and was bound to fight dirty in court and play to the media gallery - who were obviously in full attendance!
Charles was only too aware tabloid editors would relish and report every single moment of legal proceedings. As appalled as he was at the disgraced former servant's heinous betrayal, not least of his two sons whose maternal legacy he had brazenly stolen to line his own pockets, he had no appetite for such a trial. Charles recognised what an horrific own goal for the royal family it could turn out to be.
But top royal advisers told him he could not possibly call off the dogs, because of the sheer scale and seriousness of Burrell's crime. Incredibly, he had pretty much cleaned out his dead employer's home. The theft was simply too audacious - and greedy - for Charles to be seen to ignore it.
Hard to believe though it may be, the former servant who claimed his relationship with Diana was so special she referred to him as her 'rock', had hired a removal van, and under cover of darkness cleared Diana's private apartments of what was then valued at around £5 million worth of her personal possessions. He transported every precious item to his home in Cheshire, where they were later discovered in a police raid - as Burrell, placed under arrest for theft, wept, improbably protested that they were all gifts from Diana, and spoke of wanting lilies at his own funeral.
The late Princess's stolen possessions, many of them so unique and sought-after they were literally priceless, ranged from furniture, paintings, clothes and ornaments, to private correspondence and family photographs - including a snap of the then Prince Charles enjoying bath time with his infant sons. Burrell had even taken every one of Diana's school reports!
Each item taken had enormous re-sale value (police believed his long-term plan was to shift much of it overseas, to profit from private Diana/royal collectors), and many were of historic importance. The arrogance and sheer audacity of the crime was astonishing.
It was against that highly-charged, high-stakes background that the British Monarch, who never interferes in matters of politics or the law, personally intervened to force the collapse of Burrell's high profile trial. At the Old Bailey, the world's most famous criminal court, Diana's 'rock' walked free, triumphantly telling reporters the Queen had "Come through" for him.
Truth really is stranger than fiction! After the trial opened in the full glare of the global media, Queen Elizabeth claimed to have suddenly recalled a conversation she had with the former butler and footman, in which he told her he had taken some of the late Princess of Wales' personal items from Kensington Palace to his home in Cheshire, 'for safekeeping'.
If that weren't unlikely enough, the Queen had supposedly agreed this highly irregular scheme - a notion entirely farcical on every level, not least that his hiring a removal van to collect over 2,000 priceless, personal and indeed confidential items (most of which were the property of Diana's heirs William and Harry), would never have been sanctioned by any member of the royal household - least of all by the Queen herself!
If you believe such a conversation ever took place between the then late Princess of Wales' light-fingered former servant and Her Majesty the Queen, please feel free to give me a call - I've a bridge I'd like to sell you!
It doesn't take a detective to work out the Queen's dubious 'recollection' came after crazily belated, top-level crisis talks had taken place at Buckingham Palace under the highest possible level of security. At that meeting, Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth had been firmly advised that decisive action must be taken immediately to silence Paul Burrell. He was a ticking time bomb - and only the personal intervention of the Monarch herself could defuse him, and protect the Monarchy.
The full story of this establishment conspiracy unsurprisingly, has never emerged. But the well-researched Daily Mail article I've linked to below provides an accurate timeline of events - and some tantalising clues to what really happened behind the scenes to thwart justice for royal thief Paul Burrell:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
@jayceewriter7826 You swallowed that fairy tale? Wow, how naive! Are you really a writer? I suggest you do some research. Google is your friend, but I'll gladly help you out with a little head-start:
Firstly - If you truly believe the late Queen Elizabeth had a belated recollection that former servant Paul Burrell had told her he was taking some of Diana's possessions away 'for safekeeping' - and even more improbably, that the Monarch agreed to that highly irregular scheme - please give me a call. I've a bridge I'd like to sell you! 🤣🤣🤣
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows the collapse of Paul Burrell's 2002 criminal trial was an establishment cover-up at the highest level, to silence him. His defence barrister was effectively blackmailing the royal family that his client would reveal all kinds of dirt on his late employer Diana, and the royal family, under oath and in front of the world's media.
Among secrets he threatened to spill were details of the Princess of Wales' many extra marital affairs, including an intimate liaison early in her marriage with her royal protection officer Barry Mannakee. He also referenced a sex scandal surrounding another senior royal which has never entered the public domain, and was guaranteed to create a media frenzy.
The Queen took the unprecedented and dramatic step of halting Paul Burrell's criminal trial at the Old Bailey after it had begun, to secure his silence. Burrell was a ticking time bomb, whose knowledge threatened to irreparably damage the monarchy. He had to be stopped - and only Her Majesty could do it.
The most dangerous man, is the man with nothing to lose. Paul Burrell was caught red-handed stealing over 2,000 personal possessions from Diana, a massive haul including furniture, ornaments and clothes, as well as private correspondence and family photos, including snaps of Charles in the bath with his infant sons. He even took every school report Diana ever had!
The haul was then valued at over £5 million, but its unique nature of course made it priceless. When police discovered the enormous collection of stolen items in a raid at his home in Cheshire, Burrell sobbed, protested that the Princess had gifted everything to him (As If - an outrageous lie he soon abandoned), and dramatically declared he wanted white lilies at his own funeral.
The man who claimed such a special relationship with the late Princess that he said she called him her 'rock', had heinously betrayed her - and cynically stolen her heirs William and Harry's rightful inheritance. Experts believe he planned to line his pockets by selling the items discreetly overseas, to specialist royal collectors.
It is well documented that the then Prince Charles had no appetite to prosecute the former servant, well aware he was a loose cannon and such a move could badly backfire. But the large scale and sheer audacity of the theft, meant Charles could not be seen to ignore it. Royal advisers told him Burrell's greed meant that calling off the dogs simply wasn't an option.
So what changed the Windsor position so radically, that the Queen herself called off those dogs - even after his criminal trial at the Old Bailey had begun? We may never know the exact sequence of events - and specifically the private brokering between Buckingham Palace and Burrell's defence team. But it's safe to say big problems require big solutions.
For The Monarch to have personally stepped in, on a criminal matter she clearly would not have chosen to have any involvement in whatsoever, guarantees Burrell was promising to detonate some very powerful - and potentially devastating - truth-bombs at the Monarchy, had his theft trial continued.
The Daily Mail did an excellent, well-researched and in-depth report on the established facts of this top-level conspiracy. It provides an accurate timeline of events, and sufficient facts for the intelligent to work out what really happened behind the scenes, to prompt Her Majesty's highly suspect 'recollection'!
DAILY MAIL LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
Child killer Richard Allen hasn't aged due to any conscience - it's a fundamental misunderstanding of psychopaths to assume he feels guilt for his savage murders of two children.
The man capable of stabbing two girls to death in broad daylight for fleeting, sexual kicks, is incapable of feeling guilt or remorse. His only regret is that he was caught. He's aged/lost weight because he's smart enough to know his life, in any meaningful way, is over.
Allen is the most dangerous category of murderer, a sex killer, and is therefore highly likely to re-offend and take more females' lives, in a similarly brutal fashion.
It's no thanks to that utter buffoon Supt Doug Carter, that Allen was caught at all, after roaming freely at liberty for a staggering FIVE YEARS, presenting as serious a danger to females as it's possible to be. If anyone needs reminding, Allen was free to kill again for all that time, after committing this audacious double murder in broad daylight, a mere 5 minute drive from his home address.
Doug Carter was wrong when he struck poses at media conferences, and claimed Libby and Abby's killer was quote, 'Hiding in plain sight'. It has since emerged Allen wasn't hiding at all! In fact the killer as good as gave himself up to the authorities within mere days of the murders, admitting he was at the crime scene at exactly the same time and date as the crime, wearing exactly the same clothes as the suspect Libby bravely videoed on her Smartphone. But the cops didn't see fit to even interview him!
Could Richard Allen be responsible for more sex killings, in that near five year window between murdering 14 year old Libby and 13 year old Abby, and being taken into custody? Sure he could - it's now crystal clear the Delphi/Keystone Cops were unlikely to have caught him if he had.
If ever a murder investigation needed to be taken over by another police force/superintendent, Delphi is it. Doug Carter is not fit for purpose.
1
-
1
-
Lidia Thorpe must be booted out of office, the woman is a total loose cannon! Who can forget her attempt to assault British women's rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen at a lawful 'Standing for Women' rally, earlier this year? Thorpe was last seen, wearing miniskirt, high heels and a Pride flag, crawling across a muddy field to escape arrest, like the SNAKE she is!
Thorpe prioritises the demands of misogynist men in dresses who call themselves women, over the hard-won rights of actual women. She would happily allow such men to take women's hard won rights to single sex spaces (toilets, changing rooms, female hospital wards and prisons etc), and to invade women's sports and steal women athletes' places and trophies from them.
Thorpe is a disgrace and she needs to go! She has clearly invented this vile allegation against a fellow politician - it cannot be corroborated. She's a toxic, attention-seeking fool, and it's shocking she was ever elected to public office. She is a stain on Australia!
1
-
@zxyatiywariii8 100% agree, I think this is a case where the convicted criminal was born into such privilege, his mixed race was only ever advantageous to him. I think he has always been too wealthy and protected from the real world to have experienced any disadvantage from his ethnicity - an extremely rare form of privilege.
On the contrary, his skin colour allowed him as an actor from childhood, to play everyday characters (including perhaps racially persecuted and disadvantaged ones), and as we've seen so shamefully over the last 3 years, it has allowed him to repeat his heinous crime by cynically playing the race card AGAIN and AGAIN to pretend he didn't get a fair trial!
His wealthy black lawyers are a disgrace, standing there talking about 'black men' having a hard time in the justice system like their client is any kind of typical 'black man' If he were, he'd have had a jury trial way back at the start and couldn't have got powerful friends to block and delay justice so many times!
I'm a white person, and haven't experienced racism personally, though friends have. This case infuriates me because it can only do harm to the reputation of all people of colour (most of whom are not powerful like Smollett), and as you rightly say it will deter victims from reporting hate crimes and sadly, maybe from being believed. Smollett gave racist police an excuse on a plate to disrespect and disbelieve victims.
He's a traitor to the ethnic heritage he cynically exploited with that fake hate attack, including the noose he put round his own neck! JEEZE that makes me so mad - real people were lynched by evil white supremacists not even 100 years ago (I feel sick just typing that), and the millionaire actor thinks he's entitled to exploit that vile truth to pretend he was exposed to similar hatred and claim victimhood for public sympathy!
I'm glad to hear you were able to defend yourself from a racially motivated, false arrest thanks to evidence from security cameras. Sorry it happened to you. It's disgusting, and confirms the ugly truth that dumb, ugly racism exists in the most ordinary, everyday settings, among people you'd expect to know better and be better.
It's truly sad that Jussie Smollett, a black man who enjoyed the immense privileges of fame, VIP status, wealth and popularity, could not use those rare gifts for good. Human beings are astonishing - and disappointing - when those who have been given so much don't see they should give back, not seek to take even more!
It will be interesting to see how this story develops on the legal front. But whatever the outcome, as far as Jussie Smollett's public image and acting career are concerned, he's finished. He self-destructed through sheer greed. I really think he saw great black actors/stars like Denzel Washington and Samuel L Jackson and felt resentful, like he deserved the same level of fame and prestige. But as we've seen only too clearly in the last 3 years - he really isn't that good an actor!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why does Court TV invite dirty ex-cop Chris McDonough onto its channel? Chrissh McDoofus is a proven crook, liar and charlatan, who tried to frame three children for a murder they did not commit. The man has zero integrity or credibility. Frankly his inclusion on any true crime panel is a stain on that TV channel's reputation!
Anyone unfamiliar with McDonough's seedy past need only Google his name for details of his leading role in an appalling and deliberate, near miscarriage of justice - the murder of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe on January 20th 1998.
Thanks to McDonough's corrupt and unlawful interrogation techniques, the victim's teen brother Michael Crowe, and his friends Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway were wrongly accused of the murder.
McDonough subjected the three innocent boys to hours of gruelling, psychologically abusive interrogation, during which they were deliberately isolated from their parents and had no access to lawyers. They were indited on murder charges, and pre-trial proceedings commenced.
McDonough applied his normal approach to 'solving' the crime ie, rather than keep an open mind and be led by the evidence, he decided from the start the boys were guilty because Stephanie had been stabbed to death at home in her bedroom, and there was no forced entry to the house. He then built a (flimsy) case to fit his view. McDoofus concluded, without any actual evidence whatsoever, that it had to be an inside job by the victim's elder sibling and his pals.
Thankfully a year later Stephanie's blood was (very belatedly) found on the shirt of her actual killer, transient man Richard Tuite. And then the full, shocking story of the bungled murder investigation under Chris McDonough's disastrous leadership, finally emerged.
Killer Tuite had not only been seen in the Crowes' neighbourhood on the night of Stephanie's murder by multiple witnesses, he was also reported to police by several neighbours for his strange and aggressive behaviour. Tuite, was clearly under the influence of drink/drugs, was yelling threats of murder, knocking on neighbouring front doors, and trying various different ruses to get inside residents' homes.
A police officer who attended that night in response to the 911 calls, briefly looked around and noted that he saw a door next to the Crowe's garage, close. This was a clear indication that someone had just entered it. The officer could not see who closed the door, and despite the earlier 911 reports of a transient male trying to enter houses, he did not investigate further. The cop left the scene at 9.56pm, reporting that the transient was 'gone on arrival'.
Stephanie was stabbed to death by Tuite in her bedroom between 10 - 11pm. There was no forced entry - Tuite got in through the unlocked door next to the garage. The policeman had witnessed the killer enter the house - and missed the opportunity to arrest him, and save Stephanie's life. She was found dead on her bedroom floor by her grandmother next morning at 6.30am. bloodied from frenzied blows with a 5-6 inch bladed knife.
Police briefly took Tuite in for questioning, fingerprinted him and took various items including clothing, fingernail scrapings and hair. They did only the briefest interview with him, and crucially failed to do a background check. If they had, they'd have found he had an extensive mental health and arrests history. Tuite was detained for a short time, and released. Under Chris McDonough, the investigation turned away from him, and focused in on entirely the wrong suspects - Stephanie's innocent brother and his two equally innocent and bewildered friends.
Tuite's shirt had been collected during the first days of the police investigation, but thanks to McDonough's arrogant certainty that he'd solved the case and nabbed the three teen 'killers', the garment was not fully tested until a whole year later.
Those poor boys (and their families, one of whom also lost a child to murder), needlessly endured a living hell, fully expecting to die in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Only due to the solid dna evidence proving their innocence, which emerged so crazily late due to police corruption, were they finally and fully cleared. Charges against the boys were dropped, and Tuite was convicted of Stephanie's murder.
If Chris McDonough had had his way, Michael, Aaron and Joshua, three totally innocent men, would still be locked up in prison today, for a heinous child homicide they had nothing to do with. I wonder how those three men feel when they see their former tormentor presented on TV shows like this as a respectable voice of true crime and justice?
After that disgusting scandal McDonough should have been kicked out of the police force in disgrace with no pension. Instead he was allowed to quietly retire, with his reputation - and fat pension - intact.
It is a measure of the man's enormous ego that he launched a post-retirement career as a true crime media 'expert' - despite his shocking and well-documented history of corruption and failure, and his notable lack of talent as a 'broadcasshter'!
Is this really the calibre of true crime 'expert' guest, Court TV is booking these days??? Get a clue, Vinnie!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nbenefiel Jonbenet's autopsy confirmed she was subjected to, quote; 'chronic, long-term' sexual abuse. Internally, she had multiple abrasions to her cervix and hymen at various ages/stages of healing, the most recent inflicted 24 hours before death (did the supposed 'intruder' pay her a visit on Christmas Eve too?) and the oldest abrasions going back many months, and likely years. Her hymen was also torn, injuries indicating systematic vaginal penetration with fingers and objects.
Jonbenet's vaginal entrance was TWICE the size of a normal, unmolested girl of the same age. So quit repeating your lies that this tragic, strangled child was not the victim of a long campaign of sexual abuse. She absolutely was, and an independent panel of highly qualified and respected experts confirmed it. All of this information is in the public domain - I suggest you do some research.
The Ramseys often wheeled out family doctor Francesco Beuf (also a family friend, and firmly in their pockets), to confirm his view Jonbenet was not sexually abused. In reality he could not judge one way or the other, as he had never investigated the possibility with an internal examination, despite her repeatedly presenting at his clinic with chronic bed-wetting, vaginitis, cystitis/UTIs and yeast infections - all highly suspicious symptoms.
Fact is, Dr Beuf had missed Jonbenet's sexual abuse, an appalling failure on his part as a paediatrician. As the late, legendary forensic pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht observed, if Dr Beuf had only done an internal examination on Jonbenet during one of her frequent visits, he'd have found the internal injuries exposed at autopsy, been duty bound to report them, and John Ramsey would have been arrested and taken into police custody the same day.
Ultimately Dr Beuf stopped being a spokesman for the Ramseys and withdrew from them, painfully aware his medical colleagues had identified chronic, long-term sexual abuse post mortem, that he should have found when she was alive - and could potentially have been saved.
The prime suspect in this sexually motivated crime was always the sole adult male living with her, with round the clock, unsupervised access 24-7, her father John Ramsey. Sex offences and violent crimes generally are overwhelmingly committed by men, which makes her mother Patsy, and her sexually immature, pre-pubescent and young for his age brother Burke, highly unlikely suspects.
One reason people are so confused about this case is that it's (understandably) classed a murder. But in all likelihood Jonbenet died unintentionally, from sadistic sexual abuse involving asphyxiation torture by ligature. That night John Ramsey's sexual abuse featuring an elaborately-fashioned, home-made 'garrote' went too far, and he found he could not revive her. He threw himself on wife Patsy's mercy and she agreed to collude with him in the cover-up.
Patsy stayed up all night with him, staging the crime scene, writing the ludicrous ransom letter and getting their 'intruder' story straight, before answering the door to police just after 5.30am in yesterday's clothes and make-up. Facing cancer, the tragic loss of her daughter and the imminent media storm surrounding the crime, Patsy could not handle life as a single parent without her powerful husband and protector by her side. Patsy chose to protect John to keep him out of prison, and preserve her privileged life as Mrs John Ramsey.
It's possible Patsy partly blamed herself for Jonbenet's death at her husband's hands. John began sexually abusing their daughter after Patsy's devastating diagnosis of stage 4 ovarian cancer in 1993, when she was 36 and Jonbenet was three. The invasive medical treatments inevitably ended their sex life, and he began exploiting Jonbenet as a sex surrogate. The long list of ailments Jonbenet presented to Dr Beuf with go back some time, and are clearly linked to ongoing sexual abuse.
Patsy may have known or suspected the abuse, and looked the other way. But it's entirely possible she was entirely ignorant of it, while groggy on strong painkilling drugs and sick with chemo.
People struggle to believe a wealthy, white, respectable, churchgoing millionaire like John Ramsey could be a child abuser. But the truth is paedophiles come from every social, economic and ethnic background, right across the board.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thorpsewinglessons5913 Too right! Every human being on this Earth came from a woman's miraculous body. How dare the NHS of all organisations, seek to make childbirth a non-sexed activity, Only women can get pregnant, carry babies, give birth to, and breastfeed them.
Women will not be erased from this uniquely female experience, just because a tiny minority of males has a weird sexual fetish. I recently saw a sickening photo on social media, of a trans identified man forcing his male nipple into a tiny baby's mouth - he claimed to be taking synthetic hormones that made him lactate! Why? Not for the baby's sake, that's for sure.
Lord only knows what revolting, toxic discharge he was putting into that precious infant, but I do know this - it was not mother's milk. That some of these men are fetishising babies to fulfil their creepy fantasies is hideous child abuse.
The way gender cult has successfully gas-lit the world into believing these trans identified males are somehow 'vulnerable', is a sick joke.
1
-
@tropics8407 The decent majority must now speak out and condemn gender-cult in the strongest terms - this toxic, misogynist garbage has gone way too far and captured the NHS, the police, the justice system, schools - you name it!
Last year a woman patient was raped on an NHS hospital ward she believed was single-sex, female only. When police investigated, the hospital initially denied it, claiming she could not have been attacked by a fellow patient, as they were all women.
That hospital later had to admit to detectives that one of the 'women' patients was a trans identified male - who was, of course, her rapist.
It transpires NHS policy is for hospital staff to lie, if patients/their relatives ask if there are trans identified men (so-called 'trans women') on female wards. This is an outrage - women's right to be safe, and have privacy and dignity, should come before the perceived 'rights' of these men to have their delusion/fetish supported!
If that rape case gets to court, the female victim will no doubt be forced to address the male rapist in court as 'She' and 'Her'. We have even heard ridiculous, offensive phrases/language used by barristers in such cases, such as 'HER penis'.
Women do not have a penis - only men do. And male rapists should be correctly identified as such! Today the public is still catching up, and is mostly ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of trans-identified males or 'trans women', well over 90%, are fully male bodied, and possesses functioning male genitals they have no intention of sacrificing to the cause.
1
-
1
-
Exactly Nate, she could have pocketed the $7m Depp gave her in the divorce, walked away and shut up about the failed, 15 month marriage to a superstar. If she'd been a decent, well-balanced non-abusive human being, that's exactly what she would have done.
But this warped and dangerous individual is a narcissistic abuser who was DUMPED by her victim. So she's mad as hell and wanted revenge on him. When you end a close relationship with a narcissistic abuser, there's hell to pay. Sometimes you don't escape with you life (all the dead, mostly female victims of domestic abusers prove it).
Tell your violent abuser you're leaving them, and the odds of them escalating their abuse to your murder rocket. I believe Depp's only alive today because he left the US for a European music tour right after he called time on the marriage. If he'd stayed in their penthouse after pulling the plug, there's every chance he'd have wound up with the large knife she gifted him inscribed 'UNTIL DEATH' sticking out of his heard. Yep, this could have been a murder trail - with Heard telling exactly the same lies about Depp abusing her, to support a self defence claim!
In his absence, Heard could no longer physically attack him. So she set about getting vengeance in other, just as heinous ways. She started divorce proceedings and took out a totally unnecessary restraining order, to make it look like SHE had rejected HIM, because he was an ABUSER. That was the launch of her big lie, from which all her increasingly heinous, bigger abuse lies have followed.
She lied that she gave his $7m to two charities because she didn't want to be correctly identified as a gold-digger, who had married Depp for his superstar status. As an off-the-chart narcissistic abuser, she had no conscience about keeping the money, after benefiting from that self-promoting lie! The NERVE of her! She must have weighed up the chances of the two charities outing her lie to the media for reneging on her $3.5m promises to both. She knew they were highly unlikely to out her. Donations are the lifeblood of every charity - no charitable organisation wants to enter into public fights with their wealthy patrons! She'd made a small down payment to both to keep them off her back for a while ($500k didn't even come from her, but from Elon Musk!) But it's obvious 5 years post divorce with no further instalments forthcoming, she had no intention of paying the rest. The LA Children's Hospital wrote to her to ask if she intended to honour her $3.5m pledge - she did not reply. The ACLU were never going to make problems for her - they had made her an Ambassador and eve wrote the Op-Ed Depp sued her over - they were in bed with Heard, she could rely on their loyalty and silence. In fact Depp's lawyers were forced to subpoena them to find out how much of the promised $3.5m she'd actually handed over!
And by the way - why was there ANY delay in her handing over Depp's $7m? If she wanted to donate it, why didn't she just do it? She wasn't destitute, she was a wealthy woman by any standards! She made mega money as a movie actress, $1m for the 'Aquaman' movie alone, plus her ongoing 'Loreal' and other lucrative modelling contracts. Many of us struggle to understand why, if she promised to hand over that cash from her - supposedly abusive marriage - she didn't do it without delay! What you've never had, you never miss, right? Depp's lawyers even tried making payments direct to the two charities - surprise, surprise, Heard's lawyers jumped in and threatened legal action if he didn't give the money direct to her!
Frankly it stinks. She wanted to get credit for taking no money from Johnny Depp, while taking money from Johnny Depp! She's so dumb and arrogant, she didn't even confront this issue in court and show remorse over it. She knew full well Depp's lawyers would quiz her about why she hadn't paid up - she knew it looked bad for her. Yet she came out fighting and wouldn't admit she'd done anything wrong! Incredibly stupid and self-sabotaging. Did her legal team advise her to take that course? If so it was lousy advice.
If she'd only said she felt bad about not YET donating the full amount - that she still FULLY INTENDS to make those donations etc - (maybe she deliberately didn't make any such pledge under oath for fear the charities could use them to get the money at a future date) If she'd only given a better explanation for keeping the money than "My ex husband was suing me". She could have said she had a baby and was worried about her financial future as a single mother - she could have said as an actress her income is unpredictable - and since the bad publicity she's had from the divorce, she wasn't confident about her future finances etc. She didn't even try to express regret or explain why she didn't honour those charity pledges!
A narcissist is so entrenched in their own, self-centred mindset, they have no empathy for non-narcissists and cannot mimic their responses convincingly - not even when to do so, would get them out of big trouble! In the final analysis, the biggest victim of Amber Heard is Amber Heard.
1
-
Oh wow, who could possibly resist that affectionate, furry bundle? He must give the softest, loveliest hugs! So glad Axel found the perfect forever family to love and take good care of him.
I really respect this lady for being kind about his previous owners. As they rightly said, the fact he's so chilled and loving, shows he was very loved by them. They just struggled to say no to him I guess, and overfed him. It's sad, but they meant no harm. He's now landed in a wonderful home where he'll get the help he needs to gently slim down, and be the healthy, agile cat nature intended
They are doing fantastically well with his weight loss, 10lbs down already - almost a quarter of his original weight gone! He must be feeling so much better and lighter on his paws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monique8641 I saw the documentary you refer to - it was based on a book by Anne Sebba, which had just been released. at the time, titled 'That Woman'.
Sebba's book started a new narrative on the well-worn story of the abdication - Wallis Simpson the victim. That story was picked up and repeated by other biographers, among them the ghastly Anna Pasternak, whose depiction of the Duchess of Windsor is positively Disney-esque in its dewy-eyed romanticism.
I didn't buy it then, and I still don't! Ernest Simpson was a lovely man who remained on friendly terms with his ex wife (he gallantly agreed to be cited as adulterer in their quickie divorce - even though HE was the innocent cuckold). But it does not follow that Wallis regretted marrying the former king, and wished she had stayed with him.
Edward could offer her a fabulous, VIP lifestyle she could only dream of with her previous husband. Ernest Simpson, while earning enough money to give Wallis a comfortable lifestyle with a beautiful home and servants, was 'in trade' - not born to millions in inherited wealth, like the Duke of Windsor. There's no doubt about who Wallis judged the greater prize!
To understand Wallis Simpson's mindset, you must examine her earliest days in Baltimore. Her father died soon after she was born in 1896, and her widowed single mother Alice struggled to support them both - relying on the patronage of wealthy relatives to keep them in a respectable, middle class lifestyle.
Alice impressed upon Wallis from her earliest days the importance of marrying well. Women had no career ambitions at the turn of the century - to be an ambitious woman, was to be a gold-digger - and Wallis ultimately became the most successful gold-digger of all time!
She first married aged 20, a disastrous union to a drunk who was abusive to her. She escaped that marriage through divorce and within months, re-married to Ernest Simpson. In doing so she 'married up', improving her fortunes dramatically, as Ernest was not only loving and generous, but had the money to indulge her.
Wallis was living her life according to her mother's doctrines - through the patronage of men. But when the King of England entered her life (ironically, through the elite London social life Ernest provided), Wallis saw a glittering future for herself.
No doubt she had initially expected to be a mistress, eventually cast off by the King - and she amassed enough jewellery from Edward to compensate her handsomely in the event of such a rejection. But as we know, the King fell in love with her to the point of obsession. A weak man, he had a nanny fixation and was drawn to Wallis' dominant confident manner. She never deferred to him, as other women did - he found her assertiveness exciting.
Edward believed he could make Wallis his queen, and dangled this prize at her daily. He was convinced he could persuade his subjects to accept Wallis as his wife, despite the fact she was twice divorced. But his assumption he could somehow get around the government and avoid the constitutional obstacles to such an outcome, was at best naive, and at worst arrogant.
Many of his assumptions about their future marriage and life did not come to pass. He received a particularly bitter blow on their wedding day, when he was told the royal family had denied his bride the HRH title to which she was entitled - a rebuff he never got over. And nor it seems, did Wallis. Their marriage was not a happy one, despite the lavish life of excess the former king laid at her feet. She used any excuse to torment him, frequently citing his family's mistreatment of her, and the HRH snub, and he was often heard to say "Will you send me to bed in tears again tonight?"
Edward assumed they would settle back in England after the war, when the fuss about the abdication had died down. But he hadn't realised how deep his brother and sister-in-law, the king and queen's resentment of him and Wallis went. They would not tolerate them setting up a rival court in the UK - Edward then wanted to move to America, but Wallis loathed her homeland, and wouldn't hear of it.
So they lived out their days in pointless self-indulgence, in a rented mansion in Paris. They could have done all kinds of constructive things with their fabulous wealth - started new charities, for example, which would give them a purpose. Instead they went shopping, bought jewels, held dinner parties for celebrity 'friends', travelled first class - and Wallis had more than one affair.
The truth is the former king was a very dull man. Guests dreaded being seated next to him at dinner, as he had no conversation! Wallis got the life of unimaginable wealth her mother had told her to shoot for, from a little girl. But, as with all things in life, there is a price to pay. Hers was to live the rest of her life with a man who bored her to tears. In the final analysis, Edward and Wallis deserved each other!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Speak for yourself, as a journalist for national newspapers who has interviewed many who knew Charles and Diana personally (and some intimately), it's clear Diana was not the innocent victim she portrayed to win public sympathy - and to vindictively demonise her estranged husband!
She was a manipulative, spiteful, self obsessed woman who could not have been a loving wife to any man. She was far too needy and self centred. Diana had multiple affairs (many with married men), and worked hard to keep them secret, so she could play the innocent, 'wronged wife' role and point the finger at Charles and Camilla. Diana was vicious when any man disappointed her - look how she stalked married lover Oliver Hoare with over 300 malicious phone calls, after he ended their affair! She was enraged he wouldn't leave his wife for her. She was a spoiled brat - but Hoare and his wife joined forces and reported her to police. Her bad behaviour became headline news, and for once she was exposed as the nasty piece of work she was behind the simpering smiles.
Diana was a sly, two faced hypocrite. Her fans only worship her because she was photogenic - they are even more shallow than she was!
1
-
1
-
@user-pm7nf9uv5z Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
1
-
@laisawhippy8726 Were Charles and Camilla driving the car in which Diana died? No. I think you'll find that was a drugged, drunk, reckless man called Henri Paul (not even licensed to chauffeur), employed by the shady Al Fayed family - who Diana had stupidly handed her security arrangements to that weekend.
Charles and Camilla didn't stop Diana fastening her seat belt either - that was entirely Diana's own folly. If she'd only given her two children a thought while she was running around with her coke-addicted Arab shag, and worn her seat belt, she'd have survived the crash with nothing more than a broken arm.
Face facts - Diana fell out of love with Charles just as much as he did with her. She looked bored stiff of him in videos from the late 'eighties. It was an arranged marriage, and they usually fail - they weren't compatible in any regard!
When their marriage was over, Charles turned to his one true love Camilla, and Diana turned to a long queue of casual lovers, among them Barry Mannakee, James Hewitt, James Gilbey and Oliver Hoare. Charles' one affair was with a woman he loved and would go on to marry - Diana's many, shallow, sexual affairs were with men she cared nothing for. Just meaningless sexual encounters.
Diana may have been a virgin on her wedding day, but she more than made up for it later! Quit believing her self-pitying bullshit that she was heartbroken over Charles - she was not, she only pretended to be to win public sympathy. And you fell for it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laisawhippy8726 You're confused about the definition of truth and lies.
An opinion cannot be described as a lie - it's an opinion. There are informed opinions - mine, and there are misinformed opinions - yours.
It's my informed opinion that William experienced poor parenting from his mother in his vulnerable, formative years. Ironically Diana confirmed that herself, through the Andrew Morton book she surreptitiously colluded with. She described sobbing over her adult personal problems, and William - a confused and vulnerable child far too young to be burdened with inappropriate issues involving his other parent - comforting her.
She also agreed to the spiteful, pre-scripted 1995 BBC Panorama interview, in which she attacked her children's father for his one affair after their marriage had collapsed, said Charles was unfit to be king, and disingenuously admitted to a single extra marital affair of her own with James Hewitt (although in reality she had pursued several extra marital affairs while married to Charles, starting in 1985 with married police bodyguard Barry Mannakee).
A level-headed, caring mother would have enough empathy to know giving that bombshell TV interview would hurt and embarrass her children. No child wants to hear one parent criticise the other, or to hear about their illicit sex life! Diana threw her children to the wolves to score a few cheap points against her estranged husband on prime-time TV.
Diana was so immature, she even introduced her unsuspecting children to her casual lovers - a fact which must have hit William and Harry like a ton of bricks when they realised as adults. Those innocent little boys were made to shake hands with her secret boyfriends, including Hewitt and Will Carling, little knowing the men were getting naked with their mother during trysts behind their father's and the media's back.
After his mother's death, William and Harry started extensive courses of psychotherapy at their father's instigation. These in-depth counselling sessions continued well into their twenties. William' is a smart and grounded guy. As heir to the throne, it's very fortunate he inherited his father's intellect and maturity, and not his mother's introspection and narcissism - as it seems the self-pitying, whining Harry has!
With maturity, William has come to recognise how manipulative his mother was and the harm she did to him and Harry with her multiple, casual sexual affairs. As the eldest son, Diana undoubtedly turned to William for support in a way she should only have turned to adult friends and family members. She had plenty of friends she poured her heart out to, and was close with her sister Sarah too. Yet still she leaned on poor William, and exposed him to emotional histrionics over her marriage breakdown. Diana's horrible, self-serving and exploitative behaviour causing William life-changing trauma, that will stay with him for the rest of his life.
Your fan-worship of Diana and silly name-calling of Camilla (because she fell in love with and married a man whose unhappy marriage had broken down), is ridiculous. Like Diana herself, you're a massive hypocrite. You claim you disapprove of Camilla because she was a mistress, but that clearly isn't true. Because Diana was a mistress many times over, bedding several married men while still Charles' wife. Yet you don't condemn her!
It's obvious your blind worship for a dead princess is due to nothing more than her shallow, picture-perfect image as the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts'. A decidedly average looking Sloane, who married into world fame as a senior royal and had limitless funds to spend on her appearance. If only she'd devoted the same resources to improving her character, she might have left a legacy beyond two children.
You need to invest in a thesaurus. And pull your head out of your arse!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laisawhippy8726 Diana's legacy? It's her children, nothing more. The terrible new statue of her that William and Harry unveiled this week confirms it. It depicts Diana walking with three random, fictitious children - like her, it's completely irrelevant and pointless! What exactly was her notable 'work' as a royal and this 'legacy' you speak of?
We've established you're a dim fan who admires the late princess due to her photogenic qualities - her shallow image is actually the 'legacy' you're referring to!
But informed people who speak of her having a legacy are referring primarily to her embracing the issues of AIDs and landmines. Those two causes, like her supposed 'legacy', are massively overstated in the absence of any real achievements by Diana.
She only publicised Aids and landmines because influential friends asked her to - she never instigated any work for a good cause herself. It's plainly obvious she hadn't an idea in her pea brain!
Many public figures were helping Aids causes in the 'eighties and 'nineties far more dynamically than the Princess of Wales, among them global superstars Sir Elton John and Dame Elizabeth Taylor. Both Sir Elton and Dame Elizabeth started their own AIDs charities. 'The Elton John AIDs Foundation' and 'The Elizabeth Taylor Aids Foundation' are still hugely successful internationally today. Diana never even started a charity in her lifetime, that's how totally useless she was! So she shook hands with a man with HIV once - so what?!
She did the land mines trip at the request of her famous friend, acting legend Sir Richard Attenborough (who had once tried - and failed - to make her a half-decent public speaker). Sir Richard had to work hard to persuade her land mines would be a high profile global campaign, that would put her in a positive light. Diana didn't to anything if there wasn't a lot in it for her!
Everything you post here reveals you are woefully ignorant about the facts of Diana's life. Keep digging that hole, dunderhead!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCJqxwJzy9u75xrtzulLkL8g You're confused about many things, the definition of 'screwing around' for one, and Diana's 'truth' for another - which history proved was anything but truthful! Read on and you'll learn something.
'Screwing around' is not returning exclusively to the arms of a lost love once your marriage has failed, rekindling that loving relationship over time, and nurturing it to one day become a happy marriage, as Charles has done with Camilla.
'Screwing around' is having many casual affairs with multiple sexual partners, as Diana did from the mid 'eighties. The princess went to great lengths to keep all her casual lovers secret from the press and public, so that she could play the role of innocent, betrayed wife to an adulterous husband - a narrative now recognised to be self-serving, hypocritical and entirely false.
In her infamous 'Panorama' interview of 1995, she admitted to only one extra marital affair, with James Hewitt. But it's now well documented she had many clandestine sexual relationships while married. When she famously said there were "...three people in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded", she 'forgot' to count her own affairs. In truth she had enjoyed a string of lovers to Charles' ONE. Her marriage was considerably more 'crowded' than she was willing to admit!
Diana fell out of love with Charles just as much as vice versa. In reality she couldn't care less what her estranged husband did, you need only watch footage of them on joint public appearances from the late 'eighties to see he bored her to tears! She was having far too much fun living the exciting life of a hedonistic single woman in London, while Charles remained in rural Gloucestershire supported by old friends including Camilla.
Several of the men Diana screwed around with were married - she had the morals of an alley cat. That she condemned Camilla as a mistress when she herself was a mistress many times over having knowingly pursued other women's husbands, is an outrageous cheek!
Diana put the new marriage of England rugby star Will Carling in the divorce courts before it was even 2 years old. She'd done her usual trick of targeting an attractive man (at the Chelsea Harbour Gym they both used), and asking him for help with something - in Carling's case, fitness advice. She got him back to her place for some very intimate 'training sessions'.
Soon after that scandal broke, I chatted with a pal of Carling's, another sports star. He told me he was very discreet about the princess, but once after a few drinks he admitted he'd had three secret visits to see her at Kensington Palace, where he enjoyed the kind of sexual services men usually have to pay for. Diana may have been a virgin on her wedding day, but she certainly made up for lost time with a vengeance!
Police bodyguard Barry Mannakee and art dealer Oliver Hoare (who was an old friend of her husband - Classy!) were two more husbands Diana shamelessly bedded, without a moment's thought for their wives Susan and Diane. Indeed she constantly badgered Hoare to leave his wife, and when he instead ended their 2 year affair, she turned bunny-boiler. Incredulous and enraged at his rejection, she bombarded his marital home with literally hundreds of anonymous phone calls at all times of the day and night. She would park up outside his house at 3am and ring from her mobile, enjoying seeing the lights come on downstairs as a bleary-eyed Hoare stumbled to answer it before his wife. Diana even visited local payphones in disguise after dark, to maintain the harassment.
Needless to say when Martin Bashir mentioned the malicious phone calls during the 'Panorama' interview (as he had to do, following huge headlines about the princess' strange conduct), she brazenly denied making a single malicious call, but instead claimed that an unknown and unnamed 'little boy' had been responsible. Bashir did not press her for any more details on the affair (nor did he ask her if indeed there had been an affair), as had been agreed with her in advance.
Diana wasn't only a mistress many times over, she was spiteful and unhinged with it. So unhinged, that when her ongoing harassment finally prompted Hoare to confess the affair to his wife and they agreed to present a united front and report her to police, Diana exploited her own child to get herself out of trouble.
In a shocking act of self preservation and bad parenting, Diana told the two plain clothes detectives who visited her at Kensington Palace that the malicious phone calls had been made by her eldest son William! As well as local payphones, the calls had been traced to her mobile phone and her private line at Kensington Palace - damning evidence that she was the culprit. Backed into a corner, she knew her emphatic denials were ringing hollow and she needed a scapegoat. She chose her little boy.
The police officers didn't believe Prince William was responsible for the calls for a single second. Not only were there well over 300 of them, many were made at anti social hours when William was just 12 years old at the time and at boarding school!
Nonetheless the police visit had the effect Oliver and Diane Hoare hoped for, and shook 'the woman scorned' sufficiently to make her desist and stop stalking him. She soon switched her romantic attentions to heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, and began plotting to marry him. Diana had the emotional sophistication of a 10-year-old!
While Khan was at least single, he was expected to marry a Pakistani Muslim like himself and told her so. Undeterred, Diana engineered two private visits to his family in Pakistan without consulting him (masquerading as charity trips with Imran and Jemima Khan). Her charm offensive on his devout relatives fell on stony ground.
But the biggest obstacle to their union was Diana's personality and voracious love of the limelight. The gleeful way she courted press reporters and photographers daily, poring over her tabloid coverage and operating a hotline to Fleet Street editors, left him cold. After her separation from Charles, she no longer kept up with all the charities and good causes she'd previously supported, which at least gave meaning to her pampered existence.
As a surgeon dedicated to his work and patients, Khan recognised that the crazy, self obsessed circus Diana called her life would interfere with his work and ultimately his happiness. He was just too decent and genuine a man to become submerged in the madness.
It's sadly only too predictable she would split with Khan weeks before her death, and hook up with a shallow, coke addicted playboy, set up to woo her by his crooked and ambitious tycoon father. Diana lacked the humility to recognise her fame and privilege was all thanks to her association with the royals - and that it was her royal pedigree that made the slimy Al Fayeds put out the red carpet for her on that all expenses paid, final vacation.
Diana had been divorced from Charles for a year, and received a generous £17 million settlement when she died. Yet in those 12 months she had not seen fit to hire herself a team of personal bodyguards and a driver to keep herself safe, as she could clearly have afforded to do.
Even more shocking is that she'd turned down the Queen's offer of a world class, Scotland Yard trained personal security team for life, as a divorce gift. The Queen felt Diana deserved that special level of protection, as mother to the future king. If she had only accepted her former mother-in-law's offer with a good grace, she would doubtless just have celebrated her 60th birthday. Instead she foolishly trusted the Al Fayeds, of all people, with her life, and they provided a drunk, drugged and reckless driver - who wasn't even licensed to drive that Mercedes! She compounded her serious error with another - failing to behave like a responsible parent, and fasten her seat belt.
Unlike her ex husband Charles, Diana never found real love or emotional stability in her life. It's questionable that she ever would - or was capable of being a contented wife to anyone. Her parents' acrimonious divorce and her mother's absence through her formative years damaged her badly. She and Charles were two emotionally needy people, who coincidentally both suffered maternal neglect as children. Neither could offer the support the other needed, so their split was inevitable. Charles wound up with the kind of nurturing partner he needed in Camilla. She's loving, down to earth and resilient, qualities he needs and didn't find in his first wife.
I'm not convinced any man could have made the princess happy. If she were alive today I believe she'd have had many romances but none that became permanent. And I'm convinced she would never have remarried, because to have done so would have lost her the senior royal title and privileges of Princess status, which was so very important to her!
Incidentally, what 'rut' is Prince Harry in exactly, I'm intrigued? From where I'm standing he's done exactly as he pleased all his life, even abandoning his royal duties (though notably not his title and status), for a new life of freedom in the US, shamelessly cashing in on his blue blood.
Watching Harry, one of the world's top VIPs, bleat about how badly done to he is to Oprah, while sticking the knife into the royal family that gave him everything, is a spooky, sickening repetition of Diana's self-pitying 'Panorama' interview. He's a chip off his mother's block alright.
The rotten apple didn't fall far from the twisted tree!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bukunmiolowu9178 That you say Charles and Camilla are 'horrible people' - and by default obviously believe Diana was a lovely, sweet, kind human being - reveals your total ignorance of the facts, the sequence of events, and the characters of the people involved.
You're another one who swallowed Diana's self-pity party wholesale, and believe in her poor little me, innocent victim act. She was no victim, she did very well out of her marriage to the Prince of Wales, as she always knew she would. Though she never had the grace to acknowledge it publicly, she owed everything she had to the royal family. Without her marriage to Charles she'd have been nobody, just another dim Sloane divorced from a chinless banker. She certainly didn't marry her husband for love!
That you're taken in by the devious princess is a shame for you - it suggests you'd be easy prey for another manipulative narcissist, should one enter your life. And Diana was not unique - there are many more toxic narcs like her out there, who see others purely in terms of what they can get out of them. These people will bleed you dry!
I was a national newspaper journalist in the 'nineties and privy to inside information on the Waleses' marriage.
An awful lot of dirt on Diana that reveals who she really was, has yet to come out. Why do you think the Queen intervened at the eleventh hour to halt her butler Paul Burrell's trial for stealing from her? He was blackmailing the royal family over what he knew - much of it pertaining to his boss Diana!
You literally don't know the half of it. But Diana fans are such a deluded lot, they won't believe the ugly truth when it does inevitably come out!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voulafisentzidis8830 You're clearly very ignorant on the facts of this (now ancient) story. The late Princess Diana was an adulteress in the Olympic class - she admitted to just one lover on the BBC 'Panorama' interview (with unmarried James Hewitt), when the ugly truth was she had umpteen extra marital affairs while married to Charles - many with other women's husbands!
Diana was a champion home-wrecker and didn't care who she hurt. She seduced married England rugby star Will Carling just for the hell of it and a celebrity notch on her bed post. She was never in love with him, but gleefully ruined his marriage before it even reached its 2 year anniversary. Ask Julia Carling, Susan Mannakee and Diane Hoare for starters, what they think of 'Saint Diana', the tramp who threw her knickers (and everything else) at their husbands!
Diana couldn't care less about Charles getting together with Camilla, after she had selfishly abandoned him to live alone at Highgrove House, Gloucestershire. Dirty Di was far too busy enjoying a racy, bachelor-girl life at Kensington Palace, chasing unsuitable males while a team of staff looked after her children for her! The marriage was far more 'crowded' than Diana admitted on told Martin Bashir - because she 'forgot' to mention all her own, umpteen lovers!
Diana was a major hypocrite crucifying her husband for his one affair with a woman he loved and later married, when she was taking pretty much any male with a pulse to bed, in a procession of shallow, meaningless sexual flings - one of which ultimately caused her own squalid & totally avoidable death at 36. Diana was a lousy wife, but an even worse mother. Who fails to fasten their seat belt on every trip, after they've had children? Once you have parental responsibility for young lives, you simply cannot play fast and loose with your personal safety! As a mum or dad, that is a luxury you no longer have.
Utterly irresponsible that a year after her divorce, Diana had neither accepted the Queen's generous offer on her divorce of a world class, Scotland Yard-trained security team for life, nor had she employed her own bodyguards and drivers with the generous £17m divorce settlement she received from her ex husband. Had she done either of those things, she would not have died young in a road traffic accident.
Diana behaved like an irresponsible teenager, putting her life in the hands of the shady Al Fayed family, when she was actually a grown woman with responsibilities who should have taken care of herself for her children's sake, if not her own!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All we can say with certainty is that whatever happened to Brian Shaffer, was an against the odds, rare occurrence - and possibly multiple rare occurrences, lining up, 'Swiss Cheese' style, to spell disaster.
However unlikely and against the odds, rare occurrences happen to people every day!
The even more against the odds phenomenon of 'lightning striking twice' (ie two unlikely events affecting the same person or family), can also happen. It happened to the Shaffer family. Two years after Brian's mysterious 2006 disappearance, his father Randy was killed in a freak accident, when a tree branch landed on him in his yard during windy weather.
It could even be argued the Shaffers suffered three unlikely lightning strikes, with the death of Brian's mother Renee from a rare cancer, just weeks before he went missing.
If by some miracle we could watch a video of Brian Shaffer up close, minute-by-minute that fateful night, and witness the true events that caused his disappearance/death, it would make shocking viewing. Because only shocking, dramatic events could have caused such a shocking, dramatic outcome as the loss of a much-loved young man with everything to live for.
18 years on, there's been no proof of life. Brian has not contacted a single friend, colleague or family member. His bank account remains unused, as does his passport. He has not been seen on any CCTV footage, anywhere in the world, since that mysterious night at the club. Brian Shaffer is, far beyond any reasonable doubt, deceased.
Whatever his suffering and Earthy cares, they are long over. He is now at eternal peace. The same applies to his beloved parents. My heart goes out to Brian's younger brother Derek, who in the space of just two years, lost his entire family. Yet 18 years later, he has no idea what happened to his only sibling. He has been deprived of a funeral for him, a grave, and ultimately, of closure.
Brian's girlfriend Alexis Waggoner too, has suffered dreadfully. When the unthinkable happened, she and Brian were happy together, very much in love, and according to friends and family, planning a shared future.
Obviously Brian was grieving the recent, tragic loss of his beloved Mom, Renee. But he had much to look forward to, including a high flying medical career, and an imminent vacation with Alexis, during which many believed he would pop the question. Her answer to a marriage proposal from her boyfriend was not in doubt. But fate would intervene, and ensure it was not to be. Brian's ill-fated boys' night out, destroyed Alexis' dreams of a life with him.
Distraught and shell-shocked at his sudden disappearance, Alexis gave many TV interviews, appealing for information. Cruel hoaxes from time to time provided false dawns, and the hope he was alive somewhere. Hope springs eternal, when a loved one goes missing. But I think deep down, Alexis always knew her man would not return. He'd had no reason to leave her - they were close as can be, and truly happy. If he could have come back to her, I think she knew in her heart he would have done.
Alexis could not wait for Brian indefinitely, and nor should she have done. She was young, with her whole life ahead of her - and life is for the living, as I'm sure Brian would have told her. Today Alexis is a busy wife and mother, with a successful medical career. I doubt she devotes too much to dwelling on 'what might have been'.
She'll never forget Brian, or the love they shared. Love is the most precious gift we ever receive. Life goes on, and so does love. Each of us carries our lost loves safe inside our hearts, throughout life's onward journey. I'm sure Alexis is no different.
As English poet Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote: 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all'.
Fly high Brian, forever loved. ❤💛❤💛❤💛❤🧡❤💛❤💛❤💛❤💛❤💛
1
-
1
-
Matt Walsh is looking pretty dumb for his public defence of Donald Trump. Not only is Trump a yesterday's man, like Biden he's beyond question now too old to run for President - how about Walsh confronts that truth head-on?
At 78, Trump's cognitive decline/dementia is only too obvious. There's no way he would have donned an apron and served up McDonalds fries at a drive-thru, during his last presidential campaign. If he wins the 2024 election, we'll get a repeat of the Biden car crash, making the US a laughing stock yet AGAIN.
Make no mistake, the Democrats are a joke. They've gone way too far down the woke trail, with their fulsome support of gender-cult/trans extremism for example. Kamala Harris is a very weak candidate. She was a spineless puppet vice president, and won the candidacy by default, when there should have been a contest for that globally critical position.
But backing the equally flawed Donald Trump, a has-been so childish and egotistical he wouldn't respect the democratic election result that threw him out, is not a reasonable or intelligent position. Matt Walsh is not the man I thought he was. Very disappointing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean by 'giving'? Children need emotional support and guidance. They need their parents' time, attention, and healthy, consistent boundaries and expectations set down. Because along with rights, come responsibilities. They also need love - real, unconditional love.
Despite his adoptive parents' wealth, I believe Christopher Sutton's childhood was a deprived one, during which these fundamental needs were not met.
Kids don't need to live in mansions, have lots of money spent on them, or be pressured to live up to the achievements of an unusually successful, high-powered lawyer like John Sutton. Just because the Suttons were rich and privileged, didn't automatically mean they were good parents!
Strikes me this wealthy, infertile couple adopted a tiny, days-old baby boy (and later a baby girl), to check 'parenthood' off their lifestyle list, along with living in a beautiful home, owning nice cars and enjoying annual vacations in 5 star resorts. But they were clueless about how to be good parents.
When Christopher showed signs of anti-social behaviour/anger in his teens (mysterious conduct that was unexplored in this TV report), the Suttons didn't seek a psychiatrist to counsel him. They sent him away to a remote, tropical boot camp, for literally years. He had become an inconvenience they wanted rid of. They even extended his incarceration overseas, by an additional year - despite knowing he was miserable. That was an unforgiveable parental betrayal, and confirmed Christopher's darkest fears - his mother and father did not love him. I think this experience destroyed any love he had for the couple, and set the stage for the assassination plot.
It is astonishing that John Sutton at no point acknowledges his own parental failure. For someone to go from being the much-wanted, adopted baby of rich and successful parents, to living out their days in a maximum security prison, which they will only ever leave in a body bag, is an extraordinary reversal of fortune!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seastorm2194 You ask: 'What extra marital affairs'? Are you kidding?! Diana's affair with James Hewitt was the only one she publicly admitted to.There were many more lovers while she was married to Charles - a whole string of them, which she worked hard to keep out of the papers!
I was a British national newspaper reporter in the 'nineties, and well aware of Diana's many extra marital affairs. I don't have time to give you chapter and verse on all of them, so here's a potted rundown of some of the men she bedded while still Charles' wife:
(For clarity, Charles and Diana officially separated in December 1992, and their divorce was finalised in August 1996, one year before she died in a car crash on 31st August 1997, aged 36).
Diana's first documented affair was with married bodyguard Barry Mannakee (a police officer with the royal protection squad). It began in 1984, and ended in '86, when they were caught in a compromising position on the eve of Prince Andrew's wedding. Mannakee was reprimanded and promptly transferred to duties away from the royal family, for what was coyly described as 'an inappropriate relationship' with the princess.
Diana's self-confessed relationship with James Hewitt started in 1986 after she asked him for riding lessons (he certainly delivered), and limped on through his service in the Gulf War, ending for good in '91. Her infidelities often overlapped. Another affair hit the headlines in 1990, after her intimate phone conversation with upmarket car dealer James Gilbey was bugged and leaked to the press. In the romantic New Year's Eve chat, Gilbey called her 'Darling' 14 times, and used his private nickname for her 'Squidgy' 53 times. Only an idiot could fail to deduce they were lovers in 1989. Not surprisingly, 'Squidgeygate' was a tabloid sensation.
That indiscretion was embarrassing enough for the princess, but her next cheating scandal, a passionate relationship with married art dealer Oliver Hoare, was a PR disaster for her. Hoare was 16 years her senior and an old pal of her husband Charles (classy huh?). He and his wife Diane had been guests of the Waleses at their Gloucestershire home Highgrove and at Windsor Castle. In 1990 Diana turned to the handsome and charismatic Hoare as a supposed marriage guidance counsellor - and they wound up in bed.
Diana's frequent trysts with Hoare at Kensington Palace required much subterfuge. Her butler would collect him in her car, and staff often saw him in the KP courtyard, either climbing out of, or into, the boot. This indignity did not sit well with the gentlemanly old Etonion, and before long he was abandoning all discretion and openly parking his Volvo outside her apartments.
Diana told friends her older, sophisticated lover had provided her sexual awakening. She dreamed of marriage to Hoare and a new life with him in his beloved Italy. He made it clear to her from the start he would not leave his wife. But when Diana got her hooks in she was obsessive, and hard to dissuade.
She was insistent Hoare give her some sort of commitment. Backed into a corner, he did the opposite and ended the relationship. He sent her a loving goodbye letter to soften the blow, thanking her for the good times and returning a gift she had given him of her later father's cufflinks. But the princess would not be placated, and true to form, she pursued revenge.
Diana was enraged at his rejection, and launched a malicious stalking campaign. She made literally hundreds of silent phone calls to his family home at all hours of the day and night. She even parked across the street and rang from her mobile, watching to see the lights come on inside the house, and the outline of Hoare rushing to pick up the phone.
He guessed who was behind the calls, and decided to come clean to his wife Diane about the affair. To his great relief she forgave him, and they presented a united front against Diana, the 'woman scorned', by reporting the calls to police. When officers told him what he already suspected, that the calls had been traced to Princess Diana's Kensington Palace home and her mobile, as well as local pay phones she'd visited after dark, he allowed two detectives to visit her at home and warn her off.
Diana toughed it out with police. Turning on the wide-eyed innocent act she often relied on, she point blank denied making any silent nuisance calls. Worse, she blamed the malicious telephone campaign against Hoare on her then 12-year-old son William - clearly entirely innocent, and away at boarding school at the time! Hoare did not press charges to spare the princess (and himself) embarrassment, but police leaked details of their highly unusual meeting with Diana to the News of the World, who broke the story in August 1994.
Being exposed as a mistress who'd pursued a married man and turned bunny boiler when he dumped her, blew Diana's carefully cultivated, faithful wife/victim image sky high! Increasingly questions were being asked about her morals and mental health. It was becoming clear Diana was not so much sinned against as she constantly claimed, but sinning - an arch media manipulator, whose bad behaviour was now returning to haunt her. She would try to repair the damage with the BBC Panorama interview, but that only compounded her mistakes.
In 1995 she chatted up England Rugby star Will Carling at the Chelsea Harbour Gym they both frequented. Her usual ruse of asking a man for help (this time, private training sessions), predictably led to an affair. In fact 'affair' is far too respectable a word to describe the cursory sexual encounters between the princess and the sportsman, which brought about the end of his recent marriage to TV presenter Julia Carling.
Will Carling never spoke publicly about the nature of the 'private training sessions' he gave Diana. I understand there was no romance, no dinner-dates and no woo-ing of any kind, just the kind of basic, no-frills interactions men usually pay for.
A famous friend and colleague of Carling's once shared his very personal assessment of Diana with me. It is far too crude to repeat on a public forum!
Diana's unfortunate habit of targeting married men backfired on her with Carling, as his wife Julia was media savvy and never missed an opportunity to tell her to leave her husband alone, via red top newspapers. The rugby star was just a conquest to Diana, she had no romantic interest in him. But the entanglement confirmed yet again her willingness to sleep with married men, and her arch hypocrisy in continuing to crucify Charles and Camilla.
In September of that year Diana met the man I believe she regarded as the love of her life to the end - heart surgeon Hasnat Khan. Those who knew her best, said her holiday romance with Dodi Al Fayed was designed to make Hasnat jealous, and win him back after their recent split. I tend to agree, in my view it's highly unlikely Diana would have regarded Dodi, the spoiled and aimless playboy son of a tycoon, as husband material.
But returning to the subject at hand, her extra marital affairs, Diana had many more than I've listed here. She also instigated flings with celebrities including British actors Terence Stamp and Nigel Havers, and Canadian rock star Bryan Adams.
Diana remained a teenager in many ways, she was terribly star struck and would pore over the newspapers each day to read the latest celebrity gossip. If a particular star piqued her interest, she might have her secretary invite them to lunch with her at Kensington Palace. It didn't matter to her that they'd never met before, had little in common but fame, or that such an approach might be viewed as strange or inappropriate.
If she wanted to meet that popular, in-demand individual she had no shame about forcing an introduction. She knew her power. Few people would decline such an invitation from arguably the most famous woman in the world. That said, I know two stars who received such a call from Diana - one declined, because they thought the approach odd and felt no compulsion to accept, and the other agreed, but set the meeting up at his home.
When the day arrived and Diana rang the doorbell, his wife answered and after introductions, retired to the kitchen to make coffee. While she was out of the room Diana wasted no time telling the male star she'd prefer it if his wife wasn't at their meeting, and asked him to tell her to leave. Astonishingly, he complied, and the celebrity wife meekly put on her coat and left, turfed out of her own home by the Princess of Wales! Further evidence were it needed, that Diana was very much a man's woman not a woman's woman - and thus found it all too easy to seduce other women's husbands!
Most of the facts in this post are in the public domain, so it's surprising you thought James Hewitt was Diana's only extra marital affair. If you're going to leap to Diana's defence at least do so from a position of knowledge, not ignorance.
1
-
1
-
@katpuss6564 You didn't hear the news then - fox hunting was banned in the UK in 2005. You're very behind the times!
Diana was desperate to marry Prince Charles, despite meeting him only 13 times before their engagement was announced. You think she was in love with him? Of course not, she wanted to be Princess of Wales, with all the privilege, wealth, glamour and fame that position as a senior royal brought. What does that say about her?
Diana was no victim. She got everything out of the marriage to Charles she hoped for - £17 million in the bank, the prestigious title 'Princess of Wales', a Kensington Palace home, global fame as a top VIP, and two healthy sons. So what was she bleating about?
An intelligent, stable woman would be philosophical about the breakdown of her failed marriage, count her blessings and move on. Their union was doomed from the start, regardless of any extra marital relationships either of them had.
Do you seriously believe Charles and Diana would have happily walked into the sunset together if it weren't for Camilla? Of course they wouldn't! Surely you're not that naive? They had nothing in common - a huge age gap, a massive difference in intellect and education, they didn't even share a sense of humour!
It's highly doubtful Diana would have achieved a happy marriage with anyone, had she lived. Dodi was clearly a holiday romance, designed to make Hasnat Kahn jealous. And Khan was not going to wed Diana and live in a goldfish bowl, tolerating her ego, vanity and love of media attention!
If the princess had lived she'd be single at 60, madly jealous of her younger, more beautiful daughters-in-law Kate and Meghan taking the limelight from her, and having so much cosmetic surgery to fight the years that she was unrecognisable!
Oh I so wish she had lived and not stupidly got herself killed - Diana would have been hilariously pathetic as she aged!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superstraight8402 Diana herself said both she and Charles were in love at the start of the marriage, and that their children were conceived in love. Video and photos of them from the early 'eighties bear that out - their love was obvious in their body language.
It simply isn't true that Charles was carrying on with Camilla throughout the marriage. Even if he'd wanted to, the press would have been onto him immediately - as Prince of Wales, he was watched like a hawk by umpteen paparazzi! But he loved Diana at the start and was a great, hands on father to their children too. Diana loved to pose as the world's best mum in front of press photographers and never gave Charles credit for being a good dad. But while their sons were small, they were a happy family unit.
To be fair to Diana, she was only 19 when she got together with Charles and hardly knew him - they'd met only 13 times before he proposed. It was really a business arrangement on both sides, more than a romantic one (yes, Diana was marrying for the glamour and prestige of becoming Princess of Wales, not because she was madly in love with Charles!)
You need to understand how the royals and aristocracy traditionally conducted such courtships and engagements back then - it was very businesslike! Diana understood the system, went into it with her eyes open, and throughout her life enjoyed huge benefits from being a senior royal by marriage. Her union with the prince delivered everything that was promised to her.
With the 13 year age gap, and their immense differences in personality, experiences and tastes, Charles had no hope of keeping Diana happy, nor she him. Their relationship inevitably had a short shelf life, and could not endure beyond the 5 years it did. That's why it's so unfair and inaccurate to swallow Diana's horribly twisted version of the marriage breakdown as though it were all Charles' fault. That isn't realistic - it takes two people to make a marriage work and to make it implode!
In fact it was neither's fault - it was simply the inevitable failure of an arranged marriage between two totally unsuited people. It's only a shame Diana couldn't have taken that pragmatic view, instead of publicly declaring war on Charles to win a PR fight. She hurt her children terribly by attacking their dad in the media, and ruined her own legacy, because over the years since, the hypocrisy and dishonesty she revealed in pretending she only had one affair with James Hewitt is truly shocking!
She was actually carrying on with many men (some married), from 1985 onwards, with her affair with police bodyguard Barry Mannakee. A more humble, mentally balanced woman might decide not to give a bombshell TV interview slagging of her husband for his one affair, when she knows full well she herself had enjoyed umpteen lovers and was certainly no innocent, wronged wife!
The princess had no real reason to be so bitter and twisted against Charles. The royal family gave her a lifestyle the envy of most people, with unimaginable wealth and privilege - which continued after she received her generous divorce settlement. She treated Charles badly because she was damaged by her parents' divorce and what she saw as her mother's early rejection. In fact her mother had to leave her father because he was abusive, and though she fought for custody of Diana and her other three children, against her powerful, influential husband she had no chance of winning the case. All her life Diana's relationships with people were volatile. She would take offence over petty things, and cut family and friends off without explanation. When she died she was not on speaking terms with either her mother or her brother.
Diana's public attacks on Charles and Camilla were outrageous hypocrisy. Diana was an adulterer many more times than her husband - and unlike Camilla who was mistress to only one man, she was a mistress to several married men, and broke up at least one marriage!
All her life the Queen has retained her dignity by observing the royal family's age-old philosophy 'Never complain, Never explain'. It's a shame Diana didn't follow her classy example. If she had, her reputation today would not be the joke it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yet another red herring, in a police investigation so horribly bungled that 4 years on, the Delphi Murders have achieved Cold Case status. Well done Supt Doug Carter and the rest of the Keystone Cops!
This announcement is further, depressing evidence that police are no closer to identifying the killer of Abby Williams and Libby German after a 4 year investigation. Kegan Kline, the online paedo, was in detectives' sights from the very start. They searched his home straight after the murders in February 2017, but found no connection between him and the victims. If they had, he would have been arrested (and probably charged), in 2017, within weeks of the murders.
From the get-go, Supt Carter said that Libby and Abby's online activity had been forensically studied by experts, and there was no evidence of them communicating with males or arranging to meet anyone on the day they were killed. Obviously that was the first line of inquiry police explored. The findings pointed not to an online predator, but to an opportunist offender, loitering that day looking for a victim/victims, when the girls came into his sights. It was in all likelihood a classic case of 'wrong place, wrong time' for poor Abby and Libby.
Now suddenly 4 years later police do a 360 degree about-turn, and suggest there is a connection between Kline and this notorious, unsolved double child murder. The only problem is - they still haven't found any actual link! So they've launched a public fishing expedition, in hopes someone out there can give them what they can't find for themselves. Frankly I doubt Carter and Co could find their own arse with both hands, if the lights went out.
Under Supt Carter's dubious leadership, this double homicide investigation was mishandled from the start. Supt Carter's ridiculous posturing at the first big press conference (addressing the killer directly, suggesting he was in the room and telling him; "You want to know what we know, and very soon you will", yada, yada), was pointless and preposterous. It certainly didn't inspire confidence. Did he really think a sex killer would have a pang of conscience and give himself up?!
If he wanted to appeal directly to someone, he should have addressed those individuals who undoubtedly recognised the murderer from the video footage. The biggest and best clue handed to police on a plate came from one of the victims, young Libby, whose courage and quick-thinking snagged them video images and audio of the killer. What an amazing girl she was. Who knows what she would have achieved had she lived, and realised her ambition to work in forensics. Libby's brilliant cellphone footage was detectives' best asset, and elevated an already huge crime story to the lead item on every TV bulletin and news website.
Police should have exploited that huge publicity and the chilling video of the suspect to the max, by appealing to individuals out there who inevitably recognised and could identify the man on the bridge. Crucially, had Supt Carter boosted the killer's profile by sharing some additional, unique features of his MO, there was a chance at least one person would know him - and give them his name. The crime scene, and the girls' injuries, must have yielded many clues to the murderer's identity. Were footprints found indicating his shoe size? Could they say he was likely right or left handed? What behaviours did he exhibit, eg had he tied the girls up, and if so, with what? Such a detail shared could mean a light bulb moment for a friend, relative or a previous victim - and that one 911 call that provides a critical piece of the jigsaw.
But with Supt Carter at the helm, police stuck doggedly to their policy of sharing no such details of the killer or crime. Their silence created an information vacuum, and gave the public no opportunities to help identify 'bridge guy'. This policy was and remains incredibly short sighted, and is surely a big factor in this crime remaining unsolved after 4 years. Make no mistake, no crime be it a mugging or mass murder, was ever solved without the public's help! Supt Carter didn't help matters 2 years in, when he revealed a second, totally contrasting artist's impression of the killer, at a news conference so hastily arranged, Libby and Abby's loved-ones were given scant notice of it. Suddenly the suspect, so obviously a middle aged man between 40-55 on the video, was a much younger man in his late teens or twenties.
This latest so-called 'development' of an online suspect who was eliminated in 2017, is nothing of the kind. It's desperate - and only shows cops are still no closer to solving this case. Poor Abby and Libby have not had justice, and ALL women and girls are at risk while this maniac remains on the loose. He will be more emboldened and dangerous than ever, having got away with an audacious double murder, in broad daylight. You don't have to be an criminologist to know he will kill again. Sex killers are the worst recidivists of all, because they are so highly motivated to re-offend. It's not a question of if but when.
The police investigation to date. It's now high time a brand new team of detectives replaced Carter and Co, and the investigation was fully overhauled. Abby and Libby, and every woman and girl, deserve nothing less.
1
-
@gearyll5643 People don't 'feel so repulsive' (I guess you mean repulsed?) by Camilla and Charles, that's nonsense. Only a hardcore of Diana fans like you, drawn to naive pro-Diana videos like this one, express hatred. Most people are totally indifferent, to Charles and Camilla, think they're OK, or really like them.
Charles and Diana's marriage failed not because of Camilla - or any of Diana's many casual lovers for that matter - but because they simply weren't compatible. Half of all marriages fail so it's hardly surprising they split, when they had nothing in common apart from their children. Why was Diana so bitter and twisted against her husband after they drifted apart? She didn't want him, he bored her to tears as she made totally obvious to everyone on their public appearances from the late 1980s. And she was sleeping with umpteen different men (many of them married), so she certainly wasn't mooning after her husband!
She had fallen out of love with Charles, she couldn't care less what he did in his country home Highgrove or with whom, while she was partying in London. She just didn't want to see him happy with Camilla - it was sheer childish spite on her part!
Diana did very well out of her divorce. Charles gave her a generous settlement, she came out of that failed relationship with £17 million in the bank, top VIP status, a Kensington Palace home, a team of servants on call to her 24-7, and two fine sons. Many women emerge from divorce emotionally, financially and sometimes physically battered - so what the hell did Diana have to moan about? A typical narcissist, she loved to present herself as the victim to win public sympathy. Some victim!
A year after her divorce she was wealthy and influential thanks to her marriage to Prince Charles, and still young and beautiful at 36. She had every privileged door open to her, and every chance to meet a man who did make her happy. But she threw away the glittering VIP life Charles gave her, because she chose the company of the shady Al Fayeds, who provided a drunk driver, and she failed to fasten her seat belt.
She was actually flattered by the compliments of those star-struck, social climbing Al Fayeds, believing their flattery was all about her - and failing to see it was actually all about her marriage into senior royalty. They would not have looked twice at her, had she not once had the great good fortune to be proposed to by the Prince of Wales! Diana was so conceited, it obviously never occurred to her the Al Fayeds' interest in her was all about her royal credentials. Why else would they have rolled out the red carpet for her that Summer?
That scheming old toad Mohammed Al Fayed threw his son Dodi at the Princess of Wales like a piece of meat (though he had just got engaged to American model Kelly Fisher), and Diana stupidly took the bait and slept with him. He wasn't even attractive! As the saying goes: 'If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas'.
Diana was the archetypal narcissist who fell in love with her own reflection and brought about her own demise. If she had been the devoted mother she pretended, she'd have thought of her children that night, worn her seat belt and lived to raise her sons to adulthood.
The hilarious irony of it all, is that if she had lived and grown older, losing her looks and charisma (with the new scrutiny of the internet age revealing her true shallow, self serving narcissism), fans like you would have lost interest in her years ago!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@claudiafelicescheuerer463 Absolutely right, and you make a very important point. Physically leaving an abuser must be planned like a military operation! Many women are murdered as they leave, or after their abuser tracked them down to their new destination. The end of the relationship is the most high-risk time for the abuse victim, and statistics prove it's a common trigger for murder. Such men do not handle rejection well.
Brian Laundrie's control issues suggest he feared Gabby's rejection throughout their relationship. I think he persuaded her to move in with him at his parents' house to keep control over her. And the road trip escalated his control, with just the two of them cut off from the world sharing a tiny living space.
Brian has never lived independently of his parents at 23, and there's no record of any proper career in the real world (calling himself an artist does not count!) He's unusually 'stuck' and dependant, for a man in his early twenties. Gabby paid for the van trip and pretty much everything else herself, by working hard waiting tables.
I think there's every chance mommy's-boy Brian was stressed on the road, without the constant proximity of his parents' practical and emotional support. This and his existing narcissism issues, meant his abuse of Gabby escalated to her murder. He was the last person she should have done the 'Van Life' project with! It's horrific how vulnerable she was, trapped alone in a small vehicle with a highly toxic and dangerous sociopath. In that set up she literally had no one to turn to.
That poor young woman, you can see from her extreme distress on the police bodycam how serious and sinister his abuse of her had become. Yet police failed to recognise what was going on, and support her. It breaks my heart her promising young life is over, when it had barely begun. She had so much wonderful potential, and so many profound experiences ahead of her. All stolen from her by a ruthlessly self-centred jerk.
1
-
@shilohaugust6749 You're clearly confused. This is not a court of law, where the presumption of innocence is king. If Brian Laundrie is charged with a crime relating to the homicide of Gabby Petito, he will receive a full and fair trial and the full benefit of that presumption of innocence.
This is a true crime discussion forum, where free speech reigns and people can share opinions, theories and beliefs about all aspects of crimes - including the innocence or guilt of an individual. The strict rules and protocol of the courtroom and due process do not apply on social media. If that offends you, perhaps you shouldn't be here?
It's baffling you think there's 'not one ounce of proof' Brian Laundrie murdered Gabby Petito, when the circumstantial evidence against him indicating just that is stacking up, every day he remains on the run from police! Circumstantial evidence IS evidence - and in fact can be far more compelling than forensic evidence. As a police officer, you should know that.
Gabby Petito was last seen alive with her partner Brian Laundrie. They had a confirmed history of domestic abuse, recently involving police. The last sighting of them was in a restaurant, where he was fighting with staff, and she was in tears.
Laundrie returned to his parents' home in Gabby's van, without her - contrary to the couple's stated plans. He immediately hired a lawyer and refused to speak to police or the distraught Petito family about her whereabouts. He then went missing. Gabby's body was subsequently discovered dumped on park land. The coroner ruled it a homicide.
All of the above is circumstantial evidence, pointing to Brian Laundrie having murdered Gabby Petito. If he emerges from his hiding place alive, I'll bet you £1,000 he's charged with her murder. Make it £10,000 if you like! And people are not charged with murder with 'not one ounce of proof'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OMG he is adorable, I don't know how his previous owners could possibly give him up, I would die first!
So glad he found his wonderful, forever family, with two gorgeous moms and a grandma. What a lucky little boy, and he deserves every bit of it!
Rotten teeth are a big problem with small dogs especially, because bacteria loves small mouths! My gorgeous Maltese had the last of her teeth removed by the vet at age 10. Overnight her breath went from bad, to as sweet as a baby's, and suddenly she no longer had dark tear stains (the bacteria from her mouth must have been affecting her sinuses, tear tracts etc).
At Dr Jeff the TV 'Rocky Mountain Vet' always says - 'No teeth is better than bad teeth!' My Dolly proved it. her mouth healed fast, her gums hardened up, and she was able to eat anything, even steak (cut up small, obviously). Like this little soul, without any teeth to 'cage' her tongue in, it permanently lolled out the side of her mouth, and only made her look cuter!
I lost her aged 13 and a half to a vicious cancer that struck out of the blue. I would give anything for one more day with her. Cherish your beloved animals while you have them, hug, hold and kiss them, show them you love them constantly, and never miss an opportunity to make them happy. Their time with us is so short, and the sad day of parting comes far too soon.
1
-
1
-
@shortallliam3142 Many innocent people have been unfairly hounded, and indeed persecuted, by the media. George Michael was not one of them. GM was a global superstar, instantly recognisable everywhere he went. That top level of fame, wealth and privilege comes with massive advantages enjoyed by only the tiniest, most rarefied minority of VIPs. But it's a double-edged sword, and also has its downside.
Privacy is frequently compromised for stars of GM's stature, because they inevitably attract huge public interest. Public interest equals photographers and journalists following you around - there's a price on your head, because your image has value. It's a fact of life for superstars, which George Michael learned very early on, for he was famous from his late teens as the leading half of 'WHAM!'
However there are many stars who manage to avoid and outwit the media pretty well to protect themselves from unwanted media scrutiny. They focus on maintaining a private life, and work hard to maintain clear boundaries between their private and public personas.
Yes, it is totally possible to live a private life, but you must select choices/priorities which limit the media's access to you. George Michael was not willing to make any such adjustments or compromises in his behaviour whatsoever, to protect his privacy. He expected to engage with, and even to dictate terms to, the media. His position was unrealistic, unreasonable, and beyond entitled!
Clearly cruising/dropping your boxers for public sex with strangers is not conducive to a superstar protecting their own own privacy! That's so blatantly obvious, and George Michael's outrage here so patently absurd, it is utterly laughable. It seems your bull$hit detector's in urgent need of a service.
No wonder George's mouth was as dry as the desert throughout this TV interview. He knew full well he was as full of it as a bull's backside! His whiny self-pity and childish demands to be able to break the law with frequent, public sexual exhibitionism - and be granted a free pass by the press - is frankly embarrassing. The power afforded to him by his fame had clearly gone to his head like strong drink!
Fame does not give stars a special privilege to break the law and be granted anonymity. If that were the case, fame would literally be a 'get out of jail free' card for every celebrity who was ever prosecuted. A long and diverse list of famous criminals/crimes, including Bill Cosby, R, Kelly, Rolf Harris, Martha Stewart, and Jeffrey Archer, (to name but a few), would never have come to public attention. Do you really think journalists should be bound and gagged like that, and have to protect wrongdoers/criminals just because they have celebrity status?
Much as he would have loved to switch off his fame whenever he pleased to enjoy total freedom, not even VIPs on George Michael's level can have their cake and eat it like that. When he said "My music's for sale, my private life is not', that wasn't stupidity, or naivety - Michael was neither gullible nor dumb. It was brazen, arrogant, pathological entitlement. Sex with strangers in public toilets/on Hampstead Heath is not accurately termed 'a private life'. What is done in public, cannot be termed private!
There are two big issues: the first is his obsessive fetish for sex with strangers in public locations. The second is that he hid in the closet for 16 years, and repeatedly, forcefully denied being gay.
Sadly there's no reason to believe he would ever have come out about his true sexuality, of his own volition. If his 1998 arrest for committing a homosexual act in a Los Angeles public toilet hadn't got him arrested and forced him out, he would likely have remained cowering in that closet, betraying the gay community, till the day he died. Not even the private entreaties of famous homosexual friends like Sir Elton John and Gianni Versace could persuade him.
George Michael was actually guilty on two counts, an illegal lewd act, and an extended, 16 year fraud. Only one of those matters was illegal - but the fraud was by far the most heinous crime. His L-O-N-G campaign of silence and blatant lies amounted to a wilful, calculated and horribly cynical deception. He owed the gay community an apology. Clearly he wasn't big enough to deliver it. The very least he owed them was an honest explanation, to answer for his betrayal. Was he ashamed of being homosexual? What exactly was he afraid of, in these enlightened times? Did he fear it would adversely affect his relationships, or his record sales? Was he concerned about his public image? His sermons on homophobia, press intrusion and privacy are blatant attempts at misdirection.
Fact is, if George had not deliberately broken the law but conducted his sexual activity in private, not public locations, behind closed doors (like 99% of people), he would not have had half so much unwanted media attention. Cruising public toilets and parks for random sexual hook ups with total strangers, was high risk, exhibitionism, guaranteed to get him paparazzi/media attention, NOT the private life he claimed was so desperately important to him!
In this interview, George Michael demanded all the perks and privileges of his superstar status, without giving up any of his freedoms, and that just isn't realistic - or indeed, reasonable. There's a price to pay for everything good in this life, yes, even fame, wealth and privilege. That George wanted it all on a plate exactly his way, revealed him to be spoiled, petulant, and horribly entitled. 'Have It Your Way' is a philosophy for Burger King, not for life!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He seems to be suggesting Nicola went off with somebody of her own accord. That makes no sense - she would not have left her beloved dog, her phone, and most important of all, she would not have abandoned her two little girls who need her. It's offensive to her and her family to suggest that.
In the absence of a body, or any other evidence that this woman went into the river, it's now looking almost certain she was ABDUCTED. It was most likely foul play, and now, belatedly, must be fully investigated as such.
Police made a grave mistake in announcing at the start of the investigation 'no crime has been committed'. How could they possibly know? In fact the circumstances of her sudden, totally out of character disappearance were very suspicious!
I hope at today's 15th February media conference police will finally announce Abduction is now their leading theory, and the one they are aggressively investigating. They spent two weeks chasing the drowning theory, which could not be proved. And all that time Nicola may have been held captive in a local building - desperate for help - while police focused exclusively on a river she never went near!
1
-
1
-
How many more vibrant young women out there like Kelsey and Shanann Watts, in love with dangerous males who are plotting their murders without them suspecting a thing? The Frazee and Watts cases are strikingly similar:
Frazee and Chris Watts, devious, manipulative and entirely self-serving covert narcissists. Both secured women way out of their league and committed to them with children. They then got bored (narcissists cannot feel love for others, or emotionally invest in people), so hook up with new women.
They now have a new source of ego-pandering and no longer need the first woman. Deciding those women were inconvenient to them and surplus to their requirements, they have no hesitation in plotting their murders - and in Watts' case, the children's too. Watts wanted rid of the entire family he created with Shanann, to start a new life with his mistress - Frazee however wanted ownership of his child with Kelsey - he was not prepared to share her 50-50 and that was a strong motive to kill her.
Decent men would be honest and end the relationship, admitting they had met another woman. But sly, ruthless Frazee and Watts keep their victims sweet and unsuspecting - so they can overpower and kill them more easily.
Poor Kelsey and Shanann went to their vicious deaths like lambs to the slaughter, never knowing the truth about the men they believed they loved, and never once suspecting the depraved violence they would inflict on them and in Shanann's case, her three babies too.
Ladies - Watch and learn from these cases, please! It could mean the difference between life and death. Frazee and Watts are by no means unique - there are countless more dangerous and very plausible men out there just like them, right now. Respectable men who have never even got so much as a parking ticket - but are more than capable of killing you once you are of no further use to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
UPDATE! Brandon's clothing and remains were found in March 2023, close to where he was last reported to be. Still no official confirmation the remains are his @ July 2023, but there's little doubt it's him.
Another mystery is how he wasn't found during all the official and unofficial searches by police, family and friends. This makes me wonder if he was murdered by police/a police officer. A cop could have removed his body to a different location, wait until it decomposed and couldn't reveal signs of foul play, then replaced it at the crime scene. If there is anything suspicious about the way that body was found, I hope there's no police cover up!
Sadly after 10 years, his body is unlikely to reveal much about his cause of death, or anything else. A tragic, premature death, for a young, much-loved husband, father, son and brother. Brandon should not be disrespected for a drug habit. He was a hard-working man who loved and provided for his children. They must grow up without having many or indeed any memories of their loving daddy.
We may never know if his distressed statements over the phone about being chased, were accurate or the paranoid delusions of a drug-crazed mind. Whether his descriptions were real or imagined, it's clear he believe them to be only too real - and his fear was 100% genuine. There was no hesitation when he told the 911 dispatcher he needed police. A man with a warrant hanging over his head does not request police assistance unless he's in serious trouble! It also tells us he trusted the police to help him - which potentially contradicts the theory the police killed him. I truly puzzling case, which looks highly unlikely to be solved.
1
-
Tragic story. Jazz is a future de-transitioner for sure. Those parents are guilty of the most heinous abuse, and should be serving lengthy jail terms. Only in modern, crazy gender days could this little boy's horrific abuse have gone so far!
Shame on the late Barbara Walters - trans madness was in its first stages, when she visited the Jennings family 20 years ago. She could and should have challenged its crazy, toxic dogma, as a TRUE journalist would! Instead she chose the spineless, 'woke' path of total, unquestioning acceptance - and guaranteed herself a lousy legacy!
If Walters had only done the right thing, some quality, fearless journalism, her work may have protected umpteen little boys and girls like Jazz from being pushed down irreversible pathways to surgeries robbing them forever of all sexual and reproductive function.
No child is 'born in the wrong body'! It is no coincidence that gay and autistic children are disproportionately highly represented among minors who are 'trans identified'.
#LeaveTheKidsAlone #SexNotGender #NonBinaryIsNonsense #WomensRightsAreHumanRights #AdultHumanFemale
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ladytruth303 The term 'frail' was clearly used by the OP in reference to those twisted people who claim Curtis Reeves should have got away with murder because of his advanced age.
Common sense and the unchallenged facts of the case, show at no time was Reeves even remotely 'scared' for his life - because he started that conflict (during the trailers before a damned afternoon matinee), and unbeknown to the other guy, he brought a loaded weapon along to it! With his finger secretly on the trigger, Reeves knew full well he had no reason to fear anyone.
Curtis Reeves is an entitled, arrogant bully who clearly missed the power of his police badge, and spent his retirement as he no doubt spent his career - throwing his considerable weight around and belligerently treating people is if he still was a cop. And it's only too obvious what kind of dirty cop he must have been - the kind of malignant narcissist who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the uniform that gave him immense power over others.
We don't know the half of what that maniac Curtis Reeves got away with in his privileged life! So privileged, that he literally got away with murder. His confident manner in court (complete with prop walking stick), shows he was never in any fear of being convicted and sent to jail either.
It's clear to any reasonable person Reeves is a highly volatile, dangerous individual who was always likely to kill someone, some day. Chad Oulson, an unarmed, law abiding husband and father was the unlucky citizen in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could just as easily have been your husband, son, brother or friend who displeased bullying Curtis Reeves over something trivial and got a bullet to the chest. You'd no doubt be singing a very different tune if it had been your loved one he shot dead in a movie theatre.
If you seriously think Curtis Reeves' behaviour was in any way proportionate or reasonable that day, you have severely stunted critical thinking skills!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Diana was a sly, self-serving, two-faced tramp and hypocrite, who slept around in secret with umpteen men (many of them married), while having the nerve to point the finger at her estranged husband for his one affair with the woman he loved.
Diana only pretended Charles broke her heart, to paint herself as a tragic victim and get sympathy from the public. In truth she couldn't care less who he was sleeping with - she was too busy bedding anything with a pulse - and often, a wedding ring. She had the morals of an alley cat.
If Diana hadn't stupidly got herself killed and had lived into the internet age, the ugly truth about her promiscuity, vindictiveness, lies and bad character would have emerged. And as she inevitably aged and lost her looks, her devoted fans would all have abandoned her - because the truth is, they are even more shallow than she was!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GuessWhooou Well said, an intelligent and insightful post. It was very sad for Prince Charles that as relatively recently as the late 'seventies/early 'eighties, he was forced into an arranged marriage with a 'suitable' girl - ie a much younger, aristocrat/European royal, with absolutely no sexual past.
Such a strictly dictated match was pretty much doomed to failure, and would rightly be regarded as ridiculous today. Not surprisingly it ended in divorce after 15 years, and Charles was finally able to be with the woman he'd loved from a young man in his early twenties, Camilla Parker Bowles.
Thankfully William and Harry were not held to the same restricted choice of life partner as their father, but both married for love. William, whose wife would also some day have to fulfil the role of Queen, got to know Catherine Middleton over many years, and was able to test the relationship before committing to her. After celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary this year, the signs for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's marriage look good.
Arranged marriages rarely work out and the Prince of Wales' was no different. I believe he and Diana both went into the union hoping it would work, despite the fact that (according to her), they'd met only 13 times before their engagement was announced!
They tried, but ultimately both parties were needy and demanding, and neither could provide the emotional support that the other craved.
The 13 year age gap, and the marked difference in personality, education, intellect and experience, made the couple seriously incompatible. They didn't even share a sense of humour! After Prince Harry's birth in 1984 it became clear to both of them that all they shared in common were their children. They began leading separate lives, Charles based at his beloved Gloucestershire home Highgrove House, and Diana at Kensington Palace, London. Whispers grew in the media that it was a marriage in name only. Charles began seeing his lost love Camilla on a regular basis from '86, she lived locally in Gloucestershire, and they were discreet. Meanwhile Diana secretly entertained a cast of dozens of different men at Kensington Palace (some arriving after dark in the boot of her butler's car), though none of her many lovers led to a committed relationship.
Diana exploited her failed marriage as a rich source of public sympathy, and to crucify Charles. She used his affair with old flame Camilla Parker Bowles to blame him 100% for their estrangement - pretending she was heartbroken at 'losing' him, and conveniently 'forgetting' to mention that she herself had enjoyed umpteen secret, casual, sexual flings, to her estranged husband's one, faithful relationship.
Diana lashed out at Camilla for being mistress to one man, when it would later emerge Diana had been mistress to several married men, while still married to Charles, including his old friend Oliver Hoare. In this very 'active' period for Diana, she broke up at least one marriage (Will and Julia Carling's), and threatened the future of others. Her manipulation and hypocrisy were off the scale!
Video and press photos of Charles and Diana's joint public appearances from the late 'eighties until their official separation in 1992, show she was not the loving, devastated wife she portrayed to journalists at all, but a woman who had fallen out of love with her spouse and was heartily bored of him!
Diana's hostile body language and stony-faced silence on foreign tours in particular embarrassed Charles hugely, and showed the world she had absolutely no interest in reconciling with him. Their estrangement and split was totally mutual - though the bombshell BBC 'Panorama' interview she slyly colluded with, gave the impression of a wronged wife betrayed by a faithless husband. Her clearly rehearsed answers and self-pitying tone were eerily reminiscent of her son Harry's recent Oprah Winfrey interview.
Ironically the 'Panorama' debacle backfired on Diana big time, because it prompted the Queen to order the couple to divorce. It seems Diana hadn't seen this consequence of stabbing Charles in the back coming, and was devastated at being 'forced out' of the royal family, as she saw it.
Without any potential new husband on the horizon, Diana had no incentive to divorce - being the separated wife to Prince Charles suited her just fine, giving her the high status she loved, without having to live with him or pretend to be a couple. The supposedly humble and down to earth Diana was devastated at losing her HRH title, as happens to all royal divorcees, meaning the public no longer had to bow or curtsy to her. That losing HRH bothered her so much, is a glimpse of how out-of-control her ego really was!
She emerged from the divorce in 1996 with two fine sons, the title Princess of Wales, her multi-million pound Kensington Palace apartment, top VIP status around the world, a large team of servants and £17 million in the bank. Some victim!
Diana did not however take away the team of Scotland Yard trained security guards and driver which the Queen offered her around the clock, for life, on her divorce. Diana's former mother-in-law believed she deserved that level of top class personal protection as mother to William, the heir to the throne. The royal family would have picked up the bill for Diana's world class protection, in perpetuity.
But Diana declined the Queen's generous offer. She did not even hire her own security team, as she could well afford to do with her mega divorce settlement. The Princess was one of the most famous and photographed public figures on the planet. If she had only addressed her own pressing need for a professional security team after her divorce, she would not have died in Paris on August 31st 1997.
Diana went into her marriage to Prince Charles with her eyes wide open, and firmly fixed on the prize. And though she would in time discover she didn't want her husband or the role of his Queen, she grabbed all the other glittering prizes that came with the marriage. Diana ultimately succeeded in her mission to become a global superstar through joining the royal family. Though childishly upset about no longer being HRH, had she lived she'd have found that omission didn't impact on her privileged existence one iota.
Diana was not a victim until she tragically made herself one that fateful night in Paris, through her own poor choices. Socialising with the shady Al Fayed family (whose lousy reputation spoke for itself), handing over full responsibility for her personal safety to them, then failing to wear her seat belt on her final journey, directly caused her death by misadventure, aged 36.
1
-
1
-
'Cometh the Hour, Cometh the WOMAN!' #AdultHumanFemale ♀💋♀💋♀
Thank God for the magnificent Kellie-Jay Keen, the perfect, inspirational, take-no-prisoners leader, as Women & Girls face this horrific, trans-terrorist #WarOnWomen.
We will not submit and we are strong. Nonetheless, with so much trans male violence now rearing its ugly head, it's time more Males who support us made their voices heard, and showed up at Live events. One of the biggest shocks in this gender-Gaga takeover, is that shamefully, females can no longer rely on the police to keep them safe from male assaults!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's plainly obvious why Indiana Police don't want the second, clean-shaven, much younger suspect sketch (which they produced to media fanfare at a sudden press conference, two years after the murders), shown in court. That second sketch was way off the mark and a major mistake on their part, and exposes what an utter farce their murder investigation was!
The first suspect sketch, of a bearded, older/middle aged man, is of course far more like the suspect seen in Libby's Smartphone video, and is far more like Richard Allen.
Under Supt Doug Carter, the police investigation into the Delphi killings was a total shambles. Indiana Police were inexperienced at handling a crime of this magnitude. Only by re-visiting the evidence from ground zero five years on, in 2022, did law enforcement realise their huge error. They'd let the killer Richard Allen slip through their fingers from the start.
Incredibly, Allen presented himself to authorities immediately after the murders, and stated he'd been on the bridge/at the crime scene at the time of the murders, and was wearing the same clothes seen in Libby's video. He was confessing to being the man in that video, while denying he was the killer! No doubt he was terrified of capture, after seeing himself on that video, on TV news reports.
Of course police should have formally interviewed him at that time, as a result of his significant admission. If they had, he'd have been arrested and charged with the two murders, within 2 weeks. Police mistakes are the reason this infamous crime went unsolved for a staggering five years.
1
-
It's plainly obvious why Indiana Police don't want the second, clean-shaven, much younger suspect sketch (which they produced to media fanfare at a sudden press conference, two years after the murders), shown in court. That second sketch was way off the mark and a major mistake on their part, and exposes what an utter farce their murder investigation was!
The first suspect sketch, of a bearded, older/middle aged man, is of course far more like the suspect seen in Libby's Smartphone video, and is far more like Richard Allen.
Under Supt Doug Carter, the police investigation into the Delphi killings was a total shambles. Indiana Police were inexperienced at handling a crime of this magnitude. Only by re-visiting the evidence from ground zero five years on, in 2022, did law enforcement realise their huge error. They'd let the killer Richard Allen slip through their fingers from the start.
Incredibly, Allen presented himself to authorities immediately after the murders, and stated he'd been on the bridge/at the crime scene at the time of the murders, and was wearing the same clothes seen in Libby's video. He was confessing to being the man in that video, while denying he was the killer! No doubt he was terrified of capture, after seeing himself on that video, on TV news reports.
Of course police should have formally interviewed him at that time, as a result of his significant admission. If they had, he'd have been arrested and charged with the two murders, within 2 weeks. Police mistakes are the reason this infamous crime went unsolved for a staggering five years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mona2242 You're obsessed with Diana's self-promoting lies, as repeated umpteen times from her crummy Andrew Morton book and the infamous Panorama interview. Can't you think for yourself?
All this garbage about Charles 'using' her to have his children - Diana was only too happy to fulfil her side of the bargain and become a mother - what else was she going to do with her life, she had no career ambition and no qualifications!
She didn't marry Prince Charles for love, but for the fame and VIP status of becoming Princess of Wales. She got a hell of a lot out of that marriage! And wasn't she always pushing herself to the media as a devoted mother (despite sending both boys to boarding school at just 8 years old)?
You can't have it both ways, claiming Diana was a 'slave' forced to have babies against her will one minute, and arguing she adored parenthood the next - which was it?!
Crazy how you make out Diana was somehow 'used' - on the contrary, she used her prestigious husband for all the fabulous perks she could get out of the senior royal status he gave her - she loved being a princess! And she was given a team of servants at her beck and call, including nannies to help raise her kids - she didn't even have to get up with them in the night if she didn't want to. William and Harry never inconvenienced their mother too much. She was totally spoiled.
Any woman who can send her children to boarding school aged just 8 is pretty heartless if you ask me. But obviously Diana didn't want her children at home getting under her feet, while she entertained umpteen extra marital affairs with unsuitable men behind her husband's back (many of those men married themselves!)
Diana was a scheming, hard-faced adulterer, who had a damn nerve pointing the finger at her husband for his ONE affair when she was sleeping with MANY different lovers, often simultaneously. She had the morals of a Tom cat.
1
-
1
-
Anne Diamond always looks like she's on the brink of orgasm when she's gossiping about the royals. Pathetic how excited she is at the mere mention of William, Harry and the rest, she's like an elderly fan-girl!
This isn't news - when Harry emigrated with his wife (after they'd enjoyed a lavish, taxpayer-funded wedding under false pretences), and stuck two fingers up to the family Firm, he ceased to be relevant in the UK.
The UK media know precisely nothing about the royals, as became crystal clear when Harry revealed in his memoirs that he and his brother were never close. Prior to that admission, our press had sold William and Harry to the public as being thick as thieves, loyal siblings, with an unbreakable bond. WRONG! In fact they have a long history of animosity and petty resentments - entirely unbeknown to every supposed 'royal expert', correspondent and biographer.
Turns out spoiled brat Harry has always been jealous of his big brother, and had a big chip on his shoulder about being the younger, non-heir to the throne. And thank God he was, or we'd have had a repeat of the abdication, with him buggering off to the US with his American divorcee, throwing William in the hot seat.
Good riddance to Harry, like his late mother a narcissistic brat with a persecution complex, and zero loyalty to the bloodline that gave him his stupendous wealth and privilege.
1
-
@quantisedspace7047 Some events are a conspiracy. But not every event is a conspiracy. I have heard no theory implicating the McCanns in their child's disappearance that stands up to scrutiny or makes any sense.
Unfortunately the couple behaved recklessly in the wholly inadequate childcare arrangements they stuck to in Portugal night after night (as did the other adults in their party). In addition both Kate and Gerry McCann present poorly in TV interviews. He appears dominant, brittle, arrogant and charmless, she seems dominated, neurotic and frankly too damn thin for our public perception of a cuddly, loving mother.
We just don't like them. Combine that with their obvious self-serving irresponsibility in leaving their small children unchaperoned to hang out with adults at a tapas bar, and you have a PR disaster for these victims of crime.
And there's no doubt in my mind the McCanns are victims - regardless of the almighty mistakes they made which caused Madeleine's and their victimhood. Almost 16 years later, the only credible explanation for this child's disappearance is she was abducted from her bed by a stranger. And the only hope there can be, is that the motive was more benevolent, than criminal, and she will turn up some day alive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sounds like you admire him! Ted Bundy wasn't complex, he was a sad excuse for a man. A misogynist killer of females, and a necrophile so sexually inadequate, he preferred intercourse with dead bodies he could totally dominate. He passed as a normal guy, and for that has a level of fame he doesn't deserve.
Over the years Ted Bundy has been glamorised by the media to a ludicrous degree. He's presented as some sort of genius with an Enstein-like IQ, and the good looks and charisma of a young Cary Grant. The reality is far more mundane. In fact Bundy didn't make the grades to get into law school, and only bagged a place thanks to letters of recommendation by Republican big-wigs he'd sucked up to as an unpaid intern.
Once he'd attended a few lectures it rapidly dawned on him he was in way over his head, his fellow students were miles ahead of him, and he would never qualify as the hot-shot lawyer he fantasised about becoming. Soon he abandoned his studies altogether, and turned to murdering women full time.
There's considerably less to Ted Bundy than meets the eye! Thank God the loser had his date with the electric chair. If he were still alive he'd be boring the arse off everyone talking about his dickless, cowardly self to any interviewer/YouTuber who would have him.
1
-
1
-
True, it's crazy how people are saying there has to be a connection of some kind between Kegan Kline the pervert who cat-fished Libby online, and Richard Allen the alleged predator who murdered her and Abby. Why? There are perverts and abusers everywhere!
Even the late Ron Logan who owned the land the girls were killed on had a history of violence against women. Depending on your exact location, wherever you reside in America, chances are you have at least 200 registered sex offenders living within 5 miles of your home. And that's before you consider all the perverts and abusers who've never been charged with any crime, and exist under the radar as supposedly 'respectable citizens' (Richard Allen is in this category). There are at least as many, if not more, of them!
In all likelihood Libby and Abby were in the wrong place at the wrong time, targeted by a total stranger in an opportunist attack. Their killer was looking for a vulnerable, lone female to attack. When he saw the girls, he calculated they were young enough to scare and subdue with threats of a weapon.
So-called 'Stranger murders, in which the only link between victim and perpetrator is the crime, are notoriously the hardest to solve. That fact will no doubt be used by police to excuse their near-six years of failure to catch the man. However, the police said from the start they thought the killer was local and quote: '...hiding in plain sight'. Which only makes their bungled search for him even harder to understand!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emilerose1424 I'm a British journalist of over 30 years experience (NCTJ qualified, employed on national newspapers and as a TV producer). My view on this issue is about journalism standards, not 'anger' or emotion.
Consistency should always be the watchword, in reporting serious crimes. If a total stranger had been charged with this woman's murder, the suspect's photo would typically be shown by the media. I see no reason for that standard to be abandoned because the alleged killer is related to the victim. Why should murderers get a free pass on public identification, because they killed a family member?
That there are so many comments here from people asking why no photo of the suspect was shown (though the victim's image was shown more than once), confirms that omission is not the norm.
I believe that the same rules should apply to reporting/identifying ALL murder suspects, regardless of their relationship with the victim. Why is it important that murder suspects are identified? Because justice must not only be done in such grave cases, it must also be seen to be done. As a journalist, I believe the accurate, uncensored reporting of serious crime by a free press is a crucial part of that justice process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I met Huw Edwards 20 years ago when I was a TV producer and booked him to appear as a talking head on a prime time TV show. We'd hired a suite in a big hotel to do his interview.
I recall he bounced in and immediately dominated the room, holding court to the male camera crew, and ignoring the women present. As the producer I was his first point of contact, and had to brief him about the job he was there to do. He was very dismissive, like he'd done it all before, and was far too important to be briefed. As soon as I'd said my piece he turned back to the guys, who were his focus for the rest of the afternoon.
He was all about the anecdotes and wisecracks, name-dropping shamelessly and putting famous people down to score laughs. He also talked a lot about sports. It was all very macho. I found him utterly charmless, and very much a man's man.
I would have liked to hear Dr Raj Persaud talk more about the stark difference between Huw Edwards' public and private personas. I think it's significant that he was always so deadpan on TV - not only when reading the news, but in general. He rarely showed any sense of humour or spontaneity. Despite being a household name as the BBC's top news anchor, it was a highly controlled public image, and he gave nothing away.
That's absolutely not how he behaves off-camera, when he's very 'hail fellow well met', laddish and even gossipy. I suspect the dramatic division between his telly profile and the way he acts in person, reflects his double life as a paedophile sex predator. He was reigned in and buttoned up when the cameras were on him, due to a profound and deep-seated fear of his true character being revealed - which of course has now come to pass.
I got the impression of a self-serving man, who always has his eye on the main chance. The sort who will only talk to you at a party until someone more important walks in - their gaze is permanently directed somewhere over your shoulder, awaiting that moment.
Jeremy Vine was very taken aback one day when a TV colleague asked him: "Why does Huw (Edwards) hate you so much?" JV had hitherto been under the impression he and HE were old friends! The colleague then told him he'd recently had lunch with Edwards, and he'd launched into an angry tirade about various presenters, Vine included, and why he loathed them.
BBC colleagues said Edwards bullied everyone he worked with, including his bosses! I believe his toxic, domineering personality is the reason he got away with his now well-documented predatory behaviour towards young male colleagues - and no doubt umpteen other professional transgressions.
Television builds these autocue readers up into gods, and makes monsters of them. I've seen it with my own eyes (Jonathan Ross and Jeremy Clarkson spring instantly to mind). TV executives are scared of 'the talent', and never say no to them. Is it surprising these narcissists come to believe the rules don't apply to them - or that the Beeb continued to pay Edwards' inflated salary, even after he was arrested on child porn offences?
Incidentally, no one should think this phenomenon is unique to the BBC. I've seen it at umpteen different TV companies, as the Phillip Schofield scandal/cover up confirms.
1
-
What a massive own-goal Holly's sickly-sweet, fake, blatantly backstabbing speech was! If she cared a damn about her supposed 'bessie mate' Phil, she'd have replied to his text just to say 'Hope you're OK'. But as he revealed last week - she's totally blanked him. The woman is no friend! She's a ruthlessly ambitious and self-serving wolf in sheep's clothing.
The public has now seen the REAL Holly Willoughby - and it sure ain't pretty! She's a blatant liar (of course she knew about her co-host's FIVE YEAR affair with the tea boy - everyone on 'This Morning' and elsewhere - knew!)
And what's more, she blatantly conspired with Schofield and ITV bosses in the cover-up, with the cynical 'coming out' stunt on the sofa. That suspiciously sudden announcement was purely damage-limitation to protect Schofield, when his spurned 34-years-younger lover threatened to go to The Sun. Holly was fully aware of the whole, grubby story - and the REAL reason he had to 'come out'!
This morning, Holly unwittingly gave Phillip Schofield his best chance of coming back to replace her - because after that cynical, blatantly false and self-serving speech, Phil looks positively saintly!
1
-
@angelajohnson5728 Wrong again - my posts aren't based on rumour - they're well informed, accurate and personally sourced from my time as a British national newspaper reporter and feature writer in the 'nineties when 'The War of the Waleses' - as Charles and Diana's split was dubbed - was the number one media obsession.
I met and interviewed many people close to both Charles and Diana. It soon became clear Diana was a very different character to the innocent, wronged wife and victim she was so fond of playing to the media. Her outrageous behaviour after married lover Oliver Hoare dumped her is particularly revealing. As far as I'm aware the full story of Diana's stalking campaign against Hoare and his wife Diane - and the couple's joint fightback - hasn't been published. I've shared aspects of it on these threads. It's pretty shocking, and doesn't reflect well on the Princess as a woman or a mother!
I've no doubt had she lived and been exposed to the massive additional scrutiny of the internet age, Diana's popularity would have plummeted as the vindictive woman behind the fake image inevitably emerged. The public was wising up to her before she died. In the last weeks of her life her obvious media manipulation as she posed for photos with an Arab playboy, wasn't serving her well. But she'd sacked any PR team worth a damn, and wouldn't take advice even from friends who were seasoned media players. Her narcissism was always going to be her downfall, one way or another.
Had she survived beyond menopause, the Diana fans so loyal to her today would have lost interest in her years ago. Their loyalty is largely because she died at 36, before her false narratives about herself could be fully exposed (eg the umpteen casual, adulteress affairs she hid from the public, while she crucified Charles and Camilla), and before she lost her physical looks.
Diana's fan club would have abandoned her en masse when bad behaviour and increasing evidence of her spiteful nature emerged (eg explosive fights with her sons as they became adults, just as she had become estranged from other close family members), but most unforgivable of all, as she aged. Her fans are possibly even more shallow than she was!
Obviously my words will fall on deaf ears with you, a Diana fan, who prefers to cling to the fictitious self image she created. C'est la vie!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robin was making the point that an affair does not make a man a better spouse or father, as the dumb woman on the stage claimed. Of course it doesn't - if a man is cheating, he is putting his time, emotion, energy and resources outside of the family home, which only makes him a worse husband and father. Make no mistake, if he's having an affair he is cheating on his children too.
Guys like him who cheat don't deserve the joys of fatherhood. Being a parent is not a right, it is a privilege. If you are in a committed relationship and fall in love with someone else, be honest with your partner and LEAVE. Don't hang around, lying to them, cheating on them (and your kids), and 'having your cake and eating it too'. That isn't fair, and it isn't the way a MAN behaves.
But looking at him sitting there, a middle aged loser dressed like a 25 year old, it's clear he isn't a man - he's an idiot man-child. One day when he's old and lonely and his kids don't want to know him, he may regret prioritising girlfriends over them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loralieisa That's interesting, I would love to hear your reasons for having doubts about Allen's guilt. Is it the new evidence about a cult, or did you doubt before?
I do, on balance, think Allen is 'Bridge Guy', and therefore is the killer. The chances of him being on the Monon High Trails, and crucially on the Bridge at the exact date and time as the crime unfolded (by his own admission), are slim, and that alone is powerful evidence of his guilt IMO.
I think it was Libby's Smartphone video of the killer, that will ultimately get him locked up for life. Because he only confessed to being there at the material time because he knew that video existed, and felt he had to 'get ahead' of that damning evidence of his presence.
It's bizarre he pretty much gave himself up the day after the crime, yet police failed to interview him for almost six years!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andyc6542 It was a heinous abuse of power by Phillip Schofield - in terms of both his 33 years greater age, and his fame, power and wealth.
He groomed Matthew McGreevy from the first day he met him as a star-struck TEN YEAR OLD little boy! He got him a job on 'This Morning', took him to London's swankiest celebrity haunts, had a professional showreel made for him, and did it all right in the faces of everyone who worked on the show.
ITV executives enabled Schofield to do that, and determinedly covered it up and protected him from consequences for EIGHT YEARS!
That is NOT the definition of a 'consensual relationship'. It's the classic behaviour of a sexual predator. After the paedophile crimes of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and the rest, it is an outrage ITV tolerated Schofield's grubby conduct for a nanosecond. As soon as it became clear Schofield was having a sexual relationship with that young man he had groomed for years (behind his wife's back), he should have been out on his ear.
If ITV had done the right thing and fired Schofield years ago, you can be sure Holly Willoughby would not have stood by him for a second, she would have condemned him outright! But because the ITV line from the start was to protect Schofield, she went along with it 100% and was fully complicit in the cover up of the affair.
Holly hosted that farcical 'coming out' stunt on the 'This Morning' sofa - which she knew full well was a cynical, manufactured smokescreen to save Schofield's career and image after he'd thrown that young man to the wolves. Holly Willoughby's career should not survive this mess, any more than Schofield's should - she's up to her neck in the lies and duplicity!
1
-
1
-
Kay and Larry are such good people! Justice at last - Thank God, and Praise Be to God. Poetic justice indeed, on the eve of Mothers Day weekend!
It can't bring back their murdered grandson JJ, or sweet, 16-year-old Tylee, or the fine upstanding Charles Vallow or decent, deceived Tammy Daybell. But it's a critical start!
Lori will die in a cage, as she deserves - a highly manipulative and dangerous killer. Soon her diabolical accomplice Chad will get the same verdict, we prayI
'Take what you want, said God - Take it, and PAY FOR IT! ✌✌✌
1
-
@tamicyrusOUproud Amen! GLARING police mistakes in the Delphi case, are one of the most shocking, heinous, and blatant cases of police incompetence in modern criminal history.
I believe once Richard Allen's murder trial has concluded early next year (2024), Delphi cops will be exposed and discredited - and specifically, their boss on this notorious double child murder case, DOUG CARTER, will finally be held publicly accountable and fully disgraced, exactly as he deserves.
Doug Carter is an utter buffoon, and is not fit for purpose as a senior law enforcement officer - as has been plainly obvious at every public media conference he's hosted on this globally infamous crime. To date he is extremely lucky the relatives of the two murdered girls have not challenged his shocking ineptitude.
Supt Carter is a perfect example of a man promoted far above his abilities. It's no exaggeration to say he could not be trusted to hand out parking penalties.
That Carter is STILL in charge of the Delphi child murder case is an appalling insult to its victims, Liberty German (14), and Abigail Williams (13). Those children lost their whole lives - and for almost FIVE YEARS Richard Allen, undoubtedly the man who killed them for sexual kicks in a public place, in broad daylight - a crime scene he lived a mere 5 minute drive from - believed he had got away with it. With good reason - the Keystone Cops were clueless!
The scary thing is Richard Allen nearly did get away with it, thanks to unbelievable police failings. Utterly shameful!
The Delphi child murders will go down in history as a disgusting and totally inexcusable police failure. We can only hope Richard Allen did not kill any more girls or women, in the five years he enjoyed at liberty after committing this outrageous double child homicide. Who knows if he killed again in that time? Frankly if he did, Carter & Co wouldn't have the first idea!
1
-
@Red4banger Yes the conservation officer who spoke with Richard Allen right after the murders obviously bears heavy responsibility for not following up.
However he did follow correct procedure at the time, and he did place the report of his encounter with Allen in the right way. It's significant that police did not blame him personally in their subsequent explanation, following Allen's almost 5-years-delayed arrest, but instead blamed a 'clerical error'.
If police could have scapegoated that man for what was an enormous mistake with horrifying potential consequences (more murders), they absolutely would have done!
There is something seriously amiss with police procedure/its implementation, when they omit to do that most basic thing of accounting for all persons present at the Monon High Bridge/surrounding trail area, on the date and relevant time of the murders.
It truly beggars belief they did not - particularly when Richard Allen even said he was on the bridge itself at the exact same time as the two victims (yet claimed he didn't see them at any point), and was wearing the exact same clothing seen on 'Bridge Guy' on Libby's Smartphone video. He was clearly trying to explain his presence there, knowing he had been captured on video!
After Allen's trial has concluded, there had better be full accountability by police (and that buffoon Supt Doug Carter in particular) for their shocking, 5-year incompetence in the Delphi Murders investigation. The victims and the public deserve nothing less!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you judge everyone by their looks? Wow how shallow are you! You just revealed a lot about yourself, and nothing about Camilla, who is a great woman, and far kinder, nicer, funnier and more decent that grotty, vain, vacuous Diana ever was.
Diana was a promiscuous home-wrecker, who had no conscience about bedding other women's husbands. She should have had revolving doors fitted to her bedroom. Her sexual adventures with umpteen unsuitable men made Camilla look like a nun!
Diana couldn't care less who or what her husband did - she was too busy seducing any man with a pulse (and often, a wedding ring). She was a damned hypocrite pointing the finger at Charles and Camilla, while she was sneaking around and hiding all her grubby sexual flings from the media.
The promiscuous Princess may have been a virgin when she married, but she soon made up for it! The two-faced tramp had a nerve saying there were "Three people" in the marriage - she knew damn fine there were WAY more than three, as she 'forgot' to mention all her own casual shags - many of them like Barry Mannakee, Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, married men!
You dopey Diana fans are so gullible! She was a stupid slapper who got herself killed running around Paris with a cokehead playboy, because she forgot she had two kids and failed to act responsibly and fasten her seat belt. She's been worm-food for a quarter of a century - Get over it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is outrageous and disgusting - I can't listen to the utter crock his defence lawyer came out with to get him off life in prison. It's totally obvious that attorney doesn't believe a single word that's coming out of his own mouth!
Gareth Pursehouse is such a vile PoS, he won't even own what he did like a man. Instead he's a man-child, who fights to avoid responsibility with a Not Guilty plea, and needlessly puts Dr Aimie Harwick's loved-ones through further pain.
I don't know how his defence team can sleep at night, insulting the memory of a heinously stalked and murdered woman. Amie was a fantastic, vital and much loved human being, doing good things in the world. She was ambushed, strangled and thrown to her death, in her own home, just because she told her killer 'No'. Her last moments alive, knowing her worst fears had come true, are the stuff of horror films.
Women are allowed to say no to men. Women are allowed to reject men. Women can even break men's hearts, hurt and disappoint them - it's allowed. Everyone gets rejected sometime, most people handle it and move on.
What isn't allowed, is those men deciding murder is the best way to heal their hurt pride. Pursehouse is such an arrogant, controlling narcissist he would not let her be happy without him, but decided if he couldn't have her, no one else would.
It's hard to know what else Aimie could have done to keep herself safe. Her inner woman's intuition told her this creep was a very real and serious danger to her. That she wrote herself that email, outlining his weird, hysterical conduct at the red carpet event, shows exactly how terrified she was.
She improved her locks, bought pepper spray, and alerted her male housemate to the danger of her ex boyfriend turning up, uninvited. I struggle to understand why he didn't investigate when he heard a crash inside the house (Pursehouse breaking through the French doors). If he'd only realised Pursehouse had broken in, hours before Aimee's return and called police, she would have had a warning and would be alive today.
And for some reason her housemate didn't have a phone that night. When he heard her being attacked, he had to go to the next door neighbour's house to call 911. It's not the housemate's fault Aimie was murdered, that's down to Gareth Pursehouse alone. But I can't help wishing he'd been on rather higher alert, after Aimie had asked him to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jennifer Soto offered her daughter up on a silver platter to that paedophile, to do his worst - and he did. For years she let that creep go to bed with her precious, defenceless little girl, and have full, unsupervised access to her. It is plainly obvious she knew he was sexually abusing Maddie, and she was clearly absolutely fine with it.
Jennifer Soto actively enabled her child's rape and murder, she must get proper jail time for her criminal child neglect. Her crocodile tears in front of police are all for herself. She's a poor excuse for a mother. Child neglect is child abuse, and this is some of the worst category. Make an example of her - prosecute and lock her up!
Bad enough she opened up their home to that lazy parasite who contributed nothing (Madeline told her counsellor he ate all their food, and made her feel uncomfortable). That alone is a red flag that Madeline's needs/wishes were zero priority to her mother. Why did she let him move in at all?
What the hell did Jennifer Soto even get from that relationship? Sterns spent no money on them, in fact he was a drain on their family resources, and was even suspected of stealing from them, eg Maddie's birthday cash (he made a habit of this, he stole money and jewellery from his parents too). Jennifer obviously didn't even want to sleep with him - she pushed that chore onto her innocent child.
She's obviously one of those pathetic women who must have a boyfriend at any cost, for appearance's sake. She can't bear to be single for 2 minutes, even when being single is a far better option than dating a man who is not only a creepy misfit and loser, but is abusing and endangering your child!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed - this so-called 'professional' and her blatantly pro Amber Heard, anti Johnny Depp bias made me so angry I had to switch off! The way she slandered him as a rapist made my blood boil. In truth, the evidence to date has roundly rejected any such notion, showing instead that Amber Heard abused Johnny Depp in every possible way - she trashed his good name, lost him lucrative acting roles, put him in hospital, regularly physically and emotionally abused him, and even defecated in his bed!
Amber Heard's betrayal of all the REAL female victims of domestic abuse out there is utterly sickening. Her heinous lies about Johnny Depp and her own, hideous domestic abuse against him, have done ALL women a terrible disservice. And in taking Heard's money to prop up her lies, this female psychologist has kicked women in the teeth a second time!
I hope she never lives down this disgraceful performance on the stand backing Heard, and it loses her any shred of professional credibility she had (though she's so unimpressive and unlikable, I struggle to believe she ever did have any!)
As it is, most women don't report domestic abuse for fear they won't be believed. Now Heard has made it doubly difficult, because she has helped perpetuate the misogynist myth that women invent stories about men abusing them. On the all too rare occasions females report and prosecute abusive males, the vast majority are telling the truth.
Women rarely lie about this stuff. But spoiled, narcissistic Amber Heard had many self-serving reasons to invent her abuse claims against superstar Johnny Depp. As Dr Curry the impressive psychologist who did Heard's testing confirmed, she faked symptoms of PTSD but in fact has toxic personality disorders explaining her vile abusive history.
Just look at the timing of the libellous op-ed written in Heard's name (she was too lazy to have even written it herself!) She stipulated it must be published to coincide with the release of her 'Aquaman' movie - in other words, it was all about self promotion, bolstering her career and presenting herself as a heroine of the 'Me Too' movement by lying about Johnny Depp.
As his lawyer Ben Chew said today - no one would be interested in an article by Amber Heard, she's still a little known actress, despite her past association with superstar Depp. So she cynically libelled her famous ex husband to get the publicity she craves! Clearly if he hadn't sued her, she would have continued to dine out on his name by constantly trashing him in the media.
Ditto the restraining order she took out against Depp right after he told her the marriage was over (thanks to 'PooGate'). He had left the US on a European tour, so was thousands of miles away from her. She had no reason to fear him harassing her - and of course she didn't, she clearly took that action to paint him as an abuser and get maximum bucks out of him in the divorce settlement.
I pray justice prevails in this high profile court case. Johnny has already won in the court of public opinion. But after the years of toxic abuse and defamation he has suffered from Amber Heard, he deserves to nail her lies once and for all and fully restore his good name. The reputations of Amber Heard and all who supported her abuse and pathological lies should be forever stained!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@celerityk3228 Today most trans identified men ARE straight - that's the problem! The numbers of trans women have exploded in the last 20 years, because the category is now filled with straight, transvestite men ie cross-dressing males.
A quick Google search will confirm They used to be accurately termed transvestites or autogynephiles - it is a sexual fetish, focused on wearing female attire some or all of the time, eg Eddie Izzard.
But now these transvestite men are calling themselves transgender, for all the 'woke' points, privileges and victim status a fashionable 'trans' tag gets them. And inevitably, some dangerous, predatory straight men are exploiting a 'trans woman' identity to access victims.
Most women very sensibly, do not want any men invading their female-only spaces including ladies toilets, changing rooms, female hospital wards, domestic violence shelters and women's prisons. Single sex spaces matter for women - and for men too for that matter, who value privacy from females in the gents for example. But for females, the issue of safety for women and girls is of course paramount. But female-only spaces are also enshrined in law for the privacy and dignity of females.
Do you want to sit on the loo with a biological male occupying the cubicle next to yours? Do you want your 12-year-old daughter to see a man (in make up and wig) strip naked in front of her at the local swimming pool's ladies changing room, exposing his penis (over 90% of today's 'trans women' have a penis they've no wish to lose).
How would you feel if your frail, elderly mother discovered a man in drag was in the hospital bed next to hers - though she'd been told by NHS staff it was a female-only ward?
Statistically, over 90% of today's 'trans women' retain their male genitals, and have no plans for any surgery to change that. Pair that with the fact most trans identified men (trans women) today are heterosexual/attracted to females, and you have a clear potential risk of harm to women and girls.
Modern supposed 'trans rights' (which are actually trans demands/privileges), impact negatively on the rights of women and girls, child safeguarding, and gay rights in multiple different ways.
Women were overwhelmingly supportive of so-called 'trans women' (biological men), until they took the inch we gave them, and demanded a further mile (as entitled males tend to do). It wasn't enough for them to be respected as trans women - they soon demanded to be called women, exactly the same as biological women, and to have access to exactly the same legal rights and protections as biological females - hence they want to walk into our M&S ladies changing rooms unchallenged, just because they say they 'identify' as female (whatever that means).
Slogans like 'Trans Women Are Women', 'No Debate', and 'Acceptance without Exception' have been rolled out - meaning no one is allowed to even mildly question this domineering, male supremacists gender cult.
No mammal can change sex. Never happened, never will. Men remain male from birth til death, and no amount of synthetic hormones, surgery or make up will change it. As there's no question a significant minority of ALL men are a danger to women and children, however they 'identify', there should be no question of male born 'trans women' invading female, single sex spaces.
Trans identified male prisoners are several times more likely to be in jail for violent or sexual offences, than non trans prisoners. Even more reason why trans identified men should not be placed in women's prisons! Unbelievably, right now there are dangerous convicted sex offenders in female British prisons. These men persuaded a judge they were 'too vulnerable' to go to a men's prison, with other men.
Those judges prioritised rapists' claimed vulnerability in male prisons, above the genuine vulnerability of women whose female prisons are invaded by male sex offenders! It's outrageous - what about the rights of women not to be locked up with violent men? It is not the responsibility of women to be human shields to stop men attacking each other! Males must take responsibility for their own male violence.
Last year in the middle of the night, a sick woman was raped on a British NHS hospital ward she'd been told by the nurses was female-only. When police investigated the rape, medical staff initially told them the attack could not have happened, as the ward was women-only. When pressed by the detectives, they finally admitted the ward had contained one 'trans woman' - ie a male bodied, biological male, who none of the vulnerable women had been informed was among them! That man has now been charged with rape. How would you feel if that was your frail mother or grandmother, pinned down in her hospital bed and raped? Would you accept the slogan 'Trans Women Are Women'?
Trans Women are Con Men!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes the evidence of Kathy Friday's son showed her affair with Propokovitz DID start months before he murdered his wife. That affair was his motive to kill Victoria, that is why he involved his girlfriend in lying to the authorities under oath about when they got romantically involved. Kathy wound up convicted of perjury, a very serious criminal offence which would have landed her in jail - but she committed suicide in custody before she could be sentenced.
The defence claim that Victoria Propokivitz, who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home in the dark and killed herself, yet her body was never found, is ridiculous. Suicide victims' remains are generally found - murder victims often aren't, because their killer worked hard to dispose of them.
Victoria was a proud woman, who would not have left home without her dentures, the person who would leave those at home was her husband, because, as he told a fellow prison inmate, they would identify her body if found with her.
And her daughter testified she was a chain smoker, who would never be without her cigarettes even if she was planning to commit suicide. She testified if her mom walked out the house to kill herself, they would have found a trail of cigarette butts marking her route.
1
-
1
-
BRAVO! Megyn Kelly has the BEST analysis of the Depp-Heard result. She's 100% correct - this was a total victory for Johnny Depp, the jury made it clear they didn't believe a word that came out of Amber Heard's mouth!
Depp's victory has got nothing to do with him being the bigger star, or having fans outside court, or any other pitiful smokescreen Heard fans try to put up. It's simply because he was credible on the stand and came across as honest, as did his many strong witnesses. Amber Heard came across as a liar and a toxic, violent abuser, who had NO EVIDENCE to support her outrageous abuse and rape allegations against him!
Heard waged a vendetta against Depp FOR YEARS. She was enraged he ended the marriage, and she wanted revenge. She wanted nothing less than to destroy his public image and his career. She also wanted to exploit his famous name to promote herself as a #MeToo 'victim' and ambassador for the ACLU charity. She thought playing the role of a superstar's victim would get her a nice niche as the figurehead for women's rights, anti abuse spokesperson etc. Utter bullshit! She's no victim.
Johnny Depp had no choice but to sue her to get the truth out there and put a stop to her games - he knew she'd have continued to drag his famous name through the mud for her own self promotion forevermore! He's an A-lister, she's a D-lister - her failed, 15 month marriage to him is her biggest claim to fame. She just won't leave it alone. How ridiculous her lawyers pretended he had come after her in their closing speech and wouldn't leave her alone - it was Heard who wouldn't let go of Depp!
He won a huge victory and the support and faith of 99% of the public. His future is assured, and I can't wait to see him making great movies again. Heard was never the big star she pretended at the trial - her terrible performance on the stand showed how limited her acting skills are! No one wants to see her starring in movies, and after all the evidence she's a narcissistic, violent abuser, there's no place for her as a supposed 'abuse' hero fronting charities. She's an abuse VILLAIN and needs to slither away under a filthy stone, and not ask the public to look at her ever again!
1
-
1
-
It's infuriating Sarah Brewer talks about her accomplice in this murder, trans identified MAN 'Naria Jenna Whittaker' as 'she'. But worse, this YouTuber calls the man 'she' too, as do media reports of the crime!
If crazy, gender-woo politics continues to go unchallenged, offences committed by men who 'identify' as female will be reported as women's crimes, which will totally skew the crime statistics and make it seem the number of violent women has rocketed! Women should not be blamed for men's murders, rapes and myriad violent crimes.
Like the vast majority of today's self declared 'trans women', the late Naria Whitaker was male bodied, and had no wish to lose his penis and testicles. He married Sarah Brewer and their marriage was consummated. He was not transgender at all but a transvestite, ie a man with the desire to present as female in clothing and mannerisms, some or all of the time.
Trans people used to be categorised as suffering gender dysphoria (ie hating their natal body), or by a doctor's medical diagnosis. Now someone only has to say they 'identify' as the opposite sex and everyone is expected to accept it without question or be branded 'transphobic' - with terrible consequences for women!
This nonsense means a man can literally walk into female public spaces like ladies changing rooms, toilets, female hospital wards etc and use them unchallenged simply by saying he 'identifies' as female. Allowing any man, however he identifies, into female-only spaces is a clear risk to the safety, privacy and dignity of females - and renders those spaces no longer single-sex but unisex.
We are also seeing rising numbers of male athletes enter female sports by the same method, stealing women's competition places and medals (males have multiple, huge physical advantages over females, that no adjustment to their hormones negates). Male swimmer Will Thomas, was a mediocre performer, managing only 554th place in Freestyle against other men. He declared he was a 'trans woman', was allowed to compete against women, and just 2 years later jumped to the Number One slot!
Needless to say, Lia Thomas is fully male bodied - but insists on using the female changing rooms, undressing in front of female athletes several of whom have complained about him flashing his penis at them. Those female swimmers have been warned they risk losing their sports careers, if they make even the mildest protest about the former Will Thomas.
The world's gone mad!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teresathayn5170 Doesn't surprise me at all, the woman is nuts. I feel her ex and their little boy have at least had a very good result from this horrible tragedy - Sarah Boone is going to prison for life, and both are free of her.
She's an alcoholic, narcissistic abuser on such an extreme scale, she's killed someone. I think it was always going to happen, sooner or later. Her child did not need that pathologically self-serving, destructive woman messing up his life.
Poor kid, I bet she sends him umpteen letters each week from jail, in the same, crazy handwriting she harasses the judge with. Letters can be ignored, burned or trashed - it's harder to get rid of an abusive parent who keeps turning up on your doorstep uninvited. Thankfully her son will know exactly where she is from now on - safely behind bars where she can't bother him. I wish him and his father all the very best for their Boone-free future.
1
-
This particular air disaster has long enraged me. I cannot believe the arrogance of the Captain in playing fast and loose with everyone on board's lives, just so he could show off to his kids and make them feel special.
It suggests to me he was one of those Captains who dominated his co-pilot and colleagues, so they didn't feel able to contradict or challenge him on anything. He not only brought his kids into the cockpit without caring what they thought, he went several steps further by putting both kids in the driving seat, AND allowing them to action certain movements at the controls. Unbelievable!
It is surely telling that the little girl didn't cause any problems, but the 16-year-old boy did - and no wonder, he was a young man which meant he took dangerous actions on the controls that a small child would not, and critically once the plane was in trouble, he was likely too big to remove from the Captain's seat quickly, as he should have been. Instead, incredibly, his father let him stay in the hot seat, and the totally untrained teenager responded to instructions from the co pilot when it was a life-or-death crisis only for the professionals! You couldn't make it up. How terrifying to know a commercial plane can go from cruising with no problems to crashing into the ground within just 3 minutes. I know that will be on my mind every time I fly now, lol!
Was this pilot named and shamed over the crash in the media? I guess he and his kids were dead along with everyone else, so maybe there was no appetite to blame him. But it clearly was ultimately his fault entirely for letting his kids play pilots. Had I lost a loved one on that flight I would be livid with him!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pricklypear7516 Nothing wrong with intelligent, informed speculation. But you're inventing detailed scenarios for which there is no evidence whatsoever - that's telling fairy tales, so utterly worthless and totally unhelpful.
Yes I was once 13 years old (brilliant deduction on your part). So were you, which only makes your lack of empathy for the paralysing terror these children would have experienced all the more unimpressive. Two little girls (and at 13 and 14 Abby and Libby were only just teens), are no physical or mental match for an adult male predator with an horrific agenda of sexual violence.
They had no lived experience of such an immediate, criminal threat to their lives, to have the first clue how to handle it. Your blase assumption they could have escaped one man so there had to be two, is factually incorrect and an insult to those brave children. As I've pointed out, police believe Libby and Abby DID try to make a break for it and ran across the brook to escape their captor, but were quickly caught and subdued.
The killer had luck on his side too, in that his crime was not interrupted by any witnesses who could have saved the girls.
There's no reason to assume as you do that Kegan Kline's cat-fishing automatically means he/his father were connected with the Delphi murders. Police pursued that line of enquiry exhaustively, without making any corresponding arrests (if every owner of a fake Instagram profile were investigated for murder, there would be many police man hours wasted!)
Such shady online activity is sadly common, and countless teen girls are its targets. In contrast the Delphi double homicide in a public place in broad daylight is a very different crime, a million miles more heinous and audacious than an everyday incident of internet fraud. Having prior online contact with Libby is not, as you state, 'compelling' evidence Kline was involved in her and Abby's murders - it's no evidence at all!
It's obviously escaped your notice, but there are creepy men everywhere. Hell, even the late Ron Logan who owned the land where the murders took place had a history of violence against women, and at least one ex partner told police she was 'frightened' of him. Logan didn't help his cause by asking a family member to lie for him re his alibi on Monday 13th February 2017. Like the Klines, Logan's home was searched by police and his DNA taken - and also like the Klines, he was not charged in connection with Libby and Abby's deaths. Being a creepy guy does not necessarily make you a killer! Depending on your precise location, there could be literally hundreds of convicted sex offenders living within a 5 mile radius of your US home - and who knows how many more dangerous, predatory/abusive men who've never been charged with a crime.
This double homicide shows every indication of being the work of a loner who had no relationship with the victims - and stranger killings are notoriously hardest of all to solve. If Abby and Libby's killer turns out to be a total stranger to them and this was a crime of opportunity as I believe, police will no doubt rely on that to explain/excuse their near six year failure to catch him.
However, if Richard Allen is the Delphi killer tough questions will inevitable be asked as to why it took law enforcement so long to identify him when he was right under their noses, living a stone's throw from the crime scene. It would be particularly ironic when from the start of the murder investigation Supt Doug Carter suggested the killer could be a local man, and even addressed him directly with the words: "We believe you are hiding in plain sight".
Monday's media conference should bring some much needed clarity to this case. Hopefully that will shut down online BS like yours, which, in the absence of even the most basic facts from police woefully inexperienced in handling homicide cases, has been able to flourish unchecked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's mind-boggling Chad Daybell believed he could conspire with mistress Lori to have her ex-con brother Alex Cox shoot his wife Tammy dead outside their family home - and he'd get to collect her $460,000 life insurance and re-marry weeks later, without getting arrested!
The husband is always prime suspect - especially if the wife dies by a violent means like shooting. Didn't it occur to these maniacs police might think it suspicious that Lori's husband was shot dead by Alex in July 2019, then Chad's wife was also shot dead in October of the same year? That's one helluva coincidence!
Poor Tammy, if only she'd known that failed shooting attempt by a mysterious masked man was a warning her life was in imminent danger. Not only did she accept Chad's explanation it was just a kooky local teen pranking her with a paintball gun (he played it down to keep her guard down), her first reaction when confronted by the gunman was to call for her husband's help. She had absolutely no idea her husband was behind her attempted murder.
Two weeks later, Chad and Alex succeeded in killing Tammy by a means that was initially ruled 'natural causes' and meant there was no murder investigation. Had Alex succeeded in shooting Tammy dead however, presumably arrests would have swiftly followed. Though that's not what happened when Alex murdered Charles Vallow - and no doubt the fact they'd apparently got away with Charles' shooting homicide, plus the murders of Lori's kids JJ and Tylee, meant Chad, Alex and Lori also assumed they were above the law, untouchable, and would get away with shooting Tammy dead too!
1
-
Bullshit - Get your facts straight, Diana slept around with umpteen different men, while Charles and Camilla resumed their loving relationship. Diana couldn't care less who her husband was in love with with - he bored her to tears, as she made perfectly clear on their joint public appearances from the late 1980s when she was so frosty to him everyone present was embarrassed!
Diana only claimed Charles broke her heart to get public sympathy, and crucify her ex husband in the public mind. She wasn't in love with him! She wanted to win a media war she had waged against him. She was a malicious, bitter and twisted, arch manipulator - and fools like you fell for it!
Charles had just ONE relationship with the woman he went on to marry and be happy with. Diana had umpteen grubby sexual flings with unsuitable men - many of whom were married! Diana had no conscience about chasing married men, even slipping them her phone number while their wife was in the room.
So quit your 'Saint Diana' crap. The only homewrecker in this story is the promiscuous princess - she ended Will Carling's marriage before his 2 year wedding anniversary because she couldn't keep her hands out of his underwear, and tried to end another lover, Oliver Hoare's marriage too, when he dumped her. Diana made over 300 malicious, silent phone calls to the Hoare's marital home, enraged he had gone back to his wife after ending their 4 year affair. Woe betide any man who didn't do narcissistic Diana's bidding!
It's predictable she got herself killed with her shameless, self-centred hedonism, not even caring enough about her two dependant children to fasten her seat belt. If she had, experts agree she would have survived the accident and lived to raise those little boys to men.
Diana was a lousy wife and an even more disappointing mother, who failed in every parent's first duty - to stay alive to raise your children to adults. In contrast to that idiot, Camilla is a woman of substance and class, who will be a wonderful Queen Consort, providing quiet strength and support to King Charles.
Thanks to her own terrible choices, Diana died in a ridiculous, totally needless car accident, next to a spoiled, coke-addicted Arab playboy. The two women and their destinies, could not be more poles apart. Thank God the better woman is now our Queen, and poor, long-suffering Charles finally found a loving and decent wife. God bless the King and Queen!
1
-
Amen, great work by the prosecution, and respect to the two senior detectives whose diligence and determination finally nailed this evil killer. Victoria's children knew her husband Jim had murdered her - the idea she had killed herself then vanished off the face of the earth, was preposterous!
His stepkids had no axe to grind, they had known him since children and called him dad - he even walked one stepdaughter down the aisle and gave her away. But they could not stand by, and let him get away with murdering their beloved mom. So they told those detectives what they knew, and what they suspected. And pretty soon those officers shared the family's gut feeling that this was no suicide, but was a spousal murder, by an abusive husband.
The guilty verdict was the right one, and it took a smart jury to deliver it. Thank God they were up to the job of navigating all the evidence (much of it circumstantial), and seeing the truth.
James Prokopovitz chose murder over divorce. His wife's medical issues were testing his patience and his wallet. He wanted the freedom to be with his new girlfriend, but didn't want to hand over 50% of the shared marital assets in a divorce. With easy access to his works chemical sludge ponds, the perfect place to dissolve a corpse, a murder plan formed in his mind. That terrible night, after Victoria's adult son left their house, he overpowered and killed his cancer-patient wife, and dumped her body where he was sure it would never be found. And he was right, it never was. But he was wrong in his assumption the absence of a body would get him off a murder conviction!
I hope Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne disappeared in equally suspicious circumstances last year, watched this trial and trembled. It showed that 'No body - No crime' is a myth, and that even when years have passed, a killer can still get the police knock on the door! It took 8 years, but justice finally came for James Propokovitz, and I believe it will come for Barry Morphew too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse How could George Michael be anything but 'candid' about being gay, after he was caught propositioning a policeman in a gents toilet?!! Get real - he had no choice at all! He could hardly have continued his lifelong charade that he was straight, after that major indiscretion. He'd only have made himself more of a laughing stock. He was certainly unwise, but he was not stupid.
The position he took after his enforced outing, was defiance, when in my view he owed the gay community an apology and some humble pie. Had he been a bigger man, that's how he'd have handled it. He'd have owned his mistake like a grown up, not done endless self-pitying interviews like this one, covering his embarrassment by throwing shade on a media he always knew would report his risky sexual escapades in public places when he was (inevitably), discovered.
He'd been playing with fire for years cruising on Hampstead Heath, a stone's throw from the British tabloid press he loathed! It was only a matter of time before he was caught out - and that's another reason his obstinate refusal to publicly acknowledge he was gay was such a grave and arrogant mistake.
Context is all. Some gay people have every reason not to come out - historically it blighted many lives as I referenced earlier, and today a staggering 64 countries have laws that criminalise homosexuality (almost half of those are in Africa). That's an appalling statistic. In Iran, gay men are horrifically persecuted. Today the culture there encourages them to adopt a trans woman identity and have irreversible gender reassignment surgery to 'cure their condition' - a barbaric and unimaginably cruel form of conversion therapy.
George Michael however had every reason to be authentic. As a rich and powerful white superstar he could have been a strong, out and proud role model and spokesperson for gay rights. Sadly he missed that golden opportunity to do good in the world, with his huge profile and influence. He chose self-serving cowardice and fraud, over integrity and authenticity.
Once outed, in the most ridiculous, self-sabotaging way, that opportunity was lost to him forever. His subsequent statements about his homosexuality rang hollow and reeked of hypocrisy, because obviously his hand had been forced by his arrest.
I stress - there is zero evidence George Michael would ever have voluntarily come out, and publicly owned his homosexuality. Had he not been caught out by the LAPD, he'd have likely continued to masquerade as a straight guy who liked women indefinitely, and that's a terrible slap in the face for gay people. Spin it as you wish, but the facts are the facts. He never came out. That is GM's disappointing legacy, as a gay man of power and influence.
Incidentally, I don't know how old you are, but your concept of the culture of George Michael's adult years is quite wrong. We're talking about the 1980s and '90s - not the 1880s/90s! The fact there were so many thriving, openly gay public figures around then (some of whom I name checked previously - among them George Michael's good friend Sir Elton John), confirms he would not only have survived as a gay artist, but thrived. The post-AIDs culture of the '90s and beyond put gay rights centre stage. It was the perfect time for George Michael to hold his head high and finally tell the truth - a truth his friends, and ironically the media, had known for years!
1
-
@LukeMosse "He absolutely did have a choice about how candid he was with the press after he was outed". Are you serious? How did he have a choice? He'd been outed, he could hardly continue with his denials and fraud could he, the jig was up! George Michael was unwise, but he wasn't stupid.
I believe that's the main cause of his anger - he's enraged that his own cowardice meant the opportunity to come out with dignity and pride was taken from him by the press, who inevitably reported on his arrest for public 'lewd behaviour' in a gents toilet. There was never going to be a news blackout on a crime committed by a superstar.
He had been playing with fire for years on Hampstead Heath, among other locations. So it was bloody stupid and obstinate of him to deny he was gay for so long, while conducting high-risk, homosexual activity with strangers in public. He's most angry at himself, but he petulantly misdirects that anger at the press for simply doing their job.
All the legal action he threatens in this interview came to nothing, incidentally. We have a free press, which thankfully (mostly) prevents hypocritical public figures like GM buying media silence and abusing their power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glen7318 I've fully explained this in my previous post. My point is very simple - not sure what's so hard to understand?
On her divorce the Queen felt strongly that Diana's former senior royal status as the heir to the throne's wife and Queen in waiting, and her ongoing position in perpetuity as mother of the future King William, warranted ongoing royal protection. She wanted Diana to have this protection indefinitely, but she declined it.
You are mistaken in thinking royal security is granted on the basis of a royal's 'popularity'. On the contrary, it is all about the strictly observed ranking of members of the royal family.
Obviously Sarah, Duchess of York, was merely the former wife of Prince Andrew (not Prince Charles, the heir apparent to the throne). She was always ranked far lower down the royal pecking order than Diana Princess of Wales, as were her children far lower in status that Diana's. The reason the Duchess' royal protection ended on her divorce simply reflected her lower royal status/ranking, and had nothing to do with her popularity with the public.
People seem to be getting themselves tied up in knots about who would foot the bill for Diana's post-divorce security, had she been gracious (and wise) enough to accept it. My point was that SHE would not pay for it, but would continue to be protected within the royal family's top 'bubble' of costly, world class security, despite no longer being Prince Charles' wife.
This showed that Diana's former mother-in-law the Queen respected and cared about the Princess' future safety - despite her shocking, disloyalty and public attacks on the monarchy that had so generously provided for her and her sons.
It is a supreme irony of Diana's war on the royals that she churlishly refused that post-divorce offer of Scotland Yard security for life, and was killed just a year later.
A few crazy conspiracy theorists actually suggested the royal family had Diana killed. In truth, by offering her lifetime Scotland Yard protection post-divorce, the royals had tried to save her from herself and her poor choices - like consorting with the shady Al Fayed family, and failing to fasten her seat belt.
If Diana had only been sensible and accepted the top level royal protection they offered her for life, there's no way she'd have ever been driven by a reckless drunk driver and died in an horrific road accident. Diana foolishly rejected royal protection, cut off her nose to spite her face, and put herself and her personal safety into the hands of the crooked Mohammed Al Fayed. The result was her tragic and totally needless death aged 36.
1
-
@glen7318 I've made my points, clearly and succinctly, more than once. My statements are accurate, easy to understand, and not especially controversial.
Quite why people are obsessed with the question of exactly who would have met the cost of Diana's top-drawer royal security had she accepted it, I have no idea. Way to miss the point!
The point is that this very expensive and highly privileged security for life was offered to Diana on top of the generous package of royal titles, homes, cash and staff Prince Charles had already settled on her in their 1996 divorce. That shows the Queen/royals were not against the Princess, as some claim, but on the contrary recognised her royal status and need for protection as ongoing - despite the divorce.
The Queen's genuine concern for the Princess was my point and yes the eye-wateringly high cost of that royal protection proves it, as any such expenditure is on public record and must be justified to the public. That round-the-clock protection would not have cost Diana a penny, and yet still she refused it. That was churlish in the extreme and (as is surely obvious to all but the most obtuse), ultimately cost her her life just one year later.
Because not only did Diana reject the offer of royal security, she omitted to employ her own personal protection team on her divorce - something she should and could have sorted as an urgent priority and could well afford with the £17 million her ex-husband gave her.
I'm commenting from the perspective of a national newspaper reporter in the 'nineties, when the breakdown of the Prince and Princess of Wales' marriage was daily tabloid fodder. I reported on and researched umpteen stories, and was privy to insider information on the couple from their confidantes and others who witnessed them and their behaviour at first hand. Unlike the Diana fan club, my views on Diana's character and conduct are rooted in sound research - they don''t merely come from her own cynical self-promotion, or from substandard YouTube videos like this one!
Having learned so much about Diana over the years, I was well aware she was not the brightest bulb in the box. Even so, I remain shocked to this day that she was dim enough to entrust her personal safety and security arrangements to a third party she didn't know terribly well - and worse, to Mohammed Al Fayed, whose reputation and notoriety made it totally obvious he could not be trusted!
That she chose as her protector the sleazy Al Fayed whose intentions were clearly only to exploit her royal pedigree, over the Queen who genuinely had the best interests of her grandsons' mother at heart, shows exactly how dim Diana was.
Diana was no 'commoner', she was a blue blooded aristocrat born into wealth and privilege, and always fully at home with the conventions and protocols of the royal family she married into. Yet she had so little understanding of that institution's historic and cultural power and prestige on the world stage, she couldn't see through the flattery of an oily creep like Al Fayed. She really thought his compliments and red carpet treatment were all about her!
It's bizarre you're continuing to labour non-points, on my earlier, not terribly complicated or controversial statements. The nit-picking, nonsense responses to my posts here are laughable. 'The royals' security is decided in terms of how much the public like them'? WTF?! Hilarious!
I've no time for it. Anyone interested in an educated view on Diana, from a journalist who covered the story first hand and spoke to people who knew her only too well, can read what I've already shared.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@denverdubois5835 Only an American would be as ridiculously impressed as you are, by 'blue blood'!
Thankfully in this day and age most people are far more enlightened. What on earth does it mean - or matter - if your ancestors were so-called 'noblemen' or paupers?
In truth, in genetic terms, so-called 'blue blooded' aristocratic families had more birth defects and generally poorer health than people of 'lower' classes, because of all the in-breeding that went on.
They were primitive times when ignorance reigned, and people stupidly believed in a strictly observed class system. God forbid the toffs' blue blood should ever be 'contaminated' by non-aristocrats! Therefore it was common for cousins to marry to keep the aristocratic bloodline 'pure'. With the result that the aristocracy and royals suffered far higher than average instances of infant mortality, genetic birth defects, physical deformities and conditions like haemophilia, epilepsy and the infamous 'Porphyria' disease suffered by George lll (ever heard of the movie 'The Madness of King George'?)
Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, and the serious health issues suffered by their children are well documented.
There's no question European royals and aristocrats would have been wise to marry the occasional pauper to inject some fresh genes and beef up their bloodlines! Throughout nature, from humans to dogs, we see the benefits of 'hybrid vigour', ie the strong, healthy offspring that are produced by two parents who have contrasting familial backgrounds, and bring a large and diverse set of genetics to their progeny. Aristocrats and royalty are the product of multiple incestuous pairings - and the results are sadly still plain to see today in many of them!
In England we joke about them being 'chinless', a certain facial appearance many so-called 'blue bloods' share. And indeed 'chinless' is an accurate description, because one genetic disorder caused by in-breeding and recessive genes is a mutation called 'Habsburgh Jaw'. This malformed, narrow jaw creates an extreme underbite, affecting a sufferer's speech and sometimes their ability to eat. It is a tell-tale physical disfigurement, revealing the extreme in-breeding in that person's genetics. Prince Andrew's daughter Princess Beatrice is an obvious example. If you examine photos of her and Queen Victoria, you'll see a striking facial similarity - both women exhibit Habsburgh Jaw.
The historic practice of marrying blood relatives protected the elite's privilege and power. But it was not healthy. Taken to extremes, could wipe out entire branches of an aristocratic family - and from time to time, it did. Diana was lucky the Spencer family survived all the incest in their family tree!
As recently as the 1970s Prince Charles was forced into an arranged marriage with a 'suitable' aristocratic girl, whose family history featured similar in-breeding to his own. It is fortunate Charles' sons were not restricted to the same, primitive arranged union that he was, but instead could marry women of their choosing who brought genetic diversity far beyond the small, elite circle of European blue bloods. William and Harry's descendants will be a great deal genetically stronger for it - royalists seeking the long-term survival of the monarchy, have a lot to thank Catherine and Meghan for!
Incidentally all of this is fact and history, not opinion - your views are astonishingly ignorant, not to mention embarrassingly snobbish! You appear to believe in the genetic superiority of the upper classes - a myth perpetuated through the ages to justify their continued privilege, but dispelled today. Your post gushing about Diana's supposedly 'superior' aristocratic blood had chilling echoes of the Nazis 'master race' propaganda.
Ironically, as I've explained, the fact they upper classes are so horribly in-bred, actually makes them genetically 'inferior'.
I suggest you do some research and belatedly educate yourself about genetic hierarchies. Don't die ignorant - Google is your friend!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm curious - the murder of JFK clearly has emotional resonance for you. So please tell me this - do you care to know the truth about how it was organised, why it happened, and who was behind it?
Or like this YouTuber, would you prefer to swallow the long-ago, totally debunked fiction, that a lone Communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone? And was almost immediately - and VERY conveniently - assassinated by another lone gunman, Mafia man Jack Ruby, before he could talk about the crime in a court of law?
Jack Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman, using a duff gun with a wonky site, while eating fried chicken in a book depository. The Zapruder film exposes that story for the utter garbage it is. As that horrific home movie shows in chilling detail, JFK was shot by multiple, expert marksmen, with the most powerful firearms available in 1963. This was no amateur attack by a dumb, Leftie hick who got lucky - it was a professional hit, organised at the very highest level and guaranteed to succeed.
Jackie Kennedy knew it, within moments of becoming a widow. Political advisers urged her to remove her pink Chanel suit, stained with her late husband's blood and brain matter, and change into fresh clothes. They feared the resulting photos. Without hesitating, Jackie refused, telling them:
"No - let THEM see what THEY have done". Did she believe for a nanosecond her husband was murdered by a loner political extremist? Did she hell! Jackie knew better. Anyone in urgent need of an education on this historic assassination, should read the superb analysis of the legendary forensic pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht.
Swallowing the outrageous, 'Warren Report' cover up, and the fiction of the lone Commie shooter and the 'magic bullet', is surely the acid test, of the authenticity of people's feelings about JFK's barbaric murder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who filmed this footage Mike, any idea? Chilling to see that image of still under construction 'Titanic' nearing completion, and know it was a mere 2 months from disaster, sinking over 2 miles beneath the Atlantic Ocean.
All the loving, finishing touches, the finest, most grand and luxurious First Class facilities, and soon it would be home only to primitive aquatic life forms.
I'm curious Mike - after 'Titanic' sank and became a massive global news story, the brand new, tragic ship was touted as having been something very special. But if it was so special, why was there so little interest by news organisations (and indeed amateur photographers), in filming/photographing its all-important maiden voyage?
The maiden voyage of any great ship is a special event, so it astonishes me there seems to have been so little attention paid to 'Titanic's', and no record of it on film.
Finally - GET WELL SOON - it's obvious from your voice you're feeling horribly fluey. I am English and can only apologise you were struck down with the lurgy on our shores! Good that you're drinking - plenty of fluids, rest and simple, nutritious food are what your body will tell you it needs to get well. Please obey it! Wishing you a speedy recovery. XXX
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@metal.mellisa With respect, however compelling the evidence appears in any criminal trial, a jury can never be 100% sure of the truth. They weren't there! But yes, some verdicts are easier to call than others (Arias accidentally took a photo of herself dragging her victim's bloodied body across the floor, which was something of a problem for the defence!)
I worry that today people put unshakeable faith in forensic evidence, which in turn diminishes the value of circumstantial evidence in their eyes. That's dangerous. Forensics aren't always irrefutable, and can sometimes be misleading. Of course before the development of forensic science, ALL criminal trials were based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and people shouldn't forget that!
I'm a journalist and once asked a senior British criminal barrister to explain the value of forensic versus circumstantial evidence. I've always remembered his reply, I think it's an interesting one.
He said forensic evidence, eg fingerprints, DNA etc, is regarded in legal terms as the gold standard. He likened forensic evidence to a single, thick, unbreakable steel cable.
Circumstantial evidence, while not carrying the same evidentiary weight one-to-one as forensic evidence, can in sufficient quantity be just as powerful and even more so, than a forensic-based case.
He likened circumstantial evidence to a thinner steel wire which, joined together with multiple other thin circumstantial wires, could form a cable just as thick and strong as the single, thick, unbreakable steel cable of forensic evidence - and indeed could be even stronger than a forensics based case.
When the jury considered all the circumstantial evidence, it became clear that the most reasonable explanation for Victoria's disappearance was murder, in a domestic homicide at her husband's hands. No other explanation makes sense, and the defence claim of suicide certainly doesn't. The poor woman was sick, she could not realistically have left her home on foot and committed suicide, and she was even less likely to make her own, clothed body vanish without trace. The total lack of a body was in itself powerful circumstantial evidence of foul play, by a third party. Who else but the defendant had any reason to want rid of Victoria? As he made clear with his fast affair and contemptible comments about Victoria to police ("I wish I could shit her out!"), he did not love her, and did not want her back. He was enjoying a new and hedonistic life with Kathy that was much more fun - taking naked, pornographic photos of her, spending upward of $200,000 a year gambling in casinos etc - free of the burdens and expense of a disabled wife with her colostomy surgeries and medical bills. Soon after Victoria disappeared, as her frantic children organised searches and wrote Facebook appeals, Jim crowed that the heating bills had gone down without her living in the house!
It's obvious Jim chose murder over divorce, which would have lost him half of their shared marital assets. That would not appeal to him, with a new girlfriend and a gambling habit to support. The perjury and lies both he and Kathy told to throw cops off the scent of their affair as a motive (her son confirmed it began months before, not after, Victoria's disappearance), was yet more circumstantial evidence of that terrible crime. I have no doubt James Prokopovitch is now where he fully deserves to be, behind bars.
1
-
@lynnd5342 Kathy Friday could not possibly have known the pornographic photo of her would be used in evidence at Jim's murder trial - it took the defence by surprise, if you remember. It was an afterthought by the prosecution, intended only as supporting evidence of their affair. Propokovitz' attorney John D' Angelo tried unsuccessfully to have it struck from the record, but the judge allowed it.
I'll grant you old 'Curly' had been discreet in hiding evidence of his affair, before he killed his wife. It's obvious it began before, not after Victoria Propokovitz' death - why do you think both Jim and Kathy lied to police and on oath about their affair, committing the serious crime of perjury, unless it was the motive for her murder? Use some common sense here!
Prosecutors believe he and Kathy used 'burner' cellphones, purchased especially for the purpose, and that's why incriminating phone records couldn't be found. Many people who embark on extra marital affairs communicate by secret, cellphones purchased for the purpose. Doesn't take a criminal mastermind to think that up, it makes perfect sense - a married man can't risk long and frequent phone chats with his lover on the home phone. If his wife doesn't hear him whispering sweet nothings to another woman in the house, she will spot the unfamiliar phone number appearing repeatedly on the family phone bill - and she might possibly call it! And you can't have phone sex with your girlfriend, if your wife is listening on the extension! Remember how after Victoria disappeared, Jim justified his romance with Kathy to Victoria's son Wes, saying he had 'needs'?
That sly cellphone scheme served Jim and Kathy well, when they lied to police that they first met not after her partner's death in late 2012, but totally by chance in a casino after Victoria went missing in 2013.
Unlucky for Jim that he hadn't reckoned on Kathy's children letting the cat out the bag to murder detectives that they actually met early 2013!
Why do you say Kathy was, quote: '...accused of something she didn't do'? Kathy was guilty as charged - she committed perjury by lying to police and under oath in court, and she admitted it, pleading guilty, as did Jim. There was no question of any miscarriage of justice over that. She was clearly terrified about the legal consequences of her crime - she killed herself in custody, just 3 days before she was due to be sentenced for it.
She was 68 years old, facing prison and no doubt fearing she could face further charges regarding Victoria Propokovitz' murder by Jim. I think Kathy was a gentle lady (as was Victoria - the type of woman abusive men like him target), and she got in over her head with a highly toxic and dangerous man.
Don't be fooled into sympathising with the killer because he's 75. You could clearly see his explosive temper in police body cam and interview footage! His wife Victoria is the one deserving of sympathy. She left her first abusive husband, because he beat and terrorised her, only to marry an even worse bully who wound up murdering her when she was just 58, depriving her of a retirement and of time with her children and grandkids.
What do you think happened to Victoria Propokovitz' dead body? People who commit suicide are usually found, especially if they are physically weak as she was. She could not walk further than a few yards and needed a walking stick - she could not have made her own corpse disappear! When a woman in an unhappy relationship suddenly vanishes without trace, you can bet her partner killed her and worked hard to hide her body. Men like James Propokivitz and Patrick Frazee assume if they can just get rid of their victim's body, they can create a mystery about their disappearance that will get them off a murder charge. Thank God for dedicated police who proved those men wrong, and brought justice for Victoria and her heart broken loved ones after 8 years.
No one but James Propokovitz had the motive, means and opportunity to want Victoria dead. He will die in prison, as he deserves to. His fate is far kinder than the one he inflicted on his poor wife! He can still talk to the people who care about him, he'll have free medical care, meals cooked for him, home comforts and entertainments. And in time he will have a natural death, followed by a funeral - human dignities he ruthlessly denied his loyal wife when he murdered and dumped her in toxic chemicals.
1
-
@konnichiwala889 James Prokopovitz' threats to kill his first wife proved he was an abusive husband and gave useful context - but they were not the only evidence he killed his second wife Victoria, as you suggest. There were two weeks of convincing prosecution witnesses and evidence which showed that, and convinced the jury he was Victoria's murderer. I guess you didn't watch the whole trial.
In contrast, the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary witness to provide evidence that the defendant was innocent - not one. Nor did their client, so emphatic to police that he didn't do it, grab the opportunity to put his case direct to the jury. He refused to take the stand.
It's hilarious how people who obviously did not follow the two week trial are ignoring all the prosecution evidence against Propokovitz and jumping on here to parrot the weak and feeble, arguments of the defence, that the victim wasn't murdered by her abusive husband but killed herself. That claim was highly unlikely, as anyone with an ounce of logic or common sense could see.
The defence had a very tough task to sell the notion that Victoria, a cancer patient who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without cigarettes or dentures (and without leaving a suicide note or any footprints), killed herself some distance from home and then hid her own, clothed body so well that 8 years of exhaustive police searches never found it. No wonder they failed to convince the jury!
The defence lawyers had to exaggerate the victim's two supposed, historic suicide attempts to make it seem more likely that's how she died. But it soon became clear the suicide attempts were not terribly useful to them, because both happened such a long time ago, they didn't prove a thing.
Victoria's adult children knew in their gut their mother didn't kill herself, and told police they suspected their stepfather of involvement in her sudden, mysterious disappearance. When cops looked into it at their request, they shared that suspicion, and their investigations quickly pointed to her husband Jim.
One by one Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand to say she was not depressed, much less suicidal when she disappeared. On the last day she was ever seen, she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
The very fact her body vanished without trace, indicated foul play and a killer who worked damn hard to get rid of his victim. Suicide victims' remains are usually recovered, it is rare that they aren't - but murder victims' often aren't found because the person who killed them hides/destroys them, fearing their remains will provide clues to the identity of their murderer.
So desperate were the defence arguments, they even twisted a long-ago statement Victoria made to her family; "Next time you won't find me", to suggest she had killed herself and deliberately hidden her own corpse! Common sense explains what she actually meant - she was telling them that next time she attempted suicide, they wouldn't find her in time to save her. Nothing whatsoever to do with hiding her own dead body - who would even think of that, it makes no sense at all.
Some juries are so intellectually challenged, the critical thinking skills needed to navigate circumstantial evidence are utterly beyond them. These second rate juries need a ton of forensic evidence to reach a verdict (because they better understand, and have blind faith in physical evidence), while failing to comprehend the meaning and significance of circumstantial evidence - which can be every bit as powerful in revealing innocence or guilt.
When your momma asked you if you ate a cookie as a child and you said no, she knew you were lying. She didn't see you eat it, and she didn't count the cookies. So how did she know? Well first off, the knew you, her child, better than the back of her hand. So she was an excellent judge of whether you were being deceptive. She also knew you were hungry, not having eaten since breakfast, and that she'd left you alone in the kitchen where the cookies were kept. Finally, she saw cookie crumbs around your mouth.
A smart jury who understands the value of circumstantial evidence like that, would convict you of cookie theft. A not so smart jury, who thinks only forensic evidence has any real worth, would only find you guilty if they were given a time-stamped photo of you eating the cookie.
And that pretty much sums up the folly of people who fail to value or respect circumstantial evidence. There was a ton of it proving James Propokovitz killed his wife, that's why a smart jury convicted him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only mercy I can think of with being as severely conjoined as this, ie sharing a heart etc, is that someday they will both die together.
The Hilton twins were English sisters born in 1908 who were only connected by their lower back. They wore carefully designed dresses and looked as though they were standing side by side. They could even walk and it looked like two separate people. Unlike these severely conjoined twins, Violet and Daisy Hilton didn't share any major organs and had they lived in more modern times its possible they could have been surgically separated.
They had very sad deaths, aged 60 in 1969. They had achieved fame and fortune through their physicality (they were vaudeville stars on the bill with Bob Hope, and made two movies), but in later life were reduced to working in a grocery store. Their employer realised they hadn't showed up for work, and the police were sent to their apartment to break the door down. They found both women dead, and tragically an autopsy revealed there was a gap of three or four days between their deaths, when they must have been alone and unable to summon help.
It's terrible to imagine the surviving sister dragging her dead sister around for days, until she too died. With their own complete sets of internal organs, the death of one did not cause the death of the other. The Hilton sisters had the most fascinating and incredibly sad lives, constantly exploited for money and treated as less than human. Thankfully these sisters have the advantage of living in more enlightened times, when they are not persecuted for their condition.
1
-
The Laundries ain't smart, yet they ran rings around the Keystone Cops! Worst police work ever. Totally unbelievable, Murder victim Gabby Petito and her loved ones have been badly let down by law enforcement from start to finish.
Their biggest sin was failing to save Gabby's life, which they could feasibly have done if they'd arrested Brian Laundrie on the roadside for domestic abuse, after not one but TWO 911 witness reports of him hitting her. Had they done their job, put handcuffs on that abusive bully and taken him into custody, it would have ended the 'Van Life' trip, alerted Gabby's parents to the domestic abuse, exposed Laundrie as a dangerous abuser and given her a chance to end the relationship before he had a chance to kill her.
But instead police treated him as the abuser victim, and Gabby the actual victim as the perpetrator. Cops made a bad situation worse, in effect endorsing Laundries abuse of Gabby and making him feel fully entitled to not only continue it, but esca;ate it to her murder 2 weeks later.
Law enforcement's second massive mistake came after Gabby was reported missing in suspicious circumstances that pointed straight at Brian Laundrie. Laundrie was obviously a person of interest in her disappearance, yet cops let him leave his parents house, go on the run and escape justice by killing himself. And now we're told they believed Brian was back home, after mistaking his short, plump, middle aged mother for the scrawny, bearded 22 -year-old. You couldn't make it up!
1
-
Whatever your personal opinion on the record numbers of MEN now demanding to be recognised as Women, with the exact same cultural/legal definition and rights as Women (utter, Misogynist Madness!), Please, for God's sake WAKE UP and protest the sinister threat to EVERYONE'S FREE SPEECH that trans terrorists' #WarOnWomen now represents! 😱😱😱
Aggressive, testosterone-fuelled Gender-Nazis are oppressing Females in particular - and anyone who dares publicly contradict their extremist, unscientific dogma. Trans bully-boy tactics are totally unacceptable in any civilised society. It's Male Violence dressed in drag and it cannot continue to go unchallenged by governments, law enforcement or a free media!
In 2023, Women and Men who speak out against woman-hating, homophobic, anti child-safeguarding trans cult, are literally being beaten up, terrorised and silenced by fetishistic Men in dresses. There is no longer free-speech for anyone who disagrees with minority Gender-GaGa. So-called democratic countries' politicians and police, are looking the other way, and actively enabling trans violence against the MAJORITY, who don't share their tiny minority gender-woo delusion that humans can change sex!
This Misogynist Male Supremacists cult now has a stranglehold in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even the UK. It is a Woke, Male dictatorship, wearing the Trojan Horse disguise of #WomanFace, and representing the warped interests of a minority of Men. These are dangerous times to be female, gay or a defenceless, impressionable/confused child.
Decades ago when the category 'trans women' were first recognised, they were overwhelmingly a subset of gay Men. As such, they were sexually attracted to Men Not Women, and presented a low risk of sexual violence to Females. Back then crucially, a 'trans' diagnosis depended on a professional medical diagnosis of 'Gender Dysphoria', and it was understood those unlucky enough to be afflicted hated the sexual characteristics of their natal body and could not wait to get so-called 'sex-change' surgery to resemble their chosen sex. But that has all changed! Step forward the ridiculous Alex Drummond - a straight, white, middle aged, married-to-a-Woman MAN in every possible way - who insists the world recognise him as a Woman the same as any other! 🤔🤔🤔
Today the vast majority of trans identifying Men are like the ridiculous Alex Drummond - straight/heterosexual Males, with functioning Male genitals they have no plans to lose. These trans-identified Men may dress in feminine clothing, make up etc some, all, or none of the time. In 2023, the definition of 'Trans' has become so crazily wide and all-encompassing, burly, be-penised bearded Men are demanding to be recognised as Women - and their demands are being respected!
Their heterosexuality and the fact they are fully Male-bodied despite claiming to be 'Women', means they are a clear risk of potential sexual harm to Females and children. How are these Men defined as 'transgender', when they have no desire to transition? The truth is they are not transgender - they are old fashioned Male transvestites/Autogynephiles (Exhibit B - Eddie Izzard). This is not about gender dysphoria, or the age old 'born in the wrong body' diagnosis for most so-called 'trans women'. Most men claiming trans status today, have a sexual fetish for dressing and behaving in stereotypical ways they see as 'Female'. This is a heinous insult to all Women and Girls, and carries the risk of seriously harming them in multiple different ways.
We have already seen that trans identified Men invading Female-only, single sex public spaces like Women's toilets, changing rooms, domestic violence shelters, Women's hospital wards, rape crisis centres and prisons etc, presents a real and significant risk to Females. I don't believe a single female should be placed in harm's way, to meet the egotistical demands of a minority of Men to be 'recognised' as Women. And be under no illusions - the important word her is not 'trans' but MEN. A percentage of ALL Men are dangerous to Women, however they dress or 'identify'! There's no evidence trans identified Men present less risk - in fact, trans identified prison inmates are many times more likely to be serving jail terms for violent/sexual offences, than non trans identified men. So statistically speaking, there is less reason for females to trust men wearing woman-face!
No Woman has a penis. And no Man has a vagina. These are basic, biological FACTS and no crazy man-made ideology can change them - or mighty Mother Nature! This dangerous dishonesty of gender-cult must be called out - it's got way out of hand, and decent people are being harmed!
#TransWomenAreConMen #WomensRightsAreHumanRights
1
-
1
-
Of course he murdered his two little girls! Just look at the evidence: He admitted he strangled his pregnant wife, throttling her with his bare hands for 3-4 minutes (it takes a long time to kill someone this way), and he admitted loading her body, and the bodies of the children into his truck. He admitted burying his wife in a shallow grave, and dumping the children separately into two oil tankers (with entrances so small, just 8 inches across, that the bodies were badly scratched and bruised where he had forcibly crammed them through, to drop into crude oil below). So the crimes he had admitted, prove he is a psychopath who did not love his family. A loving father could not have handled his daughters' dead bodies like that, treating them like trash. Therefore it's obvious and logical that he also smothered those two defenceless children. This interview is chilling, because he is so utterly unconcerned about his wife and children. If he had an ounce of humanity in him he WOULD be crying at the knowledge his family was dead, and the memory of seeing their dead bodies. And maybe some regret or guilt. If he had cried about what he secretly knew, it could have been used to good effect to make him appear like a loving husband and father, worried about his family. But he cares nothing for them, so he has no emotion about the murders and their deaths - he is only concerned about saving his own skin. He may have fallen out of love with his wife, but normal fathers never fall out of love with their kids! The problem psychopaths have is they cannot mimic the emotions and behaviour of non psychopaths. The police cam footage of him walking around the house after his family has 'gone missing' show him acting not like a concerned, loving, normal man whose family are missing, but like an edgy, suspicious, emotionally shut down weirdo! His behaviour is very incriminating. Chris Watts is a psychopath, but his wife Shanann was not. She loved her children and would never, ever have harmed them. She loved her husband too, and had absolutely no idea he was a danger to her and her three babies. Nobody who knew him did, there was nothing out of the ordinary about him. I keep thinking - if only she had known, and could have escaped with the kids to a place of safety. Her loved ones must feel this all the time, and wish to God they had known what he was capable of. But his murderous crimes are unthinkable to decent people. Men who murder women and children are usually utterly mundane, ordinary guys like him - after an outrage like this, you'll often see the neighbours tell TV news: "I can't believe it - he was such a nice guy!" Chris Watts never gave much away, in all the videos he featured in with Shanann you didn't see the real man. He was very much in control, very detached and unspontaneous. Every day of his life he was acting the part of a loving husband, father, work colleague, friend and all round nice guy. Pretending to be someone he was not and never could be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The ARROGANCE and ENTITLEMENT of that fool! Holding his fist aloft in a black power salute as he leaves the court - a convicted felon! Narcissistic creep.
Jussie Gussett is a disgrace to the black race. He has brought shame and embarrassment down on his black heritage - all because he was greedy, and felt he deserved MORE fame, MORE adulation and MORE MONEY! Well he sure as hell achieved the first, 'more fame' - he's now a globally infamous liar and buffoon, even more stupid than his very stupid name!
Jussie Smollett is so massively, pathologically entitled, even years later against a mountain of evidence of his guilt - and now a conviction by a jury - he won't admit his wrongdoing or apologise. Worse, he has continued to lie even after the judge nailed his cynical perjury in his final sentencing remarks (proclaiming his innocence and perjuring himself yet again, right after the judge's speech!)
Smollett is very lucky he didn't face extra jail time for his additional perjury and contempt of court! He only got 150 days - most people would have liked to see him get more time behind bars in recognition of the many aggravating factors in this sickening crime if deception. But instead of doing the decent thing, 'manning up' and confessing, Smollett got busy campaigning for celebrity support, hiding behind the skirts of every famous and celebrated public figure and star he ever sucked up to (shame on those like Samuel L Jackson and Rev Jessie Jackson who wrote him letters of support).
Yup, the little known actor who was so lucky to land a highly paid role on a TV series called 'Empire' (no - me either), looked at black stars like Samuel L Jackson, Idris Elba, Cuba Gooding Jr and Denzel Washington and thought HE deserved to be up there with them earning the big bucks in big movies. He's totally deluded!
Little Jussie Gobshite, whose hammy acting in and outside court faking victimhood and innocence, showed the world exactly how 'talented' an actor he is (not at all). Hell, he doesn't even have the charisma and sex appeal he thinks he does! He's pathetic.
I'm confident Jessie got himself a Life Sentence in the court that matters most for any public figure - the court of public opinion. Because he will never live down this horrendous, humiliating crime and his dreadful mishandling of its aftermath. If he was a better actor - and man - he might even have been able to move on from it. It would have taken huge courage - obviously far more courage than he possesses - but if he'd stood up and owned his mistakes he could have turned it around.
But this spoiled wannabe megastar could not have messed up worse, from start right down to sentencing! He clearly didn't expect to spend even a day in jail, hence his big ol' temper tantrum after sentencing. 150 days is NOTHING for the damage he did the image he did to all black people - most not them even close to being as privileged and protected as he is. He should be ashamed of himself, but we saw no remorse, Jussie's only regret is he got busted and the hero status he was so sure of turned to $hit before his eyes!
Jussie Smollett is now a slang term for cheats. He took his own image, career and reputation, the three things that mattered most to him - and flushed them down the toilet. He is never going to emerge from that $hitty U-bend ever again!
As one of the many 'memes' on the case said at the time:
'WHEN AMERICA IS SO GREAT, YOU HAVE TO HIRE 2 DUDES FROM NIGERIA TO OPPRESS YOU'! 🤣🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yuhgetintoit3929 Your nonsense accusation that I'm 'sexist' is based on one of your many false assumptions.
You wrongly assume I said only women should be supportive spouses - I did not say that, nor do I believe it.
I said Diana could not be a supportive spouse to Charles, nor I suspect to any other man. I firmly believe had she lived, she would not have re-married, primarily because she wouldn't surrender the title that was so crucial to her ego, Princess of Wales (she would have to give it up if she married again) . Every wonderful privilege she enjoyed was due to her failed marriage to Charles! She would no doubt have continued her pattern of one failed affair after another, unable to achieve the warm, comfortable and mutually supportive, monogamous union that Charles and Camilla have.
It is my view that men and women who marry should devote themselves to meeting each other's needs. The marriages in which that happens, are happy ones! Look at Prince William's wife Catherine, an intelligent and impressive woman, who is so comfortable in her own skin and at ease with herself, she is happy to support her husband emotionally and in practical ways. She doesn't resent his fame as a blood royal as Diana did Charles, or compete with him for headlines. She's doing great work for the royal family too, and proving to be a compelling public speaker on mental health.
Diana in contrast, got a taste of fame after marrying a senior royal, and immediately started competing with her husband for headlines and public acclaim. She wasn't interested in team work as a couple, least of all taking a step back occasionally, to let her husband, the future king, shine. No - it was all about Diana. She just couldn't get enough of the limelight, and was addicted to reading the tabloids every day to revel in her own publicity. A spoiled, attention-seeking child!
For the record, I don't believe Charles was able to give Diana what she wanted from him either. And that in a nutshell, was the problem - they were two needy people, who both suffered a lack of maternal love as children, and neither could give the other the devotion they needed from an intimate relationship. Let's not forget it was an arranged marriage, and they are rarely successful.
Unlike his father's arranged marriage to his mother, Prince William chose his wife well. He was allowed time to get to know Catherine and test the relationship - sadly for Charles, he was not. It was Charles, not Diana, who got the worst deal out of that failed marriage. Becoming a senior royal through marrying Charles, set Diana up for life, though she never publicly acknowledged it. That's the only reason she married him!
But marrying the unstable, self-serving Diana only brought trouble to Charles' door - and to their children too. She set out to crucify him, through manipulating the media and negatively twisting public opinion against him. She secretly set up the BBC 'Panorama' interview to say Charles would be a terrible king! To stab her husband in the back like that on national TV, the father of her children, was unforgivable. She slyly confessed to her affair with James Hewitt - conveniently forgetting to admit to the umpteen other sexual bunk ups she'd had with a string of men, while married to Charles!
The woman was out of control, and starting to get entangled in her own lies. Had she lived to see the internet age, Diana would soon have been exposed as the manipulative, self-promoting liar and fantasist she was.
Your assumption the infidelity in Charles and Diana's marriage was instigated by him - and that Diana would not have strayed, were it not for Camilla - is yet another totally false and very naive view. Diana's promiscuity from 1985 until her death, is evidence she was not heartbroken over Charles - nor did she care about Camilla, truth be told. She was too busy sleeping with anything with a pulse and enjoying her immense power and privilege as Princess of Wales! She just resented Charles and Camilla's happiness.
Diana's death at 36 in an accident that should never have happened, was entirely down to her own poor choices. Getting herself killed like that with her reckless behaviour, was a childhood tragedy for William and Harry, they could well have done without!
That said, in the long term the brothers have dodged a bullet. Because there can be no doubt Diana would have become a thorn in her son's sides - and their wives too - if she'd lived. She would have been the monster-in-law from hell, and madly resentful of the media attention her younger, sexier daughters-in-law Catherine and Meghan took from her.
You really should try harder to read and comprehend what people actually wrote - not what you mistakenly assume they wrote! But then you've misunderstood Princess Diana so totally, I guess it isn't too surprising you failed to understand me too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aperson-dz6dy Are you a child? I'm not interested in arguing with children, so if you're under 18 please 'fess up.
I didn't say I'm 'famous', that's your interpretation. I'm a journalist who was a reporter on national newspapers in the 'nineties. That's important context for my comments on the late Princess of Wales.
Why are you so impressed that I'm a journalist? There are a lot of us around you know! Believe it or not, many of us watch and comment on YouTube videos - especially when we are so much better informed than those sharing ignorant, ill-informed and totally unfounded opinions.
If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you'd have seen information about Diana that isn't in the public domain, including some shocking facts about her affairs with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare. Those posts clearly aren't merely my 'opinions' or anyone else's, and people in the know will recognise their veracity.
Once again you claim I have 'poor grammar', yet you can provide not a single example! Ironic really, when your own posts contain multiple errors such as 'your lying' for 'you're lying', sentences started with lower not upper case letters, typos and missing punctuation. Hilarious!
Congratulations though, 'A person'. It's rare I'm completely and totally bored by a poster, but you did it! You are dismissed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elrey2032 Fascinating post. It's impossible to understand the twisted thought processes, goals and rewards of sadistic, psychopathic killers like Letby, unless you are one yourself.
But yes, I agree it's entirely possible that part of her rejoices at the suffering she has caused her own parents. Their devotion to her, their only child, is unusually intense and at times weirdly inappropriate. It may not be abusive parenting in the strict sense of the word, but it certainly isn't healthy. She once told a friend she could never emigrate, as her parents would be so utterly devastated. I bet there's a big love-hate element to her feelings for them, and that she resents their controlling ways - and has done for years.
Perhaps she secretly blames them for her crimes - narcissistic abusers/killers always play the victim, and refuse to own their evil deeds. Maybe the baby-killings were a form of misdirected rage and rebellion, at the parents who expected her to be their perfect daughter?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real Lucy Letby - that is, the LL who knows she has committed these unspeakable crimes against babies - justifies her violence by blaming her parents for it.
If I'm right, then she probably feels mum and dad, not her, deserve prison for 'making her' kill. It isn't hard to imagine she harbours powerful, unresolved anger against them. And now that her life is effectively over as she will die in custody, that rage will surely inevitably grow in the years ahead.
The supreme irony is that now, due to her own, horrific crimes, she is more emotionally dependent on her mum and dad than ever. As every friend/friendly relative she ever had withdraws from her, and the bleak years/decades in custody stretch out ahead, her parents are likely the only two people left on the planet whose loyalty she can count on. Becoming a convicted child killer, of all things, has isolated her like nothing else, and hugely increased her need for parental support.
Just as bizarrely, it's possible there's a part of her clingy, over-protective parents, that sees obvious advantages from her terrible situation. Because their precious daughter can never emigrate now, or carve out an independent life that's so happy and fulfilled it doesn't include them very much. They know their prisoner daughter will need them 'til they die - and that gives them the ongoing parental power over her, that they have always craved.
Lucy may now be even more emotionally dependant on her parents, than she was as a child. In the ongoing, permanent absence of a boyfriend, husband, children of her own or close friends, her mum and dad are her world - her two 'significant others'. At least until one parent, and then the other one dies, and leaves her at the mercy of indifferent prison staff who literally don't care if she lives or dies.
As they had her late in life as older parents, she has the added worry that her parents' time on Earth as her only supporters, is limited. It really is hard to imagine a bleaker future than Lucy Letby's - except perhaps, her parents'. The daughter they were so proud of, must now be a dark, secret they share, hidden from all new acquaintances. They must forevermore watch what they say, for fear they give away their identities as parents to a monster - a serial baby-killer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattylamb9194 I'm aware of that - which is why I asked the question in my original post.
No clear motive was immediately obvious to me - first of all the guy was walking away when she shot him, so this wasn't any kind of self defence situation.
There was apparent premeditation in her purchase of the gun (with laser sight). Premeditation typically points to a financial motive.
A big clue for me is the fact he had a bag packed and placed in the trunk of his car, and was leaving the house as she shot and killed him (he had told her the marriage was over, and had rented a second home to get away from her).
To me that looks like the kind of motive more commonly seen in male domestic murders of women, ie a possessive killer angry at his partner rejecting him, and choosing murder over divorce with the age-old "If I can't have you, no one else will" mindset.
The (usually female) victims of domestic abusers are warned to escape their partner and get to a place of safety before ending the relationship. Because statistically speaking, many domestic murders happen after the woman has told the abusive partner "It's over" - and these abusers are controlling narcissists who cannot take rejection.
I think the tables were turned in this case, and the wife played the role of the abusive, controlling, manipulative spouse and killer, which we more typically see played by the man. That's what makes this such a surprising crime - the roles are reversed. She was enraged when he turned his back on her, after telling her their marriage was over. In that moment she felt belittled by him, humiliated and powerless - so she took her power back by pulling the trigger on him.
I think despite the cold premeditation involved in getting the gun, it was a crime of passion - and that's why she didn't give too much thought to the consequences for herself. She fled the country, and then spent the rest of her days expecting the police at her door. Inevitably they caught up with her, and she wound up in jail. She paid a heavy price for a mere 10 second 'high', as she fired those bullets into him!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to release him and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy for others, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions. She's dangerous, and I hope for her little boy's sake above all, she is never released from prison.
1
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to let him out and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sounds like the unorthodox, carbon-fibre hull of this unique, deep submersible vessel, was disastrously compromised over time. In all probability it finally caused the implosion of the structure as it neared the Titanic wreck under the enormous pressure of water on Sunday 18th June 2023.
I believe this is best likened to Russian Roulette. The people on board on Sunday were no doubt completely happy about their safety, due to the confidence of 'OceanGate' bosses like Stockton Rush (on board), and its reassuring history of over 200 deep dives by this and two other submersibles, to Titanic and other locations.
But as so many marine experts have said, the more deep sea dives are successfully completed, the closer the day when disaster will inevitably strike. Seems to me 'OceanGate' got away with cutting corners because they deliberately occupied the niche, multi-millionaires market, where they would be left alone, never challenged and not regulated by any independent, outside body.
High strength, alloyed steel is the typical material submarines are made from. The two 'OceanGate' submersibles, designed to go far deeper than a typical submarine to view the Titanic wreck, were constructed from weaker carbon-fibre, which is untested long term under those conditions.
Imagine if you can, sitting barefoot on the floor of that tube with 4 others you don't know, subjected to a punishing 4,000 TONS per SQUARE METRE. Mind boggling, huh?" Thanks to OceanGate, these trips to the Titanic and other deep wrecks are for the foreseeable future, a thing of the past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lancashire Police could not possibly know Nicola Bulley's bizarre and totally out of character disappearance during a daytime dog walk, was not due to a crime against her. Nor was there any evidence she had entered the river. Yet pretty much immediately, police ruled out foul play and decided she drowned - in what amounted to 3ft of water!
Their dogged belief she was somehow overwhelmed by water (which, at point of entry, would have come up to her thigh), has endured to this day - despite full underwater searches by police divers and a specialist sonar service that came up empty, and precisely zero evidence to support that view.
Police even hypothesised Nicola fell in trying to rescue her dog Willow, after she had chased a ball into the river. Three problems with that scenario, as Ms Bulley's friends promptly pointed out - 1/ Last year she stopped taking Willow's tennis ball on walks, because she was obsessive over it and pestered too much; 2/ The dog is perfectly happy and confident in water and specifically in that stretch of river she's swum in so often, so would be unlikely to need rescuing, and finally and most significantly of all, 3/ When found, Willow was bone dry. She was also running between the bench and the gate, not pacing the riverbank, or watching the water, as you might expect if she just saw her owner drown.
The police handling of this baffling missing persons case seems to have featured rigid, tunnel vision. They also appeared to resent the involvement of world renowned sonar and forensics expert Peter Faulding, which he provided free of charge, at the family's request.
Faulding's view from the start was that she didn't end up in the river - directly contradicting the police theory. No one is better qualified to than him to call it, with over 20 years experience in this specialist field, as CEO of a leading sonar underwater search and forensics group. So it's surprising Lancashire Police didn't get him on board to help their search efforts from day one, particularly as they were so convinced she was in the river.
Peter Faulding is no stranger to police investigations, having worked as consultant on some of the biggest British cases of recent years including the 2010 'Spy in the Bag' death of MI6 agent Gareth Williams, found naked inside a padlocked holdall in his flat, the abduction and murder of six-year-old April Jones by Mark Bridger in 2012, and the At no point did they reach out to him,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent post, Adele is a deeply dull, depressing, charisma-free performer. A squawking pub singer, made good. I'm staggered she's able to charge £200 for a ticket, never mind £2,000. Seems she lost the blubber, had an identity crisis, and now thinks she's Barbra Streisand.
She's another woke-joke public figure who hasn't done her homework, and lazily assumes PRIDE is all about gay acceptance, tolerance etc, when the reality is its a vile, extremist, homophobic, misogynist cult.
PRIDE aggressively pushes the lie that people can change sex. Breaking News - they can't. Put t*ts on a bull, and it's still a bull. PRIDE, like Stonewall, threw gay people and women under the bus, to champion supposed ' Trans Rights' which are not 'rights' at all (trans people rightly enjoy exactly the same human rights as everyone else), but are really trans/male demands.
These male-centred demands include trans identified men who call themselves 'Women' demanding the same recognition in life and law as Women, demanding full access to the female-only public spaces reserved for women and girls' safety, privacy and dignity (ladies toilets, changing rooms in clothes stores and sports centres, women-only hospital wards, rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, women's prisons, etc etc), and muscling in on women's sports, using their physical advantage to steal female athletes' places and prizes.
Gender ideology is having serious, negative real word consequences for women and girls, gay people and child-safeguarding. As a mother (who hopes to have a daughter), Adele should do some research, instead of stupidly and unfairly branding anyone who's critical, a 'bigot', 'transphobic' etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your courage in defending women and girls against this toxic trans male supremacist cult. Thank God you and all the brave women and girls escaped that disgraceful mob attack on women, with your lives. Women no longer have free speech in New Zealand! What a shameful misogynist country it has been reduced to - and no longer safe for females!
Trans rights' mob bigotry, thuggery and violence were videoed and witnessed by the world at 'Let Women Speak' Auckland on 25th March 2023. Ironically, gender cult did the worst PR for themselves, and the best promotion for Women's Rights! They demonstrated exactly why women will not let them invade female-only toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and the rest. Male violence against women is such a major danger, that females are even in jeopardy at a lawful women's rights rally in broad daylight! Those digusting, violent men 100% proved Women's point!
You were part of a momentous day, because 'Let Women Speak' Auckland will prove to be a watershed moment for Women's Rights - it signals the end of toxic trans activism as any kind of credible group. Bravo Kellie-Jay Keen! Thanks to Kellie-Jay Keen the end of gender-woo will come even faster. Its mob violence, woman-hate and bigotry mean it's doomed to failure - its fake 'woman-face' slipped in New Zealand, and the true ugly face of male misogyny and male violence against women was revealed to the world! Good job TRAs!
#WomensRightsAreHumanRights #TransWomenAreConMen ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why does this YouTuber state as fact, the lie that JFK was assassinated by a lone shooter, Communist patsy/fall guy Lee Harvey Oswald? That's utterly ridiculous!
60 years on from that dark day in Dallas, it is 100% clear this political murder was organised at the very highest level of the US establishment. It involved multiple hit men far more skilled - and armed with way more powerful firearms - than Oswald. He simply could not have done it!
The forensic and circumstantial evidence proving Oswald was not responsible, is compelling, and way too lengthy and comprehensive to document here! If you are unfortunate enough to be as clueless and in need of educating on JFK's murder as this YouTuber, I urge you to Google legendary forensic pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht's work, for the lowdown.
If you can't be bothered to Google Dr Wecht, I suggest you at least ask yourself why a Mafia hit man shot dead Lee Harvey Oswald, while he was in police custody - crucially, before he could give evidence in court, under oath, of the events surrounding the President's murder. Do you smell a rat? No?! If not, give me a call - I've a bridge I'd love to sell ya!
Are American children still being raised to believe the lone killer, 'magic bullet' fiction? If so - I am appalled, but it does, sadly offer some explanation as to how Donald Trump was elected POTUS in 2017...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DocProcRealm The unknown DNA found inside Suzanne's car (not the bike helmet), is merely touch DNA, ie the most common, insignificant type of DNA, left by a fleeting touch, and it is a PARTIAL match to an unidentified sex offender (not a 'serial killer', as you incorrectly stated). A partial match means that DNA did not come from the sex offender himself, but merely from a relative of that criminal.
That it's only a partial match to a sex offender, is a very important fact being omitted by Barry Morphew's lawyers and supporters, in a desperate attempt to create a non-existent murder suspect to blame his crime on! In reality there is zero evidence anyone but Barry Morphew ended Suzanne's life.
The most dramatic thing anyone can say about that DNA, is that a RELATIVE of a rapist at some time touched the interior of Suzanne Morphew's car. That could be any number of random people, from a garage mechanic, to a teen friend of one of her daughters, she once gave a ride to.
And let's not forget, Suzanne's vehicle was not even involved in her disappearance/murder!
That touch DNA is entirely irrelevant in the death of Suzanne Morphew, which all evidence indicates was a sadly all-too common case of domestic murder by her husband. But Barry Morphew's defence team will exploit that DNA red herring to the max, to keep their guilty client out of prison.
Barry Morphew had a documented history of domestic abuse against Suzanne, and 4 days before her murder she had told him in writing (by text), she wanted a divorce. His history of emotional and physical domestic abuse, and her plans to end the relationship (both documented and proven), point to a textbook domestic killing. Put simply, the narcissistic, wealth and status-obsessed Barry Morphew was not going to let his wife publicly reject him, and walk away to a happy future without him - taking her money with her.
In a high percentage of spousal murders, the victim is killed by her abusive partner/ex partner when she leaves/states an intention to leave him. Suzanne's last location is proven - she was sunbathing in the back yard of the marital home and sending WhatsApp messages (and her last selfie photo), to her long-distance boyfriend.
Texts/cellphone data confirm Barry Morphew was on his way home from a local errand, while she was enjoying that extended romantic conversation. It doesn't take a genius to work out her husband caught her sending those sexually charged messages to another man, and his anger still simmering over her recently-stated intention to divorce him, he exploded into violence.
Cellphone pings show when Barry Morphew returned home, he was running around outside the house. He was hunting Suzanne with a tranquilliser gun, like she was one of the countless animals he terrorised and killed for fun.
A tiny woman, and weakened by cancer, once hit by the powerful sedative she was totally defenceless. I believe another textbook aspect of her murder was her cause of death - statistically most likely to be strangulation. That method would also explain the lack of blood at the crime scene.
Barry Morphew is a despicable, cowardly wife killer, who for three years has got away with his heinous murder. But Suzanne's body has risen to point the finger at him, from beyond the grave. The truth will out. Barry Morphew's luck has finally run out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amber Heard's been conning and gas lighting and manipulating and grooming people with her brazen, self-serving lies ALL HER LIFE. Of course she finds it 'surreal' the jury didn't eat up her bullshit!
It took a log time, but finally aged 36 she was BUSTED in the most public way imaginable, as not only a liar, but a narcissistic abuser of the most heinous, violent kind. The jury delivered a victory for TRUTH and JUSTICE.
I am now firmly of the view Heard was capable of killing Johnny Depp after he told her their marriage was over. If he hadn't immediately left the US for a European music tour after giving her the news, he may well have wound up with the knife she had gifted him - inscribed UNTIL DEATH - embedded in his heart.
I'm not a Johnny Depp fan and had never seen even one of his movies before this trial. If I had a bias, it was for Amber Heard, as the woman (despite misogynist claims to the contrary, females rarely make false abuse allegations). But it wasn't long before the live trial coverage convinced me the liar and abuser here was not Johnny Depp but Amber Heard. It's lame and predictable she would double down on her terrible, defamatory lies in defeat, and attribute his victory 100% to his fame, like the jury were merely slavish fans of a movie star. BULLSHIT!
Over 6 weeks, Amber Heard had a fair trial, and her very serious claims of domestic violence by Johnny Depp were taken totally seriously. She was given a platform to air them in full, and present her case. Neither the jury not 99% of viewers at home found her or her evidence to be credible. GROW UP AMBER! Face that truth like an adult not a spoiled brat, and take responsibility for your disgusting, cruel, destructive behaviour for once in your frigging life!
If not for yourself, try to be a better human being for the little girl you are raising! God knows the world does not need another mini-me Amber Heard, raised in your warped image!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sickening to see him sat there in drag, ordering pricey seafood platters with his camera rolling like he's a celebrity, then abusing waiting staff on the minimum wage who innocently fail to confirm his crazy fantasy that he's Kim Kardashian!
His behaviour is typical of the worst kind of MALE entitlement. Funny, that!
Calling a blatant man she/her/Ma'am is mis-gendering - calling him Sir is correct, and affords him way more respect than he deserves, acting out like this. The NERVE of him! If hearing the truth about his biological sex is a knife to his heart, he needs therapy - but that's 100% clear!
Dress however you want but you are not a woman, and never will be. Mammals cannot change sex. I bet he invades the female toilets too, where he has no right to be. Single sex spaces were hard won by women, and exist to protect the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls. Once men use them they are no longer single sex - and are no longer safe, private spaces for females.
Men must stay the hell out of female toilets, changing rooms, women's hospital wards, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres and prisons - not forgetting women's sports. Men remain men, however they dress or identify, and men do not belong in the public spaces and facilities reserved for females - End Of. As always, Rita nailed this anti social narcissist's garbage!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So not only is this guy impersonating a police officer, he's a sex offender, impersonating a police officer. What horrors could possibly ensue for any women motorists he likes the look of?!
I bet he was looking for a lone female driver to intimidate and pull over that night, using his Amazon flashing lights and air horn. Terrifying!
What are women supposed to do to keep themselves safe from sexual assault by fake cops? The con man isn't going to stand around and wait, while you call 911 to check him out. Once he's put handcuffs on you, your chance of escape is zero. And as we know, real cops have been known to rape and murder female citizens.
Here in the UK in March 2021, serving police officer Wayne Couzens exploited Covid lockdown rules to cuff and kidnap 33-year-old Sarah Everard as she walked home down a busy, well lit London street at around 9.30pm. He then enacted a long-held plan to rape and murder her, in a car he hired for just that purpose.
Couzens was previously reported to police multiple times for exposing his genitals to women, and masturbating in public places. Despite the fact witnesses provided his correct car registration, Couzens was never even questioned by law enforcement colleagues, least of all arrested or charged. His sex offences were clearly ignored, and he was allowed to get away with them - and escalate his sexual offending to rape and murder.
Couzens' most recent crime, masturbating in front of female employees at a McDonalds drive thru, happened just a few days before he killed Sarah for kicks. The fast food workers reported him and his licence plate to police, reporting that he was so arrogant, he had returned to do the exact same thing a second time, just an hour later. Clearly Couzens had got away with sex offences so many times, he literally believed he was above the law and untouchable - even if he raped and murdered a member of the public.
Had police only followed correct procedure and suspended him over the McDonalds incidents, confiscating his uniform, handcuffs and police ID pending a full investigation, there's every chance he'd have been scared of consequences (like losing his job), and would not have gone out that fateful night searching for a murder victim.
Law enforcement's repeated failure to confront Couzens over his sex offending, was undoubtedly a significant factor in Sarah Everard's murder. She should be alive today, and I believe would be, had police acted on those multiple witness reports of his revolting, illegal conduct towards females.
There is no such thing as a 'minor sex offence'. Serial killer Ted Bundy, guilty of the sexually motivated murders of at least 20 women and possibly over 100, started out as a teenage 'Peeping Tom', watching females undress through neighbouring windows. Such voyeurism - classed a 'minor sex offence' - is nothing of the kind, because it's so frequently the precursor for the worst kind of sexual violence.
I hope this guy lost his nerve after this major police intervention. But I fear It's just a matter of time before he gets himself the fake cop uniform. The only thing more dangerous to women and girls than male sex predators, are male sex predators in police uniform.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree, sadly those poor children probably froze with fear. Even adults will comply with a dangerous perpetrator's demands, in hopes if they do as he says he will let them go afterwards.
But everything the perpetrator says is for HIS benefit, not the victim's. So it makes more sense to do the OPPOSITE of what he says, and constantly defy and resist him. And yes, this story shocks on many levels, and one is that it took place in a public location in broad daylight where you would think the girls could have got help from passers by. Screaming and making as much noise as possible was their best bet. But in their sudden shock, fear and confusion at their changed circumstances, it's totally understandable if they did not.
Libby and Abby are believed to have made a break for freedom and tried to run away from this man (hence all three crossed the brook and got wet, which was not his intention), but were quickly overpowered and subdued by him. They did try, bless them, but innocent children are no physical or mental match for an adult male with evil intentions.
I feel kids should be taught personal safety tips, and some physical self defence moves at school. As parents, we should tell our children to scream "NO!", run, fight, tantrum - do everything they can to resist, attract attention and not go with an abductor to the second location - where he is more likely to kill you than in the first.
Sadly we still raise kids to be respectful, obedient and polite to adults - but as this tragedy shows, that is not always in their best interests. I feel kids should carry a personal alarm that emits a piercing shriek for such a situation. Why don't cellphone manufacturers fit them with such a feature, so that pressing a combination of numbers turns the phone into a deafening alarm, emitting a mega-loud siren call to scare off an attacker and alert help? It's possible such an alarm feature on the girls' phones might just have saved their lives that day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raptorman48 Hilarious! Behave yourself @raptorman48. 🙄🙄🙄
No so-called 'psychic investigator' has ever provided an accurate analysis/true facts of a factual criminal case, beyond sheer chance/dumb luck!
Solving crimes, especially those as serious and notorious as the 2017 Delphi double child murder, always comes down to a combination of skilled police work, and good leads from the public. Which is why this case took a staggering FIVE YEARS to solve.
Inexperienced Indiana law enforcement simply weren't up to the job of solving a crime this big. But under narcissistic police chief Supt Doug Carter, they would not admit that, or seek professional help from the FBI.
Because they were so out of their depth, police were crazily protective about the evidence, refusing to share even the most basic, pertinent facts with the public, for example, the victims' cause of death. Much as the public wants to help the police investigation, especially in a crime as heinous as this, they cannot do so in an information vacuum!
Thanks to a weak and nervous Indiana Police investigation full of serious mistakes, and a resulting lack of valuable tips from the public, it was a staggering five years before Richard Allen's arrest. Yet Allen had come forward soon after the murders, and told authorities he was at the crime scene that day, and was wearing the same clothes seen on victim Libby's Smartphone video. In trying to get ahead of the damning video evidence showing him there, Allen as good as made a murder confession!
Yet incredibly his statement slipped through the net, and was not properly looked at or acted on until a 'ground zero' re-investigation of the evidence in 2022. This case did not need a psychic to solve it, it merely needed competent police officers.
Once this murder trial has concluded, I hope Supt Doug Carter and Indiana Police will be held fully accountable for their appalling, shabby work in this case, which allowed a highly dangerous killer to walk free for five years! It is no thanks to those police officers he did not commit further murders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LCMxox Thanks, I stand corrected. For the record, Lori has had at least FIVE husbands since 1992, and was divorced four times before marrying current husband and partner-in-crime Chad Daybell.
Her former husbands are Nelson Yanes, married 1992, then William Lagioia (wed in 1995, father of her eldest child Colby Ryan), Joseph Ryan (married in 2001, father of Tylee Ryan), and Charles Vallow, married in 2006, the adopted father of JJ who by blood was his nephew's son, therefore his great nephew.
Charles Vallow was murdered in a conspiracy between his ex wife and her brother Alex Cox when he visited her home for access to JJ and was ambushed and shot multiple times on July 11th 2019.
Lori was therefore a widow when she married Chad Daybell on 5th November 2019, less than 3 weeks after the sudden suspicious death of his 49-year-old wife Tammy, and around 2 months after the murders of her two children.
Tylee Ryan was murdered on or around September 9th 2019 aged 16, and JJ Vallow on 23rd September 2019, aged 7.
Lori's brother Alex Cox (called 'the family hit man), died of supposed natural causes on December 12th 2019.
Lori's third husband Joseph Ryan died of supposed natural causes (heart attack) in April 2018.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@worldtraveler721 Charles had an affair with one married woman, who he ultimately married and is now his Queen. It was a love match.
Like Charles, Camilla was unhappily married to a narcissistic cheater, the notorious womaniser, Andrew Parker Bowles.
Diana was a serial cheat, and her adultery was on a whole other level to Charles' one affair. Diana enthusiastically embarked on multiple affairs, with multiple different men. Many of her conquests were married, among them her police bodyguard Barry Mannakee, art dealer Oliver Hoare (who she obsessively stalked and harassed with over 300 silent phone calls, when he dumped/enraged her), and newlywed England rugby star Will Carling, whose marriage she ended.
Diana's affairs with other women's husbands were shallow, all about cheap sexual thrills, and none of them had even the potential to lead to a committed relationship. Her ruthless, selfish pursuit of men wearing wedding rings left behind many heartbroken wives. Diana had no conscience whatsoever about her appalling, callous and immoral behaviour. Comparing her extra marital promiscuity with her estranged husband's one love affair with his old flame and future wife, is utterly ridiculous. There is no comparison. Oranges and Apples!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great post, bravo. The behavioural traits of narcissistic abusers like Amber Heard are surprisingly similar and predictable, so people can learn some useful - and potentially life saving - information from watching these court proceedings.
I applaud Johnny Depp for his courage in bringing painful public scrutiny on his private suffering with this legal action. He is a good man whose good name matters to him, and that's why he's willing to endure this ordeal in the name of justice.
Amber Heard is a ruthless abuser who will plumb any depths to win, including exploiting his addiction issues (which he's never denied - doesn't mean he's abusive), and even his own children to attack him. That she deliberately defecated in his side of the marital bed, shows exactly how unhinged she is!
Fact is SHE put HIM in hospital, with a serious amputation injury to his finger requiring immediate reconstructive surgery. Imagine the furore from her legal team if he had done that to her! Yet there is not one scrap of evidence he has ever physically assaulted her, as she claims.
Abuse victims frequently take responsibility for their own abuse, and instead of condemning the abuser, blame themselves for it. So Depp's apologies to Heard for his drink and drug use are no surprise - like her abuse, they are only too predictable. But he has never mentioned inflicting any physical violence on her, and there's a good reason for that - he never committed any!
Amber Heard secretly tape recorded /videoed her husband in his own home without his knowledge or permission, to make him look bad and to get herself the biggest possible divorce settlement. Those recordings alone show she went into the marriage with dollar signs in her eyes, anticipating a lucrative conclusion to it. Her divorce lawyers' letters to Depp's attorneys are shocking, they are blatant blackmail and extortion notes in which Heard's side demanded mind-boggling sums of money and properties from him, "Or Else" she would go to the media with tawdry, invented stories painting him as an abuser. She's the very worst example of a gold digger I've seen!
Some of those tapes have been played in court, and not one of them EVER featured him saying he had physically hit, smacked or hurt her in any way whatsoever - not one. It is revealing that Johnny Depp often apologised to Heard for his drug use, and for their verbal fights, but she has no admission from him that he has ever assaulted her. Clearly he never did.
A typical abuser, Heard is also a pathological liar. I pray justice prevails.
1
-
1
-
I met Bea Arthur in the early 'nineties when she guested on a BBC chat show, and I had to look after her as a young TV researcher. As I recall she was quite an impenetrable character, in a world of her own. Not rude exactly, just closed off, with cold body language (she barely looked at you when she spoke to you).
The fact she was stone deaf didn't help - she constantly hollered one word at me: "WHAAAAAT???" She was quite elderly then, but I imagine when younger she could be an intimidating presence, especially to people less powerful than herself.
In my view it doesn't reflect well on her that she didn't adore the universally loved Betty White. This is interesting, especially when you consider the two women had known each other for many years as members of that small, elite Hollywood world.
Betty said her natural positivity irritated Bea. The way she explained it, her very presence on the 'Golden Girls' set, put Bea's hackles up. The two women were such opposites in terms of their image, it's perhaps not surprising they weren't best buddies. But when you hear how warmly Betty speaks of Bea, in spite of her cool indifference, it suggests something else to me.
It's a cliche I know, but could there have been a touch of the green eyed monster in Bea's attitude to Betty? After all, she was extremely popular, and one of the very few people in Hollywood no one had a bad word to say about. I suspect her sweet nature and huge popularity were a source of resentment to Bea - despite being the star of 'The Golden Girls' with no reason to feel threatened by her co-star.
By all accounts Betty was a warm and likeable character on and off screen. She didn't have children, but all her life loved animals. She was involved in many animal charities and supported Los Angeles Zoo. She once told a newspaper that as well as for her acting: "I also want to be remembered as a lady who helped the animals". God bless her beautiful soul.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lori Vallow started using her brother Alex as her personal 'enforcer' and hit man, years before, when he attacked her second husband with a Taser (no doubt on her instructions).
In June of last year Alex shot dead her husband Charles (who from January had been speaking to police about her mental health and expressing concern for the children's safety). The murder took place after Lori lured Charles to her home - he was ambushed by Alex in her lounge, mysteriously empty of furniture. Both children Tylee and JJ likely witnessed this appalling event.
Alex and Lori told the cops Charles hit him with a baseball bat and he shot him dead in self defence AND POLICE BELIEVED THEM! Alex was a felon - why the hell didn't they arrest him and take him into custody? He had just killed a man!
Police bodycam shows Lori standing on the street with her daughter Tylee (who she would also have murdered by Alex, just 3 months later). Lori is smiling and wisecracking without a care in the world, as her husband Charles lays dead inside her house. She was no doubt excited because she believed she was sole beneficiary to Charles' $1 million life insurance policy - she later found he had changed the beneficiary to his sister, so the murder didn't net her a single cent!
Lori Vallow's motive for having her brother kill her husband was obvious - not only was he becoming a thorn in her side over the children, she would become a millionaire with his death (or so she thought). Her motives for killing both children, with the help of brother Alex (who likely did the deed) and married husband-to-be Chad Daybell on whose land they were buried, are harder to understand.
Chad Daybell obviously wanted the kids off the scene - they were not his, he had 5 children of his own with wife Tammy (who would soon be found dead in her bed supposedly from 'natural causes'). I believe Chad prompted the murders of Lori's two kids - he told her this religious BS about them becoming 'zombies' as an excuse to have them killed. Brother Alex was only too happy to help his sister with two further murders - this time of children, his 17 year old niece and 7 year old nephew. Lori maybe offered him a big payout from Charles' insurance? It's all baffling to any reasonable human. If Lori wanted out of life as a wife and mother she could have just divorced Charles and given the children to him - Taylee was almost an adult anyway. She didn't have to have them both murdered! Lori Vallow is evil personified - and with the help of equally evil sub-humans, her brother Alex and soon-to-be fourth husband Chad Daybell, she wreaked violence and tragedy on so many innocent people.
1
-
Agreed, it's obvious the police are no nearer catching this killer than they were on day one. Under the totally useless Doug Carter, the police investigation was badly mishandled. Holding back every detail of the crime from the public was a schoolboy error, due to inexperience and poor judgement.
Police don't solve crimes - ultimately they are solved by the public. But the public has be be given sufficient clues to do that, and in the information vacuum that followed Delphi, no one had enough facts to join the dots and suspect their father/brother/son/husband/employer/friend/colleague of being 'bridge guy'.
Libby was so brave secretly videoing him in her last, terrified moments, so police had both moving pictures and audio of the killer. But that golden clue she provided, the video, was not shared far and wide, and in FULL, with the media from the start, as it should have been.
The first week or two after a crime is the golden window of opportunity, when people who know the killer can identify him to police. Memories are fresh, and they'll recall something suspicious within those early days after the murder - a guy who turned up to an appointment late, scruffy, dirty or acting agitated. Maybe he had a scratch across his face he gave a far-fetched explanation for. A man who murders two children in broad daylight, in public, is not going to be acting normally afterwards. This is a sex killer - he will have been energised, excited and definitely different than usual. Even a waitress who serves him coffee in the same greasy spoon every Tuesday might notice something odd about him after he did that.
But because police messed up the early investigation, those people just didn't have their memory jogged by anything, and couldn't call in with his details. That is down to Doug Carter and the terrible, low-key strategy they agreed on. That's why this double homicide remains unsolved, and the killer remains free to kill again 5 years later. And he will - if he hasn't already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@automatoncollectives7237 Taking all known facts into account, no reasonable person with brain cells in above double figures would accept Curtis Reeves' assertion he believed his life was in danger that afternoon. It's plainly obvious not for a nanosecond was he in fear. That's the basis of his self defense claim - so it's a total crock.
What he was, was pumped up, aggressive and spoiling for a fight with a younger man he knew he'd win, because he was armed with a loaded gun.
The Curtis Reeves who walked into a movie theatre and picked on a stranger (for the 'crime' of texting his child's babysitter during the trailers, not the movie), was the real Curtis Reeves - a macho, egotistical bully, used to forcing his will on others - previously with help from his police uniform, and since retirement with his nasty attitude and hidden firearm.
He was and is the opposite of the feeble, eminently calm and 'reasonable' old man he acted in court (complete with prop walking stick). Curtis Reeves is a big, burly bully, who since retirement clearly missed wearing his police uniform, abusing his police powers, and calling the shots everywhere he went.
If you honestly believed the murderer - be careful. He isn't the only manipulative, highly dangerous narcissist out there, far from it! You could easily become another victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Reeve left a beautiful and remarkable legacy, both personally and professionally. For so many of us, he will forever be the ultimate Superman. Who else could have breathed life into that big screen icon, as he did so convincingly, and with such warm humanity?
Off screen he was a real, flesh and blood superhero - paralysis could not diminish the great man he was. The kind of humble, nurturing man we should all raise our sons to be. That Dana, his soul mate, should die so young, and be denied raising their son Will to adulthood, was another cruel, against the odds tragedy.
So moving to see their gorgeous children supporting each other, and laughing together, as well as crying. Life is full of peaks and valleys, and we must tackle both with grace and courage.
God bless Christopher and Dana, together again, for all eternity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You nailed it! Two ghastly, vain, spoiled, greedy people, who fully deserved each other and the empty, shallow life of privilege they wound up living in France.
The couple had unimaginable wealth, and not even a child to support. They could have used their money to make a lasting legacy - maybe started a charity, opened a hospital - or done any number of good things with it. They frequently complained they were bored - yet they never launched any benevolent project in their names that would have given them a purpose beyond shopping, drinking, and meaningless self-indulgence.
Instead they held lavish dinner parties, travelled the world first class, and rubbed shoulders with celebrities. They left no lasting legacy at all - just the abdication story which is finally being recognised accurately not as a love story, but a tale of selfish hedonism and dereliction of duty. Oh, and the sale of Wallis' jewels to benefit charity. The former king emerged from the gilded cage of monarch as a multi millionaire. But did nothing positive with that money. This really is a pathetic story of two unbelievably self-centred, shallow people.
When Edward died, Wallis suffered a horrible, lonely widowhood - because she had foolishly failed to establish any real friendships. As a result when her health began to fail she was very vulnerable. Her husband and protector was gone, and a French female lawyer soon muscled in, with dollar signs in her eyes. It's believed she forged all kinds of documents to take personal ownership of priceless property belonging to Wallis and Edward. Soon Wallis was so frail and confused, she became housebound. If any friends or associates contacted her, they were rebuffed by staff - on the orders of the crooked lawyer. Wallis lived another 14 years after losing her husband, bedridden for many of them and attended by nurses. She was very isolated in that huge house, and it seems suffered terribly in that time.
Earl Mountbatten had tried to befriend her after Edward's death. He even drew up a financial plan for her to leave the sprawling Paris villa, and move into a luxurious suite at a top hotel in New York. There she could have lived out her days in comfort with a small, full time staff, and been the toast of the Big Apple. But it seems her lawyer swiftly intervened and replied to Mountbattern's letters, quashing the proposal.
A great shame for Wallis - Mountbatten had thrown her a lifeline. But without her husband's patronage, she was being controlled by some sinister people on the make - and as her mental confusion worsened, she was a sitting duck for exploitation. Her husband should have put a plan in place to get her out of that villa when he died. It's ironic he prioritised her best interests always - yet he effectively left her high and dry and totally vulnerable, when he died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SP-LW.55.11.5 You fundamentally misrepresent what happened. If you're interested in the truth I will tell you. Charles and Diana's arranged marriage was over - entirely mutually - by 1986. At that time Diana chose to abandon Charles to live at their country estate Highgrove House, Gloucestershire, while she moved full time into Kensington Palace, London.
In London, Diana enjoyed the hedonistic lifestyle of a single woman, with countless lovers - many married men - frequently smuggled to her home by her butler in the boot of his car. The subterfuge was so that the Princess could continue to mislead the media and public, and play the role of heartbroken wife. In fact Diana was having too much fun sleeping around in the glittering metropolis to care who or what Charles did in he country!
Camilla was an old flame and friend of Prince Charles, and was also trapped in a loveless marriage to an adulterer. Like Diana, her husband Andrew Parker-Bowles had many affairs. As a neighbour of the Prince in Tetbury, the couple began spending more time together and rekindled their love affair. Do you think Charles should have sat home alone every night while his wife was enjoying herself in London with a queue of men beating a path to her bedroom?!
Half of all marriages end in divorce - the failure rate is even higher for arranged marriages like the Waleses. Charles and Diana were not compatible - he bored her to tears, as she made very clear to the world's media on their dwindling, joint public appearances of the late 'eighties. The marriage ended by mutual agreement -Charles returned to his former love Camilla, and Diana slept around with a cast of thousands, while playing the innocent to the media in a performance of breathtaking deception and hypocrisy.
It simply isn't true that Charles broke Diana's heart - she only pretended he did to win public sympathy for herself, and to demonise him. Diana was a very manipulative and vindictive woman. She didn't want Charles herself, but she didn't want to see him happy with someone else. That is childish, unhinged behaviour - and her spiteful public attacks on her estranged husband, including colluding on the ridiculous, romanticised Andrew Morton book, and the disastrous BBC 'Panorama' interview, hurt her two sons terribly.
But when Diana was disappointed by a man, she was hell-bent on punishing him - look how she stalked and harassed married lover Oliver Hoare when he refused to leave his wife for her, and instead ended their secret affair. Diana went nuts, visiting public payphones at 2am to make malicious, silent phone calls to his marital home - over 300 in all! It backfired on her big time when Hoare called her bluff, came clean to his wife, and reported her to the police - one of whom leaked the story of her adulterous affair to the News of the World!
Suddenly the princess' true identity as a spiteful, petulant, narcissistic nightmare was being revealed. All the time she was crucifying her husband for his ONE affair with the woman he loved and would go on to marry, she was the real home-wrecker and adulterer, seducing any man with a pulse - and frequently a wedding ring! Ask the heartbroken wives of the married men Diana slept with what they think of the self-styled 'Queen of Hearts'.
Diana was a very damaged individual. Had she lived into the internet age, with the far greater global scrutiny it would inevitably bring, she would have been exposed as the unpleasant, self-serving creature she was behind the fake 'Mother Theresa' act - and her popularity would have plummeted.
Diana fans are even more shallow than she was - the simple fact of her getting older and losing her sex appeal, would also have had her former fan club abandoning her in droves. Diana is only popular today because she died before her vile, pathological narcissism and spite were revealed, and before she lost her looks!
And how Diana would have loathed growing older and becoming a grannie. She'd have been possessive over her two sons, and fallen out with both them and their wives, jealous that the younger, more attractive Catherine and Meghan were taking all the media attention from her! Those two women dodged a bullet if they did but know it, she'd have been the mother-in-law from Hell!
1
-
@caroleceres Diana is long deceased, she hasn't cast a shadow for 26 years, nor will she ever again!
Life goes on - people marry, and people sadly find they aren't compatible and divorce. That's all that happened to Charles and Diana. it was no tragedy as she pretended for public sympathy, and to publicly demonise the father of her children - causing needless pain to her young sons with her pointless war against their dad and the royal family.
Without the royals, Diana would have been just another boring aristocrat's daughter, with no qualifications (despite her expensive private education), and no career ambition beyond marrying well.
Diana did very well out of that marriage - she got VIP status for life, two fine sons, a palace for a home, full time staff on call 24-7, 365 days a year, and £17 million in the bank. She also got her freedom from Charles, who bored her to tears (as she made only too obvious on their increasingly rare, joint public appearances from 1984 onwards when she was embarrassingly frosty to him).
Yet despite all the glittering prizes and privileges the marriage gave her, she was full of self pity. Alas her youngest son Harry is similarly spoiled, self-obsessed and narcissistic. Seeing the world's top 1% of obscenely wealthy, privileged people asking for sympathy, is a truly sickening spectacle!
Post divorce, Diana was on course for a fabulous life most of us could only dream of. But she threw it away by choosing bad company, entrusting them with her safety and security, and finally, failing to fasten her seat belt - despite being mother to two dependant children. Diana's own, foolish choices got her killed. As a mother, she should have taken her responsibility to her sons far more seriously, and either accepted the Queen's offer of top, Scotland Yard security for life, or hired her own driver and bodyguards with the multi million divorce settlement she got from Charles.
What have you got against Camilla? She loves Charles as Diana never did, and never could. Diana didn't want Charles - she just didn't want to see him happy with another woman, it was sheer spite!
Diana broke up several marriages, England rugby star Will Carling's among them, and she did her damnedest to end many more. When married father of three Oliver Hoare refused to leave his wife for her, and instead ended their affair, the Princess launched a vindictive campaign of harassment making 300+ malicious silent phone calls to his marital home, around the clock. She was nuts - and as vindictive as hell. God help any man who disappointed Diana, she was hell bent on revenge for the least perceived slight!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a dummy that guy is to be taken in by the lies of pathological liars and con artists like Chad and Lori Daybell! I hope he feels a fool now his wonderful friends have been exposed as child murderers, spouse murderers and God knows how many other types of murderers!
If he had an ounce of integrity or class he would have apologised to JJ Vallow's beloved grandma Kay Woodcock. All she and JJ's grandpa Larry ever wanted was to bring that little boy home and take care of him. Lori knew that, so she had JJ murdered in revenge for Kay receiving the $1 million life insurance pay out she assumed was hers after killing her husband Charles Vallow for it!
Lori killed sweet JJ, to get back at his grandma Kay. A 7 year old, autistic child didn't suit her future plans with the chinless 'Cult' Chad Daybell - but she didn't want JJ to live happily with his grandparents and the $1 million his adoptive father Charles left them either. That evil bee-atch is so money mad she even tried to sell little JJ's assistance dog, before the charity that had provided it saw her advertisement, and took the dog back!
There was also a financial motive in the murder of her 16 year old daughter Tylee Ryan. At age 18, ie one year after her murder, Tylee would have received her inheritance from her late father Joseph Ryan. No doubt her mother Lori wanted that cash for herself - especially after she realised she wasn't about to become a millionaire from her husband Charles' murder. After her husband Charles and her daughter Tylee's murders, Lori used both of their bank accounts as if they were her own. She even bought herself a wedding ring from Amazon with her late husband's credit card - two weeks before Chad Daybell's wife's death from AHEM, 'Natural Causes'! These two creeps Lori and Chad must be prosecuted for all their evil crimes to the fullest extent of the law! Lori's vile brother Alex Cox helped with many of the murders - then mysteriously died himself. He escaped justice, but the equally wicked and soulless Lori and Chad must not!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phyllislang8986 When people are polite and respectful to me, I respond in kind. Ditto when they are rude!
You seem to have a very subjective, one-sided view on this Phyllis. If you read back through these comments you'll find some vile insults directed at me by Diana fans, purely because I made factual statements about their idol that contradicted their 'Disney princess' image of her.
Sad to say, they are just as deluded as the late princess was herself. She was not the selfless, kind-hearted 'victim' she portrayed to the media, but could be scarily cruel and vindictive. Her spiteful attacks on Charles, Tiggy Legge-Bourke and ex lover Oliver Hoare are just three examples of this very unappealing aspect of her character.
Diana was handsomely rewarded for any 'good works' she did with a VIP luxury lifestyle, a Kensington Palace home, servants on call 24-7 and unlimited wealth. so forgive me if I don't share your wonder and awe that she once shook the hand of an Aids patient and posed for hpoto opportunities with dying children!
And let's not forget how she peevishly dropped most of her charities when the mood took her, plunging many of them into a financial crisis from which they never recovered. Diana's first priority - far above her charity 'work', and even her own children - was always Diana.
1
-
@deborahdean8867 So you claim to know what went on in Charles and Diana's sex life now? Hilarious! And what exactly do you think Diana 'wouldn't do for her husband' that Camilla would - do share. Because I have it on VERY good authority there was no sex act Diana wouldn't perform for her many lovers! Unlike you I'm a journalist who interviewed people close to the Prince and Princess of Wales in the 'nineties (for national newspapers), I'm not merely a Diana fan spouting made-up gossip and slander in support of her, as you are. My information comes from impeccable sources.
So here are a few facts about the Waleses' marriage breakdown, to correct your misinformation, outright lies and innuendo. Diana stopped sleeping with her husband in 1985. She effectively abandoned him to their country estate Highgrove in Gloucestershire, and moved into Kensington Palace full time, where she enjoyed the exciting hedonistic London life of a single woman.
To be clear - Charles bored her to tears. She was no longer in love with him and she couldn't care less what (or who) he did in Tetbury while she was enjoying herself in the capital city with a string of different men. Her claim that Charles broke her heart with Camilla is pure fiction, a fairy story told to cast herself in the role of blameless victim, and paint them as villains.
Diana's agenda was to win public sympathy and a PR war with her husband which was entirely of her making (specifically the Andrew Morton book she slyly colluded with and the bombshell 'Panorama' interview). Her vindictive media campaign against the father of her children hurt William and Harry badly, and ultimately backfired on her because it triggered the couples' divorce (which Diana didn't want, for self serving reasons), Many people swallowed her spiteful lies at the time, but most have wised up in 2022!
In her new bachelorette lifestyle, the princess entertained umpteen lovers - many of whom she shamelessly introduced to her innocent little boys. She may have been a virgin when she married the heir to the throne (she was well aware that was necessary to seal the deal and win the prize of becoming a future queen), but she more than made up for it just four years later!
You state you're only aware of Diana having one affair - you must be alluding the the one and only extra marital relationship she admitted to with James Hewitt. But in fact there was a long list of men she never mentioned but went to great lengths to keep secret, many of them married, and all unsuitable for various different reasons.
When Diana told 'Panorama' there were quote: "three people in the marriage" she badly miscounted, because she forgot to include all her own sexual partners. The marriage was WAY more 'crowded' than she let on to Martin Bashir - thanks to her serial adultery, it was practically an orgy!
Abandoned by his wife who made it clear she was his wife in name only and would never again share a bed with him (a source of some embarrassment on their joint royal tours), what was Prince Charles supposed to do? You condemn him for turning to his old flame and trusted friend Camilla for support, while his wife was sleeping around and enjoying herself with countless men? That's exactly the same double standard Diana lived her immoral life by!
Perhaps your devotion to the late Princess Diana comes down to your sharing her questionable morality? If so, I would urge you to reconsider and not to emulate her lousy behaviour. Instead, learn the lessons from her Greek tragedy. Because her spite, selfishness and the persecution complex she has handed down to her spoiled hedonistic son Harry, not only failed to make her happy - they paved the way to her shocking premature death at 36.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmcmanus I urge you to do some research on this case, your post is woefully ignorant, ill informed.
Richard Allen came forward within days of these shocking child murders, committed in broad daylight in a public location, and identified himself as 'Bridge Guy'. There's no question about it - he absolutely did!
No, he didn't say he murdered the girls - obviously not! But crucially he did confess he was at the relevant location, specifically on the bridge, and said he was wearing the exact same clothes seen on Libby's cellphone footage.
It's clear Allen was freaked out at seeing himself on TV news stills (Bridge Guy), and in addition knew the multiple female witnesses had seen him.
Allen was scared, and decided to 'get ahead' of the story by calling the tip line and pretending he was a WITNESS at the Monon trails that day, rather than the SUSPECT/KILLER he really was.
No other male was seen by any witness. Richard Allen is it - he has admitted he'd that guy! Wake up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tsimy876 Your crazily deluded YouTube post would be hilarious, if it weren't so disgustingly anti-Women and Girls.
I am a Woman (an #AdultHumanFemale), and in keeping with my Female sex and our immutable biological impulses, I will be kind and assume you're ignorant and need education. So here goes:
Adele is a very famous Woman with a global platform. But incredibly, Adele is backing extremist, misogynist gender-cult, an anti-Female, horribly Male-centric Hate group, seeking to remove Women and Girls' most basic, fundamental, sex-based/human rights.
In short - Adele is a horribly confused turkey, voting for Thanksgiving/Christmas/Both of them!
Modern gender-cult (disingenuously branded 'trans rights), is a far bigger and more sinister attack on Females and their hard-won, long-fought for human rights, than the mighty Suffragettes battled against to win the vote for Women over a century ago.
The legendary Emmeline Pankurst and her fellow Suffragettes were only fighting for the vote/Women's Suffrage at general elections, and an equal say in who formed the next UK Government. In 2024 however, Females are battling to retain the exclusive ownership and use of our own, unique, sex-based definition, 'Woman'. It's terrifying. The stakes could not possibly be higher for the Female sex!
If no political party can accurately and truthfully define what a Woman is, how can they possibly be trusted to respect, recognise and deliver, Women's Rights as a government? Obviously, they can't.
With the sole right to our name 'Woman', we also rightly seek to retain our important, single sex public spaces to which men are not admitted, however they 'identify' or dress, (eg female toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis facilities, women's prisons, etc). And no trans identified male should be able to muscle into Women's sports and use his superior physical strength to steal the places and prizes intended for Women and Girls.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You 'remember' nothing, because you don't know the people involved, or the reality of their situation. You just decided to unquestionably buy into Diana's ridiculous self-pity party, over a failed arranged marriage that was doomed from the start. Diana didn't want Charles - he bored her to tears, as she made crystal clear by her frosty behaviour on their joint public appearances from 1986.
She was having umpteen affairs (many with married men), and working hard to keep them out of the media so she could hypocritically crucify Charles for his ONE relationship with Camilla (now a happy marriage). Diana was no victim - she emerged from the marriage with two fine sons, $17 million in the bank, the high status title Princess of Wales she fought tooth and nail to keep, a Kensington Palace home and round the clock servants for life, and unimaginable privilege forevermore.
She only became a victim when she made herself one with her own lousy choices, namely intimately consorting with the shady Al Fayed family, stupidly refusing to hire her own security team and driver, and finally and above all failing to behave like a responsible mother and fasten her seat belt. Had she only given William and Harry 2 seconds thought and worn her seat belt, crash experts are unanimous she'd have walked away from that car wreck with just a broken arm and bruising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big mystery here is why fabulous women like Gabby Petito, settle for abusive, insecure loser-dorks like Bryan Laundrie. He was SO punching above his weight with her - and he knew it. She could take her pick of men - but she picked the wrong one.
He murdered her because he knew he could never hold on to her - it's the age-old 'If I can't have you, no one else will' motive, of these vile, controlling abusers. I believe Gabby was strangled by him because she got sick of his abuse on the 'Van Life' trip, and told him she was done.
Sharing that tiny vehicle 24-7 with violent, abusive Laundrie and his black moods had become a total nightmare for her. He behaved like a petulant child, trailing dirt inside their cramped living quarters and petulantly tantrum-ing when she complained about him leaving it as messy as a teen boy's bedroom.
I think the day she died, she told him she was through with him, and threatened to take her van and leave him. And Laundrie - who was totally financially dependant on her during the road trip SHE had planned and funded - went into meltdown at the prospect of her abandoning him, and having to find his way home with no vehicle, and no money - and worse, facing what he saw as the humiliation of telling his family Gabby had dumped him.
So he decided he was not going to let her do that to him, and took control in the most horrific way. Giving full vent to his abusive rage he strangled her to death, and dumped her lifeless body in the open air like so much garbage. He then stole her van to get himself home to his mom and dad - stopping en route to steal himself a large sum of cash from his murdered girlfriend's bank account. He was utterly despicable!
Ladies - please don't settle! The loser doesn't appreciate how lucky he is that you ever looked twice at him - having you on his arm only feeds his narcissism and entitlement, and makes him more of a monster.
Anyone meeting this couple was struck by the strangeness of their partnership - Gabby beautiful, vivacious, warm-hearted and sociable, Bryan, physically unappealing, socially awkward, and fundamentally self-centred and charmless. A total mismatch! She was a beautiful butterfly - he was a parasite living off her energy, and dragging her down. They both knew it - it was the elephant in the room, and a constant source of insecurity for him that people were drawn to his girlfriend, while no one looked twice at his unimpressive, lacklustre self.
If only she had finished with Bryan, moved out of his parents' house (where she was horribly outnumbered by the creepy Laundrie family), and set about planning the 'Van Life' project with a like-minded and supportive girlfriend. A 'Thelma & Louise' themed adventure would have got so many more clicks, likes and views, and been a lot more fun.
Two amazing young women on a road trip together is a way more exciting proposition, than seeing Gabby dragging that boring, abusive loser around with her, like a creepy uncle at a wedding!
Doing the 'Van Life' road trip with a girlfriend would have got Gabby safely away from Laundrie and out of his clutches after she'd ended their relationship. As experts on domestic abuse know, the period right after an abuse victim ends the relationship, is the time she is at highest risk of being killed by him. Doing the road trip with a female friend would also have taken her mind off the split, and shown her there's a big wide world out there, with endless possibilities and people.
How I wish she had grabbed that chance to escape Bryan Laundrie, and was still alive today enjoying the precious life that belonged to her and that no one, least of all him, had the right to steal from her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teresagriffin2070 You can't be 'bitter' when discussing people you have absolutely nothing invested in!
It astonishes me people like you still buy into Diana's cynical self-serving narrative, in which she put the entire blame for her marriage break down on her husband's behaviour. That simply isn't fair or reasonable - it takes two people to make or break a relationship. And though she worked hard to hide it from the media, her conduct was NOT that of a loving and faithful wife, or even a rational person - far from it!
She was lucky the internet had not got into full swing in the '80s and '90s - she wouldn't have got away with half of her dirty dealings under that additional glare!
And no - Charles didn't resume his affair with Camilla while he and Diana were happy. Their marriage was over, he was at his Gloucestershire home and Diana was living a bachelor girl lifestyle at Kensington Palace London, bed-hopping with various lovers, some of whom were married men. She had absolutely no conscience about seducing other women's husbands.
The media war she waged on Charles - the father of her children - was child-like in its conception and execution, and transparently manipulative. The people she hurt the most with it were her own children, who suffered bullying at school as a direct result of her affairs and the 'Panorama' interview, a hatchet job on their father and the monarchy they were a part of.
Her version of her marriage and its aftermath contained blatant LIES. She never threw herself down the stairs when pregnant with William, for example, and I had to smile at her brazen denial she had stalked her married lover Oliver Hoare with endless malicious phone calls after he dumped her.
I was a national newspaper journalist who reported on that story at the time. There's no question she made over 300 silent calls to Hoare at all times of the day and night, from several cell phones, from public payphones, and even from her private line at Kensington Palace. She was out of control!
Hoare got a taste of the madness Charles had had to put up with for so long! When two embarrassed police detectives called on her at Hoare's request warning her to desist she continued to deny she was responsible! In the face of overwhelming evidence, and backed against the wall blamed her 11-year-old son William for making the calls! Needless to say, police didn't believe her. What a lovely mother - Not!
Diana was a toxic, self-serving narcissist, and she wasn't that clever or credible. So it surprises me some still accept her lies and attempts to twist the truth today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingofKlubs You summed up the situation very eloquently, and that quote is perfect (I've never heard it - so profound in its simplicity).
For most people I believe Letby's future really would be a fate worse than death. She will be tormented daily with memories of the wonderful life and high status she once had - all crashed and burned, gone forever, with no hope of redemption.
I suspect the loss of her status is among the most unbearable aspects of Lucy Letby's lifetime of consequences. She gives every indication of having strongly narcissistic traits - the classic spoiled and entitled, only-child. A nurse's uniform and caring image is the perfect cover for a covert narcissist. But her crimes have stripped her of her cover. The mask has been torn off, and the world now sees the monster behind the coy smile of the angelic, softly-spoken blonde 'caregiver'.
Those tiny babies were the ultimate, flattering prop for the cynical Letby - and the perfect, powerless and voiceless victims of her violence (though some of them did cry out in pain and protest, trying in vain to alert others to her monstrous assaults on them, bless their innocent hearts).
A crime like this is thankfully rare. Nonetheless, I believe the time has come for CCTV in ALL NHS hospital wards, to keep every patient safe - from newborn babies to the elderly. Last year a woman was raped in the middle of the night, on an NHS hospital ward designated as women-only. Her attacker was a trans-identified man - NHS policy is not to tell patients of the presence of such men on single sex, female wards, even if a patient asks them directly. I think that is an outrage. If I ever found a man sharing a female ward with my sick, defenceless 86 year old mother, I would play hell.
All hospital patients are potentially vulnerable - sick, weak, drowsy from meds and anaesthetic, often asleep/unconscious, wearing flimsy nightwear, and laying in bed. There is all kinds of potential for violent crime in hospitals, and not only from the staff. I believe it's only a matter of time before CCTV comes in across the board, and that can only be a good thing.
As for Lucy Letby, all she has left now is her hollow claim of innocence, the support of increasingly frail parents with little choice but to support her self-serving lies, and a few friends who choose the delusion she was wrongly convicted. But I doubt she can count on their backing for much longer. The more one learns about this case, the more obvious her guilt becomes.
The simple fact the baby unit where Letby worked and was present during at least 13 baby collapses and seven fatalities, has had only one infant death since she stopped working there seven years ago, speaks volumes!
1
-
@Juan Perez With respect, you are trying to rationalise and bring some sort of explanation to what was in reality a wholly inexplicable, unjustifiable and unprovoked 'stranger murder'.
Chapman and Lennon were strangers to each other, they had met only fleetingly in the context of a fan asking for an autograph. Therefore the killer and victim had no emotional connection, in fact barely any connection at all.
The reasons Chapman provided to seek to explain and even to justify his violence were clearly rehearsed, and don't stand up to logical scrutiny on any level.
You say Chapman was 'angry' with Lennon in 1980, over the infamous 'Jesus' comments he made when he was a Beatle way back in 1966? 14 years is a long time to bear a grudge against a total stranger! That's patent nonsense.
Chapman wasn't angry with Lennon - he actually said how kind he was to him earlier that day, in signing his album and asking if he wanted anything else. The motive for this murder was as mundane, shallow and self-serving as the killer himself - he admired John Lennon, and thought killing him was the best way to win himself a share of his reflected fame and glory, and have his name forever linked with his.
Mark Chapman had drawn up a long list of celebrities he was considering shooting dead that year, among them Elizabeth Taylor and Johnny Carson. He almost went through with an assassination attempt on the actor George C Scott who was starring on Broadway. He bought a ticket for his show and sat in the audience nursing his loaded gun, weighing up whether to stand up and shoot Scott, throughout his onstage performance. Obviously he decided not to - if he had killed Scott, Lennon would not have been his victim.
So Chapman's selection of John Lennon was actually pretty random and not motivated by any personal grudge, as he at first pretended, but rather by a narcissistic hunger for the reflected fame of killing ANY celebrity. The murder of John Lennon was many things, but it was not personal!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 You watched that dumb US documentary with a panel of so-called 'experts' who ruled, on a totally hypothetical, made up story, that Burke fractured Jonbenet 's skull in a fight over pineapple. It's so inept and ridiculous it would be funny, if it didn't brand an innocent man a murderer. Burke successfully sued the TV company, and won undisclosed damages.
But unfortunately he can't undo the terrible damage done to his reputation. Many people who saw that lousy show a few years ago were suckered in, and now believe they know for a fact a 9-year-old-child fractured his sister's skull, and rather than call an ambulance their parents unaccountably strangled her to death with a garrote.
The theory makes no earthly sense - even if you believe the unlikely proposition a pre-pubescent child did such catastrophic damage to a sibling in a childish squabble, what reasonable motive would the parents have had to finish her off with a home made garrote???
9 months after the murder, police invited a panel of world class specialists on child abuse to view the full autopsy report and photos of Jonbenet's post mortem. The experts unanimously ruled she had suffered both chronic, long term sexual abuse, and recent sexual abuse, proven by extreme damage/trauma to her genitals and cervix. The Ramsey's vehemently denied their daughter had ever been sexually abused - not even on the night of her murder.
That little girl wasn't murdered by another child, an intruder, or in a joint enterprise by both parents protecting her brother from consequences for fracturing her skull. The evidence clearly points to homicide by her father John, actively covered up by her mom Patsy, after the child suffered years of heinous sexual abuse at his hands. This case is a stark reminder child abuse is no respecter of class or economics. Being born to a wealthy couple and raised in a mansion didn't give Jonbenet the safe and happy childhood every child deserves. Scrape the surface, and the American dream can easily become a nightmare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Police who responded to not one but two 911 calls from separate, concerned members of the public who had both witnessed Brian physically and verbally abusing Gabby at the roadside, quickly judged SHE was the aggressor, and HE the victim!
Yes - you read that right!
Cops told the shaken, crying and clearly vulnerable Gabby, a lone female, to drive off and spend the night alone in her van. And unbelievably, they drove her abuser Brian to a motel, to enjoy a night in comfort with a hot shower, TV, double bed, and take-out delivery service. No wonder we saw such smug, 'dupers delight' on his face on the police bodycam - that evil prick totally fooled the keystone Cops with his 'nice guy' act!
As the one and only domestic abuse victim, it was Gabby, not Brian, who needed and deserved that night in a motel. With some home comforts, she could have cleared her head, spoken on the phone with friends/family about her boyfriend's violent abuse (and the public-instigated, police intervention), and potentially have abandoned the 'Van Life' trip she should never have let that parasite piggy-back on, end the toxic relationship, and get herself home alive.
By treating the perpetrator Brian with kid gloves, as though he were the victim, cops gave him the green light to not only continue his abuse of Gabby, but to escalate it to her murder. They basically condoned his disgusting domestic abuse!
In victim-blaming Gabby, law enforcement further diminished her already crushed confidence, encouraging her to return to her abuser the following day - even weaker and more compromised than before, and ripe for far worse violence, which would culminate in her strangulation and murder by Laundrie, less than two weeks later.
Those police have Gabby Petito's blood on their hands! Brian Laundrie never got justice, because he's a cowardly, woman-beating weasel, who after murdering Gabby, took the easy way out rather than face the rest of his miserable, worthless life in prison. Police not only missed their chance to save Gabby's life during that roadside stop, they subsequently let her killer slip through their fingers and do a bunk from his parents' home, to commit suicide with a gun.
If ever a killer deserved prison justice, it was Gabby Petito's murderer, the despicable, cowardly Brian Laundrie. Police MUST be held accountable for their outrageous mishandling of this infamous case! Their every lousy decision weakened Gabby and empowered her killer. Utterly disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trezell West was clearly very controlling during the weirdly 'off' roadside interview with the media. But he's so arrogantly narcissistic, that he really believed he could fool the assembled reporters he was a great guy who had nothing to do with his adopted toddlers' suspicious disappearance. Very Chris Watts - as many people remarked at the time!
We are told the children were murdered by the Wests three months before that press conference. Sincere and Classic had been dead for 12 whole weeks. You'd think between them, their killers could have come up with a more convincing story than that garbage about both boys vanishing into thin air while 'Daddy' fetched firewood from the back yard.
Obviously I don't know the couple and have never met them. But even seeing their conduct during that appeal - hiding behind convenient Covid face coverings - threw up red flags. How could two such unsophisticated individuals have been entrusted with the sole charge of two small children, particularly when they already had FOUR children to care for (two of them biological)? Child Services have many questions to answer!
My understanding is neither Trezell nor Jacqueline West had any kind of job. So they were living very comfortably off the income they got from the four children in the home who were not their own. How many people out there seek to raise other people's children not for love, but for money?
Jacqueline's body language showed she was under her husband's spell, and fully enabling his child abuse. Her constant swaying from side to side and evasive eye contact, and Trezell's defensive self-hugging throughout, screamed GUILT on both their parts. Police believe the whereabouts of Sincere and Classic were no mystery to the Wests at the time. They knew exactly what happened to those defenceless babies, the youngest in their home - and that they had killed them. It doesn't take too much imagination to picture the horrific dynamics inside that house. Poor, defenceless little souls!
I am angry that those precious little boys were delivered into the hands of sadistic abusers and soon to be murderers, to do with them as they pleased behind four walls. How the hell aren't social workers better trained, to recognise toxic couples like the Wests?
This sick pair already had four children in their care - so why the hell were they given little Sincere and Classic anyway? Didn't two such young and needy children deserve to be raised in a household that didn't already have four kids in it, where they would get the time and loving attention they needed and deserved?
Serious questions must be answered by the alleged child killers, but also by the many people involved in failing little Sincere and Classic. And by the way - why is anyone still calling them by the name of their alleged murderers 'West', and with the changed first names that they gave them? I say give them back their birth names - their alleged killers don't deserve the privilege of putting their names on those babies for even a minute longer.
Those poor babies must have suffered terribly and had the most confusing, frightening and miserable short lives in this cruel world. Did they witness each others' abuse at the hands of monsters made flesh? Did one brother witness the other's murder, before he too was fatally attacked by an adult who was supposed to love and protect him? Barely yet able to speak, Sincere and Classic had no chance of raising the alarm and getting rescue. This is why Child Services must be so very careful who they entrust with the full time, unsupervised care of voiceless, powerless,totally vulnerable infants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChrisP3000x As a journalist it's really tedious discussing a true crime case with someone who's not only astonishingly ill informed, but lacks the logic and insight to offer anything approaching meaningful analysis.
If you've watched this 8 minute 'Court TV' report on Dr Thomas Burchard's murder, then you obviously haven't understood a word of it! I'm genuinely sorry for you you're so out of your depth, through lack of education, intellect or most likely a combination of both. Every new post you write exposes greater depths of ignorance. You bit off more than you could chew challenging me, and now you look silly and are trying to find a dignified exit. So I'll help you out.
Don't be embarrassed that you made a fool of yourself on a public forum. Just learn the lesson. In future, do some research on the subject at hand before you jump into threads with nothing relevant, accurate or illuminating to add. There are many videos about this case to be found on YouTube, and much more information online. Google is your friend!
I realise it's a rare treat for someone like you to converse with someone like myself. I've been generous, but I can't give you any more time. It's like conversing with a two year old - charming up to a point, but the returns are ever more diminishing, and the stench of stupid is worse than a dirty diaper! You are dismissed.
1
-
1
-
@JayG-d5y Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to help with your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@JayG-d5y Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@JayG-d5y Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@user-pm7nf9uv5z Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@user-pm7nf9uv5z Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@JayG-d5y Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@user-pm7nf9uv5z Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@JayG-d5y Oh dear! It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
@JayG-d5y It's best you do some research on this (now very old) story, before you post here again and embarrass yourself further with your blatant ignorance of the most basic facts/background.
Nowhere did I say Matthew McGreevy was employed as a runner by ITV at the age of ten! 🤣That would be preposterous!
I said McGreevy was ten years old when the then 44-year-old sex predator Phillip Schofield first met him (through the '2Faced Theatre' children's company in Yorkshire, of which Schofield was a patron). That is when the TV presenter began grooming McGreevy, who was at the time a pre-pubescent, little boy.
As typically happens in these exploitative sexual relationships, the powerful man's interest in his 34-years-younger target waned as the lad matured, and lost his boyish appeal. McGreevy was judged too old and dumped aged 24, replaced with a more fresh-faced model - another young male employed in a junior role at ITV. Throughout his multiple, secret workplace affairs, Schofield's wife Stephanie was entirely ignorant of her famous husband's predatory pursuit of much-younger, star-struck males.
Do try harder to comprehend what YouTube Comments actually say, not what you misinterpret them to say. Perhaps reading other people's posts out loud to yourself very slowly, might help you achieve this?
I'm a former TV producer who has worked directly with Phillip Schofield and other players in this scandal. For that reason (and so many others), I am eminently more qualified than you to comment. The fact you've oversimplified this scandal to be about the age of consent, when it's actually about multiple, wider issues surrounding society's worst abuses of power, shows exactly how weak your grasp of the pertinent facts is!
In recent weeks it's emerged Matthew McGreevy's silence was bought after Schofield ditched him in 2020, with a fairly modest six-figure pay-off and the signing of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). It's no surprise to those of us who long-ago worked out the reason for his ongoing silence, as the Mail and other newspapers threw big money offers at him for his exclusive story. The big enduring mystery is the extent of ITV's involvement in that cynical gagging order/cover-up.
I would just add that defending sex predators online is NOT a good look. Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than championing disgraced multi-millionaires? That's what's known as a 'Rhetorical Question', by the way (Google is your friend).
Sadly your posts aren't too much of a surprise. There were people who robustly championed the late serial rapist, paedophile and necrophile Jimmy Savile. They suddenly went quiet when the massive extent of his depraved sex offending against vulnerable men, women and children over 50 years, was finally and fully exposed.
Delighted as I am to boost your very limited knowledge of the Schofield case, I'm only interested in exchanges with people who can share wisdom and knowledge here, not ignorance and misinformation. So I won't be responding to you again. Good luck!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're missing the point. George Michael's crime wasn't cruising/public sex - it was hypocrisy, because he never came out as gay. What really made George angry (though he never admitted it), was that journalists outed him! And that was entirely a situation of his own making.
The public believed he was straight, so of course his cruising got huge headlines. Suddenly they're reading about macho sex God George Michael being arrested picking up men in a US gents toilet. That story had way more power because he was firmly hiding in the closet. As the saying goes "It's not the crime that gets you - it's the cover-up".
As his friend Elton John said at the time, why the hell didn't he come out? It's not like it was the 'sixties, when gay sex was literally illegal and stars like Rock Hudson and Liberace had to keep their homosexuality hidden. In these enlightened times George had no excuse for living a lie. All those pop videos with him lusting over supermodels - and even dating them. He worked very hard to hide the truth about his sexuality, and poor Andrew Ridgely had to keep up the pretence for him too.
George's cries of 'homophobia' in this interview ring hollow I'm afraid. He'd have got the same bad publicity if he were straight, and got caught 'dogging' with women on Hampstead Heath. Any celebrity who has sex in public will inevitably get unwanted publicity, homophobia has nothing to do with it!
Not surprisingly, the long-term relationship he boasted of in this interview, didn't last. By all accounts Kenny Goss is a decent guy and loved George very much. But when one partner seeks the thrill of sex with strangers and the other wants monogamy, the union is doomed.
George ended up dying alone, at his Oxford house on Christmas Day 2016, aged 53. His on-off boyfriend, Lebanese hairdresser Fadi Fawaz had slept outside in George's car that night, after they rowed. Fawaz was not mentioned in George's will, and he's been a thorn in the Michael family's side ever since.
They had to have him evicted from the star's Highgate mansion after he moved in and refused to leave. After that he returned and broke in, and police had to remove him from the roof. He's also posted highly offensive Tweets claiming George killed himself on the fifth attempt - a statement which devastated his family. They pointed out the coroner ruled he had a fatty liver, and had died of natural causes. How sad George wound up with such a man - apparently based on their shared penchant for 'open relationships'.
1
-
@cc1210 Hang on - a huge global superstar/sex symbol who claims to be straight, is caught cruising for men in an LA public toilet, and you think the media only reported it because they disliked his politics?!
Grow up - a star having sex with strangers in public is a huge news story, and this was made far bigger by George Michael's hypocrisy in hiding in the closet for years pretending to be straight!
George wouldn't admit it, but the real reason he was so angry with journalists was that they had outed him. If he'd only outed himself years earlier (as his friend Elton John, among others, said he should have done), it would not have been such a sensational story, and the press could not have gone to town on it quite so much (who can forget the classic front page Sun headline: 'Zip Me Up Before You Go Go').
George brought it all on himself. And what about the long term partner he boasts of in this interview? By all accounts Kenny Goss was a decent guy, who loved George very much. But inevitably, they split - when one partner is promiscuous, and the other seeks monogamy, the relationship is doomed. George wound up tragically dying alone - his on-off boyfriend Fadi Fawaz had slept outside in George's car, after they'd rowed.
How sad that the brilliant and much-loved George Michael died alone. Chasing the thrill of anonymous fumbles with strangers didn't ultimately bring George much fulfilment.
1
-
1
-
From his first embarrassing media conference it was clear Supt Doug Carter was WAY out of his depth on this double child homicide, making mistake after mistake, and frankly, just not up to the job!
His famous claim the killer was 'hiding in plain sight' was baloney - he wasn't hiding at all! Richard Allen gave himself up within days of the murders, admitted he was at the Monon trails that very day and time, and even confirmed he was wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy' - the prime suspect captured on Libby's Smartphone video.
The failed, five year police investigation is the reason the defence can now make merry with various, contrasting theories and suspects, to fill that extended information vacuum created while Carter & Co were kicking cans down the road.
Doug Carter failed to exploit the best evidence he had, ie Libby's video and audio of the killer, far and wide, as a matter of urgent priority while the day was fresh in public memories. Instead he released it in stages, slowly and grudgingly over time - first a still image, then a 2 second moving image, then a short snatch of audio, then a longer voice recording. This was clearly poor leadership from a cop who was clueless about best practice!
And he shared no details of the crime that might jog people's memories and help identify the killer - not even the girls' cause of death. The amount Supt Carter kept close to the vest and refused to share was unprecedented in a murder case - and counterproductive to getting the tips he desperately needed to solve the notorious double child homicide. His reticence only exposed his own woeful inexperience in handling a crime of this magnitude.
Cops don't solves crimes - the public does, as a senior British police officer once told me. But in order to help, the public needs information. People cannot help in a vacuum! Why didn't police tell the public the killer would likely be covered in blood? Soon after the murders, the killer's wife/family might recall him showering and washing clothes that day, for no apparent reason. Witnesses might have seen blood on a man in a weirdly inappropriate setting - or witnessed him washing in a stream.
Two years later and no further forward, Indiana Police confused everyone with a brand new sketch and criminal profile of the killer - that looked nothing like 'Bridge Guy'! The first image, released weeks after the crime, had showed a middle aged, chubby and bearded man, resembling both the suspect on video, and Richard Allen. But the later sketch was totally different, showing a young, slim and clean shaven male, who many likened to Justin Timberlake. The two men could not have been more different
On first revealing that new sketch at a media conference (so hastily arranged, that Abi and Libby's confused families weren't given proper notice), Supt Doug Carter emphasised that the two images, were of different two men. He was very clear on that point. What's more, he stated that the new image was the killer, and it replaced the first picture of the older, bearded guy - that original sketch could now be discarded, he said.
But in interviews Carter gave after Richard Allen's arrest, when quizzed about those two starkly different sketches, he did a total about-turn and totally changed his story, saying the two sketches WERE the same man, ie, the killer!
Don't even get me started on the desperate wild goose chase around the 'Anthony Shotts' fake online profile - which turned out to have zero connection to Abi and Libby's murders, and was yet another police mess up!
We recently learned Carter's inexperience and incompetence, were matched by staggering arrogance. Because rather than admit Indiana Police needed professional help from more specialised detectives, it transpires Carter dismissed the FBI early on, insisting his boys were doing just fine. The man's a buffoon!
Carter enjoyed those media conferences way too much. He struck poses, addressed the killer direct with a quivering lip, and dumb statements like "You probably told someone you did this" (Er, probably not - killers rarely confess), suggested the murderer could be in the room at that very moment (he wasn't), and claimed he was 'hiding in plain sight'.
Carter was wrong on every count - Richard Allen wasn't hiding at all, and five years later we learned the shocking truth. Allen as good as gave himself up within days of the murders, admitting he was there, wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'. Allen knew Libby had recorded him on video stalking her and Abi across the bridge, before he abducted and killed them. So he decided to take the bull by the horns, thinking attack would be the best form of defence. It was an obvious strategy to get his alibi in early, and get ahead of the damning video evidence against him that he was there that day. Libby had taped him - he WAS 'Bridge Guy', therefore the prime suspect - and almost certainly the killer.
Yet incredibly, after his admission, no one saw fit to invite Allen to come in for a formal police interview! If they had, he would have been recognised as 'Bridge Guy', and arrested and charged within a week - two weeks, at most. This audacious double child murder in broad daylight could and should have been solved almost immediately.
Out of just 3,000 Delphi residents - less than 1,500 of them adult males - Carter & co took five years to find their prime suspect. Catching Allen, who lived and worked within a 5 minute drive of the crime scene, was akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Or it would have been, with a competent police force running the show. Doug Carter couldn't find his own ass with both hands, if someone shut the lights off!
Establishing who was at the Monon High Nature trail on the day of the crime, and interviewing and eliminating them (or not eliminating them), is the most basic police work. Yet the Keystone Cops failed to complete that most fundamental task, allowing a highly dangerous man to remain at large for five years, and putting Libby and Abi's loved-ones through hell.
And now that the prime suspect (and likely the killer) is in custody, those many, very serious police mistakes may yet create enough reasonable doubt in jurors' minds to get him out of jail!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afritimm 'She didn't want to marry Edward'. What rot you talk!
That myth sold a few books, but it's plainly sentimental garbage. Wallis couldn't wait to marry Edward, for all the glittering prizes he threw at her feet. The kind, though unexciting Ernest Simpson, couldn't possibly compete with the former King's riches and royal status!
She believed the Duke's promise to make her his Queen - and when that didn't materialise, to at least share equal status with her as HRH. When that honour was withheld from her on their wedding day, meaning in protocol terms she was actually supposed to curtsy to her husband, she was incandescent with rage - and she never forgave him or the royal family.
However her anger over the HRH slur gave her a useful stick to beat her spineless husband with to the end of his days. Wallis never loved the Duke - she wouldn't even visit him on his death bed, where nurses frequently saw him crying out for her in vain, like a lost lamb seeking its mother.
It was a very cynical and toxic marriage of two shallow hedonists. In the final analysis, David and Wallis deserved each other!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Barry Morphew's attorney, the vile Iris Eyetan, is totally reaching! It's ridiculous to attack the authorities for telling Barry, but not his daughters about Suzanne's recovery. Isn't Barry the one always making out how close he is to Mallory and Macy?!
If the authorities HAD told the daughters separately of their mother's discovery, no doubt Eyetan would have criticised that, and said they should have backed off and let Barry tell them!
It's 100% clear Barry Morphew originally placed Suzanne's body at a different location. Then with the heat on, he panicked that it wasn't a good enough hiding place (maybe he had put her much closer to the house - or somewhere he heard was due to be searched?) and so moved her to the field where she was found this week. It's clearly an easy access dumping site, where Barry could pull up and dig a shallow grave, likely disposing of the mother of his children's body within 15 minutes, before driving off.
It's laughable Barry's lawyers are pinning all their hopes of getting away with murder, on a partial match to an unidentified rapist - the fact it's only partial means it's NOT the rapist himself, but merely someone related to him. Doesn't Vinnie Politan realise this??? It's the last guy who serviced her car or got a lift from her - who likely has no idea his great nephew is a pervert!
1
-
Barry Morphew's attorney, the vile Iris Eyetan, is totally reaching! It's ridiculous to attack the authorities for telling Barry, but not his daughters about Suzanne's recovery. Isn't Barry the one always making out how close he is to Mallory and Macy?!
If the authorities HAD told the daughters separately of their mother's discovery, no doubt Eyetan would have criticised that, and said they should have backed off and let Barry tell them!
It's 100% clear Barry Morphew originally placed Suzanne's body at a different location. Then with the heat on, he panicked that it wasn't a good enough hiding place (maybe he had put her much closer to the house - or somewhere he heard was due to be searched?) and so moved her to the field where she was found this week. It's clearly an easy access dumping site, where Barry could pull up and dig a shallow grave, likely disposing of the mother of his children's body within 15 minutes, before driving off.
It's laughable Barry's lawyers are pinning all their hopes of getting away with murder, on a partial match to an unidentified rapist - the fact it's only partial means it's NOT the rapist himself, but merely someone related to him. Doesn't Vinnie Politan realise this??? It's the last guy who serviced her car or got a lift from her - who likely has no idea his great nephew is a pervert!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@northernlight696 Wow these stories are so spooky, but I have an even closer call, I once dodged death by a hair's breadth, and in doing so almost changed the course of world history!
Back in 1953 I nearly met and married President Kennedy and if I had, I'd have been in the car with him in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, on the fateful day of his assassination. But if it had been me who'd married him instead of Jackie, I'd have thrown myself over him and taken all the fatal shots, dying in the process but saving him to remain as President and stop us embarking on the Vietnam war among other disasters.
I often think about that notorious day back in 1963, when I came so close to losing my life. Or would have done, if I'd even been born yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LakeGirl24 Thank you for that. Far too often sloppy mistakes creep in, even on supposedly professional true crime channels like @CourtTV. It's generally when the presenter/guests haven't done enough research on the case under discussion.
There's another mistake @19:10 when the medical expert mis-identifies the two still images of the suitcase taken from Sarah Boone's videos.
PHOTO ONE depicting the FIRST position of the suitcase is not the image on the Right, as she incorrectly says. From that wrong conclusion, she goes on to make another mistake and say Boone flipped the suitcase over so the zipper was underneath victim Jorge Torres, and that the PHOTO TWO, the SECOND position of the suitcase, is seen on the Left. In fact the opposite is true.
PHOTO ONE, depicting the original, FIRST position of the suitcase is the image on the LEFT. As we clearly saw in the disturbing Sarah Boone cellphone video which that screenshot was taken from (shown at the beginning of this show @ 3:32), the suitcase is first, partially laying on the rug with the zipper underneath Jorges.
PHOTO TWO, showing the SECOND position of the suitcase after Sarah Boone flipped it over, is the still image on the RIGHT of the screen @19:10. We can see the case was flipped over to land some distance across the floor and away from the rug, with the zipper now positioned uppermost, above victim Jorge Torres.
Vinnie should have picked up on this and corrected the guest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bbaciliere Yes, husband number 3 Joseph Ryan (Tylee's bio father), was found dead in his modest apartment April 3rd 2018. The coroner ruled natural causes/heart attack, but he was too decomposed when found, around one week after he died, to determine foul play. Lori had his body cremated as priority, before even telling his sister he had died.
Lori's brother Alex Cox (nicknamed 'the family hitman'), had previously served jail time for a vicious taser attack on Joseph in a parking lot, during a 2007 access visit to his daughter Tylee, then aged four (a meeting that Lori had to have given Alex the exact date, time and location of). Alex later told a friend he planned to bundle Joseph into the trunk of his car that day, drive him to a remote location and shoot him dead. Luckily for Joseph the taser failed to deploy correctly, and he was able to flee the scene and call police. I need hardly add little Tylee witnessed part of her Uncle Alex's violent assault on her dad, just as 12 years later she would witness Alex murder her stepdad.
Lori received a significant pay day from Joseph's death - and waddayano, just over a year later on July 11th 2019, she and her creepy brother murdered estranged husband number 4 Charles Vallow, during his access visit to adopted son JJ.
Again Lori expected a substantial cash windfall from his death, as the sole named beneficiary of his $1 million life insurance policy (a fact you might think police would have recognised as a clear financial motive for his murder - along with noticing Alex was a convicted felon, once jailed for a serious violent assault on her previous husband). But she would subsequently be enraged to learn Charles had secretly switched the beneficiary to his sister Kay, to ensure in the event of his death, his sons would be financially taken care of.
Lori didn't even gift his two adult sons the valuable watches he'd always promised to them (they believe she sold them), so Charles' suspicions about her keeping the $1 million insurance payout, were well founded. Too bad he didn't tell her she wouldn't become a millionairess on his death, and remove her motive for murdering him.
In 2020 police announced they were looking again at Joseph Ryan's 2018 death as a possible homicide. But their investigations came to nothing - no doubt hindered by the fact Lori had him cremated, a 'courtesy' she repeated for Charles Vallow, again neglecting to consult his family, most notably his sons, about their wishes.
There were so many points at which Lori Vallow, Alex Cox and Chad Daybell could and should have been stopped. Because of the shocking police inaction, particularly after Alex Cox shot an unarmed Charles Vallow dead in a blatantly premeditated ambush at Lori's home, the evil trio believed they were untouchable.
Emboldened, they escalated their crimes to two child murders within a fortnight of each other, and mere weeks after Tylee and JJ's murders, the homicide of Chad's wife Tammy, and the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreaux, the heavily insured, estranged husband of Lori's niece Melanie.
The three psychopaths were out of control. I believe Alex Cox's murder was Chad and Lori's final crime, believing with him dead they could exploit him as scapegoat and walk free for all their crimes. This pair of middle aged fantasists are so deluded, I bet to this day they can't believe they're residing not in married bliss in Hawaii, but in orange jumpsuits in prison cells.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You give murderer Brian Laundrie way too much credit! There is no reason to believe he felt a moment's guilt or conscience over viciously strangling his girlfriend to death, dumping her lifeless corpse in the open air to be eaten by animals, then driving back to his mommy and daddy in her van - stopping en route to steal $1,000 from her bank account.
All the evidence points to Brian Laundrie not giving a damn about anyone but himself!
If he had an ounce of guilt or remorse over what he did to Gabby, he'd have confessed soon after he killed her, and told police where he put her body so she could be recovered quickly and given a decent funeral. He'd also have given himself up to police and faced justice. But he did none of those honourable things.
His every action after throttling the life and oxygen from Gabby Petito, was entirely self serving - even down to stealing money from her! His parents must have known he'd killed her. He's such a mummy's boy, he couldn't have kept the secret. He rushed home in Gabby's van to tell them what he'd done, knowing they would support him above all else. And they certainly did - his parents battened down the hatches, hired a lawyer and refused to answer calls from Gabby's distraught family, who were worried sick about her.
And they were right to be worried, weren't they? All that time they begged the Laundries for answers to get total silence in response, their precious girl lay dead, rotting out in the elements where Brian Laundrie, the man she'd agreed to marry, had abandoned her. Chris and Roberta Laundrie's conduct after their son murdered the young woman who'd shared their home for the last two years, was utterly monstrous!
The only people deserving of sympathy are Gabby and her loved ones. The Laundries have lost Brian, but at least they know his last moments were of his own choosing, and weren't filled with terror and pain, as Gabby's were. To lose a child to murder is the worst tragedy of all. Brian took the easy way out, avoiding the humiliation of a murder trial at which he and his vile crime against a defenceless woman were exposed, and a lifetime in a locked cage avoiding eye contact with bigger psychopaths.
Brian Laundrie was scum - if he was capable of the emotions of guilt and remorse you suggest he was, he wouldn't have been capable of that horrific crime. At least the world is rid of a damaged and dangerous man, we have far too many of those already. It's tragic such an unappealing individual was able to con a lovely young woman into an intimate relationship, in which she was vulnerable to his violence. Rest in Peace Gabby, Rot in Hell Brian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@midnightprizm1583 You didn't follow the trial then - Propokovitz gave police many conflicting testimonials about his wife's disappearance, he couldn't keep his story straight! If your partner vanished without trace, it would be a day you would never forget. And every time you repeated the story of that day, the details would be exactly the same without deviating at all, no matter how many times you told it, or how many years went by. Because people remember the truth - but they cannot recall their own lies.
Propokovitz kept saying "It was one and a half years ago, I don't remember", then "It was three years ago, I don't remember". Bullshit! And the search he claimed he made for her in his car that night, including driving onto on a gas station forecourt, was proved to be a lie too. Detectives got hold of the relevant CCTV and BINGO, there was no sighting of his vehicle whatsoever!
This miserable old bastard isn't sensitive to other people's opinions, he couldn't give a shit what people think about his affair. If he had nothing to do with his wife's suspicious disappearance, he would have told the truth about his relationship with Kathy Friday unapologetically. The fact that he didn't is hugely indicative of guilt. He he not only lied about it to police and in court, but he also told her to lie under oath. Perjury is a serious offence - but not half as serious as murder. He's a gambling addict, he knew how high the stakes were. He was scared to death about the truth of that affair's start date coming out, because he knew damn fine it was central to his motive for killing his wife.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out what he did with Victoria's body. He made the mistake of telling one of the lead detectives he had a key to the works dumping site, where the sludge ponds of corrosive chemicals were based. When the cop mentioned that crucial key, under cross examination by defence, it was a real slam-dunk moment for the prosecution! Turned out Propokovitz had access to the dump site 24-7, and what's more, there was no CCTV there. Visiting the plant regularly gave him the idea for the perfect murder. It was obvious he thought cops would never get him, because he had successfully destroyed his wife's corpse. Her dentures deliberately left at home, and his comment that her corpse could not be identified by teeth, spoke to his personal knowledge of her murder and disposal.
He's where he belongs and will die in jail. He has a far better deal than he gave his poor wife, who he killed when she was just 59. He gets to live out his senior years in comfort, with ongoing contact with those who remain loyal to him (his sister and nieces among them). He'll have TV, newspapers and other entertainments, medical care on demand and will no doubt play up his senior status for extra perks.
In due course he'll die a peaceful, natural death, and be given a funeral, fundamental human dignities which he denied his wife. Victoria didn't get to enjoy her retirement years, because her abusive husband decided she was an inconvenience to him, and murdered her. Her kids and other loved ones were deprived of her forever. And the squalid way her husband dumped her body deprived them of giving her a funeral, or creating a lasting memorial to her.
The fact Victoria's children all believed their stepfather was capable of murdering her, spoke volumes! They didn't have a grudge against him - they knew him from children and called him dad. He had walked one of his step daughters down the aisle on her wedding day. Facing up to what he had done to their mother was incredibly painful and very courageous. They helped deliver justice for Victoria, after 8 long years. She would be so proud of them. I hope she can finally rest in peace, and that all those hurt by evil James Propokovitz can begin the long walk to healing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Clearly police have processed the crime scene, documented everything, and done every last procedure that needs to be done. No crime scene is preserved indefinitely!
My hope is that if the personal items being given to victims' loved ones are blood spattered, police clean them up before returning them. Here in the UK my friend's sister and niece (mother and daughter),were brutally murdered in her home, by her boyfriend. He stabbed and strangled both women.
When police forensic officers finished their work and told family members they could go into the house to retrieve any personal items, they found a very distressing scene. There was blood everywhere, and no clean up had been organised by police to spare them that trauma.
I found this shocking - my friend together with other relatives, ended up having to buy cleaning supplies and clean up their loved ones' blood themselves. This included a heavy trail of blood up the stairs, where the killer had chased one victim, stabbing the back of her legs as she tried in vain to flee to the bathroom. Heartbreaking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed, Chicago Police deserve utmost respect. If the early, cooked-up legal con had been allowed to go unchallenged, Jussie Smollet would have paid a paltry $10k fine (when he earned $2 million a year), plus some BS 'community service'. That was not any kind of justice!
He pulled that fake-ass 'punishment' because he had friends in high places in the legal system. Had that stood, he would not even have reimbursed police the over $100k he owed them for the totally needless investigation of his faked hate crime!
I just wish the judge had allowed TV cameras to record Smollett's recent performance on the stand. He's obviously such a lousy actor, he failed to persuade the jury of his innocence - or even get them sufficiently on his side, to let him off!
I am curious about the BS story he told, to explain how he happened to be 'assaulted' on the street at 2am by two black men in ski masks who were close personal friends on his TV show! The Nigerian brothers he paid to 'attack' him (who did it so badly, he had to put the noose around his own neck, lol!) confessed all to police.
Detectives tracked them down within days of Smollett's fake police report, through CCTV of them buying the ski masks and doing a prior dress rehearsal of the assault with Smollett, plus his $3,000 payment cheque to them. He was so arrogant, he didn't even bother to pay them untraceable cash but wrote them a freaking cheque! It's so ludicrous, you couldn't make it up. I just cannot imagine what further lies Smollett invented to pretend he was innocent!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BRAVO Nana, the scandal of toxic gender ideology is finally, belatedly being exposed! Thank God for courageous journalists like you, with the guts to call this out. Far too many have stayed silent or actively promoted this dangerous, unscientific gender-cult. Shame on them - they are not worthy of the name journalist!
This woman was born female, and will always be female. She's learned through bitter experience, there is nothing she can do to change it - despite what she's been told and what lying trans activists claim! She is one of many who have woken up to the fact they were conned into life-changing, irreversible medical treatments/surgeries by crooked medics. There will be many more in the years to come!
You can have umpteen different surgeries and synthetic hormones, change your name, cut your hair/wear a wig, dress as the opposite sex and do any number of different things to support your 'trans identity', but you can NEVER change sex!
No mammal ever changed sex or ever will. It's an impossibility. This is a huge and heinous lie being sold to vulnerable children! During their confused teen years they are especially susceptible to the idea if they only 'become a woman/man', all their problems and anxieties will be over! It's no coincidence autistic and gay kids are disproportionately represented, among trans identified teens.
There's a massive de-transitioner, ticking time bomb and when it blows, it's gonna blow and blow and blow again for DECADES. And it will blow up the careers of all the crooked medical 'professionals' who stole the reproductive, sexual lives and happiness of umpteen confused males and females. BRING IT ON! #SexMatters #SexNotGender
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wesleyfulton2186 Nope, Jussie Smollett was NOT punished before - it was a whitewash, a BS, pseudo 'punishment' because he's a wealthy celebrity. It was the second, failed con he tried to pull on the system/public, this time by pulling strings with his influential friends - a minor $10k fine (peanuts to him - he is paid $2 million a year), and some cushy 'community service' of his choosing.
Thankfully Smollett failed in that con too. His powerful friends weren't quite powerful enough to save him from the appropriate legal sanctions he fully deserved, because it was recognised by the system and the public as the outrageous fraud it was, and he was ultimately made to face proper legal consequences for his appalling hoax.
A cynically premeditated, fake hate crime that got him global headlines he thought would boost his box office and status, as a famous victim of 'racism'. What a joke - unlike non-privileged black folk, he has experienced only preferential treatment and privilege his entire life!
Smollett faked that assault on himself knowing it could have triggered violence (and possibly even large-scale organised race riots), all to selfishly raise his own profile and bring him the bigger success he narcissistically believed he deserved (I'm not sure why - to date his lousy, hammy performances in his own defence show he's no Denzel Washington!)
When his con was exposed, Jussie Smollett set the cause of black people back decades - black people who unlike him, live real lives in the real world, and aren't cushioned by VIP status and wealth. I doubt Smollett has ever experienced a single, negative thing from being mixed race - on the contrary, he has milked his ethnicity for all it's worth and benefited from it at every possible opportunity - playing the race card is a lifelong habit with him.
If he was any kind of MAN he'd have confessed to what he did way back when he was first blabbed on by the two Nigerian guys he hired to don ski masks and pretend to be white supremacists - who somehow recognised him on the streets at 2am, while carrying bleach and a noose to attack him with! (Sorry Jussie - even before this circus, you were not that famous!)
Smollette should be thoroughly ashamed of his betrayal of his black ancestors. He cynically exploited the real, historic racist lynchings of black people with that fake-ass noose he put round his own neck. A powerfully symbolic visual image he knew would bring massive outrage, anger and hurt to decent people of ALL colours.
Clearly any high-profile, virtue-signalling charity/social justice appearances he made in the past were not selfless at all, but like this crime were entirely driven by self-promotion!
Smollett's appalling conduct right down the line since his ugly fraud was exposed 3 years ago, show he's a pathological narcissist without shame or remorse. That he has continually denied his crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and point blank refused to be accountable for them, shows how dangerously out of control his ego is.
If you are a person of colour as your profile photo suggests, Jussie Smollett's crimes should anger you as much, if not more, than the average, decent non-black person on the street. Smollett betrayed you. Why aren't you angry? Do you think he should get a free pass and continue to dodge justice for his heinous acts against black people, because he is black?! That makes no sense.
As a successful, privileged and high-profile person of colour, Smollett had a responsibility to be a great role model for black people! As we know, racism is still a huge issue in the US - his actions have unleashed ill-will and resentment against ordinary black people and they will suffer in multiple subtle, and not so subtle ways thanks to Jussie Smollett. He is a total disgrace!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burkena Jay is an intelligent human being. I'm sure he's weighed up potential risk and reward, before taking this decision. And let's be clear, he knows his situation - we do not! Yes it's a risk, but I'm sure it's a calculated, considered one. And without risk, we are living only a half life.
Jay has real talent, his easy charisma is a hit with viewers, and as a former TV producer myself, I'm confident he will do well. He's a TV natural.
I wish you well in your future endeavours, and am heartened that you wish Jay well too. Life IS tough, you're absolutely right - and it calls for courage!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Liz_H9319 Thank you for confirming my understanding of the different paternity of these murdered babies - as I made clear in my earlier post, I wasn't 100% sure.
I referenced it not to stigmatise the innocent children (all of whom are perfect, and born to this world by miracles, whatever their imperfect parents' circumstances), but for clarity on the complete cast of people who played a role in their ultimate tragedy (in this case not one but two biological fathers).
I think clarity in the circumstances in which this horrific double child murder was possible is critical, don't you? My priority is justice for two murdered children. And justice doesn't only mean a criminal prosecution for their murderers, but a frank and open public enquiry into the full facts of the case. That means a 360 degree study of everyone involved, including the three biological parents the CPS and the entire fostering and adoption protocols which somehow went so disastrously awry for Cincere and Classic.
Why were these little boys removed from their blood family and given to the Wests, allegedly deeply dangerous people? Only a forensic investigation can satisfy all who care about child protection, to ensure that everything humanly possible has been done to stop it happening to another child.
I feel very strongly that the priority here should be giving a voice at last, to the two voiceless, entirely defenceless little boys who died cruel premature deaths at 3 and 4 - not covering up the inadequacies of the many people who failed them in their short and tragic lives. Talk of 'absent fathers' may be entirely appropriate. That said, I accept your point that it's too soon to point the finger and name specific individuals who failed these vulnerable infants, until a full, wide-ranging enquiry is completed.
Hopefully the killers of Cincere and Classic are now behind bars, and justice will be done to ensure they can never harm another child. But what a terrible, additional disservice it would be to the infant boys so cruelly taken from this world, if ALL who played a role in their ultimate tragedy are not held accountable.
It's too early to say exactly who those people are. Child Protection Services, who literally handed the infant siblings to their alleged killers (already fully occupied with FOUR children by the way, two of them adopted), are surely culpable. From what I've seen of Trezell and Jacqueline West they are textbook, manipulative abusers, who knew exactly how to behave and play the system for their own ends (ie easy cash). These two alleged child murders may expose the need for better training of social workers to recognise narcissistic abusers, and block them from accessing the children they see as meal tickets. The abusers' M.O. is all too predictable, as multiple violent crimes confirm!
I've read that Trezell West's mother Wanda has a long professional history/connections employed in some capacity by the Child Welfare System. Was she adept at playing that system primarily for money, not the love of children - passing on her cynical skills to her son Trezell? There's no evidence Trezell West or indeed his wife Jacqueline had - or needed any kind of jobs paying for their comfortable lifestyles!
What you say about the biological father being 'willing' to take on both boys (including the one who was not his biological son), with the help of his mother, should be properly investigated as part of a major, thorough and totally transparent public inquiry into this child protection failure/scandal.
As we know, hindsight is a wonderful thing. That one father's claims, history and personal circumstances must be thoroughly checked out. No one's story in this scandal - including the paid officials - can be accepted at face value!
Now the ugly truth about Cincere and Classic's terrible fate is beginning to emerge, the accusations will be flying thick and fast from all directions. It may well be hard to sort the fact from fiction. But for their sakes and the sakes of all infants who will follow in their footsteps, the truth of this tragedy - and how it could have been avoided - must be found. If even one child's life can be saved as a result of lessons learned from these babies' murders, I can think of no better, or more noble legacy for their beautiful souls.
1
-
@juanitarichards1074 That's a slight exaggeration. The blanket in the suitcase wasn't 'covered in' John Andrew Ramsey's semen, it had a semen stain on it identified as John's eldest son's. It's pretty obvious how that happened, I doubt it's an unusual occurence! But in fact John Jr was eliminated as a suspect by police early on, as there was video of him using an ATM machine in a different state at the time of Jonbenet's murder.
A few years ago there was a shameful US documentary made with a panel of so-called 'experts' which named 9-year-old Burke Ramsey as the killer, based on a totally fictional and unsubstantiated theory. They opined Jonbenet stole a piece of pineapple from her brother's bowl (pineapple was found in her stomach at autopsy), and in retaliation he hit her over the head with a flashlight, fracturing her skull. From that totally hypothetical, invented incident, the show's 'experts' argued John and Patsy's reaction was not to call an ambulance to save their unconscious daughter's life, but to tie a garrote around her neck, strangle her to death with it, and in effect commit a sadistic murder to cover up a child's tragic accident.
The theory and the entire documentary were utterly preposterous, and Burke Ramsey rightly sued the TV company and won undisclosed damages. But sadly that sensationalist TV show has since persuaded many people of Burke's guilt. I have not seen any convincing evidence whatsoever of his involvement in Jonbenet's death - and the motive for such a scenario, ie a cover-up by his parents, is equally unlikely.
The known facts and statistical probability strongly point to either John or Patsy Ramsey having killed their daughter, and both spouses fully committed to conspiring in the cover up. In my view John is most likely to be the killer, and Patsy decided to loyally support him and hold onto what remained of their family unit. She had definite 'Stepford Wife' tendencies, and highly valued her marriage to a wealthy man, and privileged lifestyle.
Murders are generally solved when the motive is identified. In this case, it's hard to imagine any motive for killing a child who appeared to the outside world to be cherished, in a well-to-do family without financial pressures or any known history of abuse. But as we know, families frequently harbour all kinds of horrors, and child abuse cuts across every economic and social class.
To settle the question of whether Jonbenet Ramsey had been the victim of child sexual abuse, police assembled a panel of eight, highly respected specialists in the field, led by Dr John McCann one of the world's top experts on injuries caused by such abuse. The panel considered Jonbenet's full autopsy report, and photos. The panel of experts were unanimous that the autopsy findings revealed both recent and chronic internal injuries (specifically to her hymen), indicating she was a victim of long term child abuse, as well as a sexual assault by her killer on the night of her murder. John and Patsy Ramsey always vehemently denied those findings, and despite the compelling evidence to the contrary insisted she had never been sexually abused - not even by her killer.
My feeling is even if we knew all the true details of this notorious and horrific child murder, it still wouldn't make any sense.
1
-
@Lizzie-ve7kt Wow, that really is sad - and chilling. That philosophy wound up costing her her life. I never trusted Robert Wagner, something cruel and ruthless behind his eyes. I think sadly life had taught Natalie to expect abuse from males.
They were tough times for women. When Natalie was 16, she suffered a brutal prolonged rape by Kirk Douglas. He'd lured her to a hotel suite at the Chateau Marmont LA with talk of an audition for a movie role. She emerged hours later, and got into her Mom's car in silence, bloody, bruised and shaking.
It was the Summer of 1955, and there was no question of reporting the vicious rape. Kirk Douglas was a world famous movie star and director at the height of his powers, with his own movie production company. Publicly accusing such a powerful man would have ended Natalie's career, not his.
Things have improved somewhat for women in the decades since, but the Harvey Weinstein scandal makes you wonder quite how much.
1
-
@elmerfudd1086 Truth - the Keystone Cops are an utter disgrace, they messed this up from start to finish, treating Gabby as the abuser and Brian as the victim (don't they get proper training in domestic abuse?) then when she was reported missing, letting him leave his parents' house and go on the run! Wtf??? Totally useless!
Florida Sheriff Grady Judd slammed his police colleagues saying they had ample reason to arrest Brian Laundrie for domestic violence on the roadside, after receiving two 911 calls from witnesses who saw him hit her. Sheriff Judd also criticised them for allowing Laundrie to leave his parents' house and go on the run, after Gabby was reported missing. He said had he been in charge, the 'person of interest' in her disappearance would have been taken into custody and unable to flee!
Scratches on a man's face indicate HE is the abuser, not the woman, because they are the typical minor injury he gets from assaulting her. Men are much stronger than women, and she can't get the better of him in a physical confrontation. She what's the best she can do? Lash out with her hands, and maybe inflict a few scratches. Big deal! I wonder how many times Brian throttled Gabby, before he finally took it to its full, monstrous conclusion and killed her? I'm still in shock police officers identified her as the perpetrator. Two weeks later she, not he was dead by homicide. And no prizes for guessing who killed her. Cops need to answer some serious questions over their mishandling of abuser and soon to be killer Brian Laundrie, they must be held accountable!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@googleuser2226 Please pay attention! You have it all wrong. There is already way too much misinformation about these multiple murders!
The situation you are describing applied to the late CHARLES VALLOW, Lori's estranged (but still legal) husband, who she got her brother Alex Cox to ambush & shoot dead in July 2019 when he came to her home one morning, totally unsuspecting, to collect their adopted son JJ (his great nephew by blood), and take him to McDonalds - en route to school.
Clearly Charles died by foul play (multiple bullets in the chest could be nothing else), but unbelievably, police accepted his killer (and sister's) lie it was self-defence. Seems they didn't even look into the question of motive - CV was heavily insured to the tune of $1 million, which Lori fully believed at the time of the crime, would come to her.
Lori was wrong as it turned out, because unbeknown to her, Charles had switched the $1m recipient to his sister Kay Woodcock - biological grandmother to his adopted son JJ.
Unfortunately the coroner ruled Alex Cox died of natural causes - same as in 2018 they ruled Lori's ex husband Joseph Ryan's sudden death (Tylee's father), was natural.
Anyone with brain cells in double figures knows there was nothing natural about the sudden deaths of middle aged men with no known history of serious illness, Joseph - and his murderer Alex Cox!
Please fully acquaint yourself with the basic facts of this infamous true crime, before you post online again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TretreeGG4997 Exactly right, there was a ton of evidence Melody is the killer. She was the only one with a motive for a start - a $4.5 million dollar motive to be precise! She was also the only one at the house with the victim that day - it's plainly obvious she did it.
She was small, but she was not disabled - quite the opposite, she was strong and fit from regular gym workouts. She had the best farm vehicles, tools and plenty of time to get his body onto that fire. She's smart, she worked it out. Adrenaline and determination not to get caught are also great motivators! It was pretty pathetic the defence's best argument was that she supposedly couldn't have moved his body - of course she could!
She murdered Gary out of malice and sheer greed. A 50-50 split of assets in a divorce wasn't good enough for her. She wanted ALL her husband's estate to fund a new life with lover Rusty, and she was ruthless enough to kill him to get it. She even tried to frame her own son for the murder she committed. She's utterly despicable, and it's fitting she will die in a cage like the animal she is!
It was clear Gary was deeply loved by all four of his children, as their genuine emotion on the stand confirmed. My heart goes out to them. He can rest easy now, knowing justice has been served. I hope they will rebuild happy lives for themselves, as their dad would want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This part of the documentary is very misleading - that necklace never belonged to Diana personally, it was part of the royal collection. As such, it returned to the royal vaults after Diana and Charles divorced. Now any royal who wants to borrow it - or anything else from the royal vaults - can do so. As wife of the heir to the throne, Camilla is a senior royal and entitled to wear any royal bauble she likes. Get over it, Diana fans! William and Harry's wives too borrow royal jewellery - it doesn't mean they own it personally.
Diana amassed her own collection of jewellery that she did own personally - items she bought for herself or received as gifts, like her Cartier tank watch which was a gift from her father. All these items were inherited by William and Harry on her death.
Charles and Diana had an arranged marriage which produced two fine sons and made Diana a star. But they were not compatible and fell out of love with each other. Charles took up with Camilla (who he should have married in the first place but was forbidden to because she was not a virgin), and Diana had umpteen extra marital affairs, many with married men (YUK). Diana had no conscience whatsoever about pursuing other women's husbands, and would even slip married men her phone number while their wife was in the room at the same party. Queen of Hearts? Queen of Tarts would be more accurate!
No hearts were broken when Diana and Charles split, marriages fail - it is not the tragedy Diana pretended, for public sympathy. She came out of the divorce fabulously wealthy and privileged. Yet she was full of self pity, always playing the victim and batting her eyelashes, as we saw on the toe-curling Panorama interview. She was a horribly self centred, manipulative woman.
How ironic that she threw away her fabulous, privileged life by getting herself killed in a totally needless car crash. If she had been the wonderful mother people pretend, she'd have given her two, dependent children a thought and fastened her seat belt. The inquest was clear - if Diana had only worn her seat belt, she would lived, as did the car's one surviving occupant, front seat passenger Trevor Rhys Jones. The bodyguard fastened his seat belt when he saw how recklessly fast chauffeur Henri Paul was driving. It saved his life, and would have done the same for Diana. I guess like most narcissists, she thought she was immortal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liars catch themselves out constantly. Heard admitted the op-ed was about Johnny Depp when she was in court, under oath, on the stand! Now she says it wasn't about him.
She tells the interviewer she "loves" Johnny Depp - the ex husband she claims beat her up and raped her, and who has just effectively ruined her name, image and future media career in court. Why would she feel anything but contempt and rage for that man, if her multiple, heinous allegations against him are true? In saying "I love him" she may as well have admitted her allegations of violent and sexual abuse against Depp are lies.
Besides which, after everything we've seen and heard of this woman, it's crystal clear she's a deeply damaged and abusive individual who loves no one but herself. There's no reason to believe she EVER loved Johnny Depp!
I seriously fear for the safety of the child she paid another woman to carry and give birth to for her. And doesn't that surrogacy arrangement tell another dark story about her relationship with her daughter? Was she really incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term aged 34 and in peak physical fitness? I sincerely doubt it. When you choose skin free of stretch marks, over the experience of giving life to your own baby, there's something scarily wrong with your priorities. That baby appears in all her social media photos - and she chose to have her without a man in the picture. She has total, sole power and control over another human being - for a narcissist, that's got to be the ultimate power trip.
1
-
1
-
6:35 Take a look at this Colorado law ladies. There's a helluva lot more 'hate crime' going on in Colorado and around the world than is ever acknowledged in law or indeed culturally - I'm talking about male violence against FEMALES. Regular viewers of 'Court TV' know male violence against women is an epidemic in America (as it is in every other country). Yet women and girls are not even mentioned in this Colorado hate crime legislation!
I don't mean the less than 1% of men who 'identify' as woman (so-called 'trans women'). They are not women, despite their aggressive, bogus mantra 'trans women are women'. No mammal ever changed sex or ever will, it simply isn't possible. Trans identified men/'trans women' remain biological males from birth to death, regardless of their feelings or any surgery/hormone treatments. In addition they have not experienced the physical, emotional, cultural or economic challenges of a born female, and therefore cannot claim to have (or even understand) a female's lived experience.
I'm talking here about hate crimes against actual women, who globally make up more than 50% of the world's population. Females are targeted my males for hate crimes more than any quote: 'race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation'.
Note the word SEX (as in a person's sex, male or female), is not clearly specified in that list of potential hate victims. And yet there's no question the female sex are the most sinned against group for violent hate crime and abuse, by a mile. Misogyny is a hate crime far more widespread and toxic than racism - more toxic, because while racism is rightly recognised and universally condemned, so much misogyny is not even acknowledged, least of all punished.
Reading the Colorado law, it's clear hate crime against females isn't recognised, therefore it is not outlawed!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These vile, blank-eyed killers were once beautiful newborn babies, without a bad bone in their bodies. Every baby has the potential to be good or evil. What happened to them, to be in trouble with the law by 12 years old? 12 years - in fact, far less than 12 years - is all it takes to mess up an innocent child, born brimful of potential to do good.
The answer is for society to prioritise the well being and protection of the next generation. Every country's most precious resource by far, is its children. I repeat - every newborn baby is a precious bundle with the promise of becoming a loving, kind, thoughtful, selfless, successful adult. Even babies born with the classic 'psychopath's brain', ie weakened neurological pathways to the frontal lobes controlling emotions like love, empathy and remorse, can become a loving adult if raised with love, and clear boundaries and expectations for good behaviour.
Some may read this and misinterpret it as sentimental or unrealistic. In fact it is totally realistic and practical - I don't want any more beautiful babies to grow into dangerous, damaged adults like these!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When someone as thoroughly decent, honourable, kind and non-bigoted as James Dreyfus can be crucified like this and falsely labelled 'transphobic', it proves how utterly toxic and bigoted gender-woo ideology is!
18:10 Stonewall's championing of supposed 'trans rights', to the detriment of the gay people it was conceived to support, was ALL about self-preservation! Ruth Hunt and the rest weren't concerned about trans people - they were worried that now the fight for gay rights had been won they would become obsolete and lose their fat salaries and privileged positions. They had to find a new minority group of supposedly vulnerable, persecuted people, and 'trans' was it.
I applaud James Dreyfus for having the moral courage sadly lacking in so many of his media peers, to publicly speak out against this garbage, and defend gay people, women, and child protection from toxic gender cult. It is built on the lie that humans can change sex, and any ideology built on a lie has a limited shelf life.
Gender-woo has flourished for far too long by devious means, through the active bigotry and hate of its most vocal advocates but also through the ignorance of some entirely well-meaning supporters. In that time it's done serious harm to many good people. But finally the truth is emerging, and the tide is turning (the exposure of corrupt trans charity 'Mermaids' is just one example). Gender-woo's days as any kind of credible force are numbered.
Bravo James and others who bravely spoke out and condemned its misogyny and homophobia from day one - your place on the right side of history is assured! #SexNotGender
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Diana 'pure'?!! The promiscuous princess had umpteen extra marital affairs to Prince Charles ONE. And many of Dirty Di's hook-ups were with other women's husbands - she was utterly ruthless about chasing and bedding other women's husbands. Will Carling's was just one marriage she broke up - she tried to ruin many others, she was a home wrecker extraordinaire.
That Diana had the cheek to point the finger at Charles and Camilla, when she was sleeping with any man with a pulse, is breathtaking hypocrisy. She coyly batted her lashes during the BBC 'Panorama' interview and played the innocent, wronged wife, admitting to only one affair with James Hewitt, but he was just one of a long queue of unsuitable men invited to her bedroom. She should have had revolving doors fitted - 'pure'? Don't make me laugh, Diana made Camilla look like a virgin!
Camilla was always the better woman, warm hearted, self effacing and loyal. Unlike Diana, she loved Charles enough to stand quietly beside him in public life and let him shine, not launch a popularity contest in the media, and demand to be Number One! Camilla isn't obsessed with her image like Diana was, she doesn't leap out of bed first thing and grab all the newspapers to pore over photos of herself and see how good or bad she looks. Camilla has her priorities right, and puts her family, her dogs and her charity work far before herself and her image!
It's really pathetic how some still believe Diana was a saint, just because she was photogenic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whitneyangelie3682 You're aware trans rights activism is inherently homophobic, right? The hard line beliefs of gender ideology say there's no such thing as sex - therefore there can be no such thing as same sex attraction.
But there's far more evidence trans activism actively harms gay people. If Dame Joan is really a gay rights supporter, she will call out the terrible homophobia of modern trans politics, as JK Rowling has.
Today we are told we must accept the mantra 'trans women are women' without any challenge (the mantra is 'Acceptance Without Question'). In 2022, the vast majority of male-born, self-proclaimed 'trans women' are fully male bodied, with functioning male genitals and no wish to lose them with surgery/hormone treatment. These men are happy in their skin, so clearly do not have the gender dysphoria which was once attributed to anyone who came out as trans (the often quoted 'born in the wrong body' diagnosis).
In the UK it's estimated 90% of male-born, self identified 'trans women' are happily male bodied (and most of them are heterosexual, ie sexually attracted to women). Which begs the question - are they actually transgender, or simply transvestites?
This demographic among the majority of today's 'trans women' has resulted in a ridiculous situation whereby many of these be-penised biological males - who are only distinguishable from non trans-identified males by the way they identify/dress - are claiming to be 'lesbians' and worse, are demanding that actual Lesbians date them!
Lesbians are women attracted to other women - to put it bluntly they don't do cock and nor should anyone expect them to! But there are increasing numbers of trans women joining dating apps for lesbians, and in some cases pressurising women to accept them (and their male bodies) as sexual partners, branding them 'transphobic' if they decline! This is blatant homophobia and misogyny.
There's also evidence children who would grow up to be gay are being encouraged to believe they are instead trans, by homophobic parents. It's known as 'transing away the gay', done by parents who would rather have a trans son or daughter, than one who is gay or lesbian. Some kids are being sent down an irreversible pathway through surgery or hormone treatment - there's every reason to fear a detransitioner ticking time bomb, in which 10-20 years from now many supposedly 'trans' people will say they were misdiagnosed, and were only ever gay. But thanks to fashionable trans politics, they were castrated, had hysterectomies that brought on early menopause, and other life-changing surgeries like double mastectomies.
The medical world does not yet know the potential long term harm that could be done by putting children on powerful 'puberty blocker' drugs, which halt sexual maturity. It's known those drugs also halt brain development, so again that's potentially another scandal brewing.
Trans activism has become so extreme, its misogynist, homophobic and anti-child safeguarding policies MUST be publicly called out by more people like Joan Collins, who have a platform to do so. Last week Ricky Gervais' new stand up act exposed the madness of the trans position 'trans women are women' - and he was predictably condemned as 'transphobic' by idiots on the left! In reality Gervais was merely stating the trans position, which is now so utterly ludicrous as to be a comedy routine in itself!
It's an excellent sign that the tide is finally turning against this toxic ideology, that more people like Gervais are finally speaking out, and exposing the king's new clothes! In a sense Joan can be excused at 89 years old - because as we have seen all too often, misogynist trans cult are vicious in targeting anyone who makes even the mildest criticism of their hard line views.
There's no doubt she would face a horrible, scary backlash from this men's rights group, be labelled a 'bigot' etc, which she doesn't deserve and would perhaps struggle to handle at her advanced age. Trans cult do not respect free speech or anyone's right to politely disagree with them!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes - narcissistic abusers like Amber Heard are VAMPIRES who suck the very life blood, joy and spirit from you. Johnny's courageous court case will help educate other victims and would-be victims of vile abusers like Heard of both sexes, and for that we should all be grateful to him.
On audio recording, Amber Heard smugly goaded Johnny Depp to take her to court and tell the world he's a victim of female abuse. She thought she was such a skilled liar/con artist and wonderful actress (HA!), she could fool any judge and jury that HE was the abuser and she was the victim.
And after the idiot UK judge in Depp's 2020 UK libel case against the Sun newspaper outrageously swallowed her lies hook, line and sinker, Heard must have really believed she was untouchable.
Boy did Johnny call her bluff and show her, with his triumphant 2022 US defamation case! He told the world exactly how his poisonous ex-wife had abused him, producing a mountain of compelling evidence and witnesses - and the world listened, and believed him.
He spoke his truth with quiet dignity, and represented ALL victims of domestic abuse, of both sexes. He has done a power of good in publicising the ugly realities of domestic abuse and the tell-tale red flags to look out for in the M.O. of its practitioners. Knowledge is power, and I believe his honesty and courage will literally save the lives of future would-be victims of dangerous abusers like Amber Heard. Forewarned is forearmed! God bless you Johnny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm amazed there isn't a limit on the number of times a defendant can switch lawyers, when it's a public defender, paid for not by themselves, but by the taxpayer. This murdering skank is clearly playing the system and stalling justice, with her constant letters of complaint to lawyers and the judge, and her power trips with people far smarter and better qualified than her!
Is Boone unaware how indefensible her position is? She not only killed her boyfriend, she made a freaking SNUFF VIDEO of her crime - complete with her own voice adding insult to injury, mocking and "F You"-ing him, as he begged for his life. And she thinks she has a hope of persuading a jury SHE was the domestic violence victim?
Oh I wish the judge ordered her to represent herself. That would be a bigger circus than the Darrell Brooks fiasco!
But we know how insanely deluded Sarah Boone is, from her haircut alone. And boy has she stacked on weight behind bars. What has she been eating in prison? By the looks of her, everything, including the canteen furniture!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dylan Mulvaney 'has yet to have gender reassignment surgery'. Like that's surprising.... Hilarious! TRUST ME - He never will!
In common with over 90% of trans identified Men today, Dylan Mulvaney will keep his male genitals. How the Hell is He or any other trans identified MAN, even a 'trans woman' when they have no intention of transitioning, ie surrendering their penis and testes to the cause??? He is a Transvestite at best! And always & forever, a MAN (albeit a pathetic, inadequate one).
Please DAN WOOTTON and anyone else who wants to identify as a Journalist - Stop calling MEN She/Her! FFS... You are going to look a spineless fool when Gender-Bollox is roundly rejected and ridiculed - and it will be! Think about your careers, if not accuracy and good journalism!
BRAVO Sharron Davies for calling out this vile Misogyny. She is a mighty #AdultHumanFemale, who fearlessly defends Women's Rights - and Women's Sports. And she will forever be lauded & applauded as one of the first public figures to condemn bigoted, misogynist gender-garbage.
Boycott Nike, Boycott Bud, and above all BOYCOTT TAMPAX, a company that hires a Man in a dress to sell menstrual products used by Females only, that he will NEVER NEED! What an insult Dylan Mulvaney is to Tampax customers. I will NEVER forget their wholesale betrayal of Females and I will never forgive them, or buy their brand again.
WAKE UP PEOPLE - Gender-Gaga is a Misogynist, Male supremacist Cult
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed, Robert Wagner is an abusive husband who killed his wife heinously, in a jealous, drunken rage at her flirtation with co-star Christopher Walken. Then he used his star power and expensive lawyers to keep the police at arms length - and shamefully, it worked.
Law enforcement should not have been intimidated by his fame, but should have fully investigated him as prime suspect from day one. It's disgusting that there's one rule for the rich in America, and another for the ordinary working man. Natalie Wood had half of her life stolen from her, and the brutal husband who killed her simply remarried, got away with his heinous crime, and moved on with his life - after taking hers.
That Wagner refused to raise the alarm when he knew Natalie was missing from the boat (instead sitting around, drinking scotch), and later bizarrely claimed he thought she'd taken the dinghy to the shore, alone in the dark, in her nightclothes, with her terror of dark water - speaks loud and clear of his callous disregard for her welfare.
The bruises found on Natalie's face and body confirm the violent confrontation between the couple on deck, that was witnessed by an impartial third party. Robert Wagner put Natalie Wood in that water, furious at the chemistry between her and her young, sexy Oscar-winning co-star Walken. In doing so, Wagner not only ended her life many decades prematurely and took a loving mother from her children, he ensured she had the worst possible death, in dark water - her lifelong fear and a nightmare come true. May God forgive him!
The two others on the boat that night, and everyone who knew the couple best (including Natalie's beloved sister), simply do not believe his version of events. And that speaks volumes about who Robert Wagner is, and what he did to Natalie Wood. Whether he is ever charged over Natalie's cruel death or not, he won't get away with it. Some very nasty karma is coming for Robert Wagner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sayno2lolzisback How did George Michael 'live his truth'? He was a gay superstar firmly hiding in the closet and pretending to be heterosexual, until he was outed by his arrest for chasing gay sex in public places. That's not 'living his truth' - it's living a lie!
To be clear - George Michael never came out as gay. He was a global star for 16 years, and only reluctantly, and very belatedly admitted he was gay in 1998 when the jig was up, because the LA Police had outed him. The fact he had hidden his homosexuality, made his arrest a much bigger story.
Why on earth didn't he admit what all his friends already knew - he was gay? In 1998 it was not a big deal, it was a tolerant age and a tolerant profession in which to be gay, as one of his best friends, out and proud pop legend Sir Elton John, said at the time.
George could have made a brief, dignified statement that he was gay long before 1998, and his loyal fan base would have stood by him. More importantly, he would have given a much-needed boost to the gay community, encouraging young people to follow his example and have the courage to be their true, authentic selves too.
Such a move by George Michael would have won him universal praise. But instead he stayed firmly in the closet, only owning his homosexuality reactively, as a result of his arrest. He was no role model or champion of the gay community and unsurprisingly, many gay people felt let down by his years of deception and denial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cjp592 Your original post compared the virtues of two women you don't know personally, with the horrendous Princess Diana your preferred choice. What's more - you decided Prince Charles had, quote: 'lost his mind' because his marriage to Diana failed, but his union with Camilla has succeeded. This is ridiculously childish analysis by any standard - so yes, I did judge you!
You've made laughably sweeping statements about total strangers (and the known facts don't support your assertions). You can only be comparing the women's looks as you don't know them. But in fact Camilla was always the better woman, intelligent, down to earth and genuinely humble, not obsessed with her own image and publicity like her predecessor. Diana was self-obsessed and unhinged, totally incapable of being the loving and loyal wife to him (or I suspect anyone else), that Camilla is.
Charles would have been out of his mind to stay with Diana - quite apart from her terrible faults, she didn't want him and made that perfectly clear with her frosty behaviour on their joint public appearances, and her many casual affairs with a long queue of unsuitable men. The idea Charles 'broke Diana's heart' is a self serving fiction put about by Diana to cast herself as a victim and court public sympathy. She was as manipulative as hell!
I'm very sad she died. It would have been greatly entertaining to see her struggling with getting older and watching her inevitably fall out with her sons, jealous that their younger, sexier wives now 'stole' all the headlines she used to get! Diana would not have coped with losing her looks - in the absence of intellect and decency, they were her only real asset.
I'm sure the multiple face lifts and other cosmetic procedures she'd have had would also have been very entertaining! It's highly doubtful Diana would ever have re-married, as that would have meant losing the title Princess of Wales, which was so important to her that she fought hard to keep it in the divorce (though it went against protocol as the ex wife of the Prince of Wales).
Inevitably with the passing years Diana would have become an increasingly isolated, Princess Margaret figure, as she fell out with more and more people and got increasingly bitter and twisted. If only she had remembered she was the mother of two children and fastened her damn seat belt!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed, I would love to have seen more specific questioning of Amber Heard, really pinning her down on the specific details of her clearly FALSE allegations of domestic violence by Johnny Depp.
I believe she twists the truth to fit her lies. For example, it's only relatively recently she began alleging sexual violence by Depp, a heinous claim for which, like all her other abuse claims, she has produced no compelling evidence whatsoever.
To put it bluntly, I suspect she and Depp once used a bottle as part of a sex session, with both of them consenting to its use and no injury resulting from it. Then years later, with all the focus on the bottle SHE seriously injured Depp with, her mind returned to that sex session and it inspired her to claim He abused HER with a bottle, not vice versa!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stud6414 Barry was cheating with multiple women for years, as confirmed in text messages between the couple. Suzanne re-connected with her childhood sweetheart when she was enduring an abusive marriage to that bully, and battling cancer. I don't blame the poor woman for seeking some escapism - her husband was so evil, he would rather murder her, than let her divorce him!
Barry Morphew would not let Suzanne leave the marriage alive. His ego and greed wouldn't allow her to publicly reject him, and take her money with her. That's why he killed her - she made the fatal mistake many women murdered by their husband have made, she told him of her plans to leave him while they were still together, giving him the opportunity to murder her. If only she had fled to a secret address, before launching divorce proceedings, she would be alive today.
Justice is coming for cowardly, wife-murdering scumbag Barry Morphew. YAY!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gary1642 Diana had multiple affairs behind Charles' back - why don't you condemn that? You Diana fans are a joke, acting like Diana was Mother Theresa - when the truth is her legs were so far apart every time she met an attractive man, they were in different post codes!
Dirty Diana didn't care if the men she threw her knickers at were married - she broke up several marriages, including Will and Julia Carling's, and tried her damnedest to split her lover Oliver Hoare from his wife Diane. She failed - he refused to leave his wife for her and instead dumped Diana, at which her vindictive nature surfaced and she launched a harassment campaign against him, making over 300 silent malicious phone calls to his home address.
Unfortunately for Diana, Hoare called her bluff and reported her to police (who later leaked the scandal of her stalking to the 'News of the World'). When two plain clothes Metropolitan Police detectives visited her at home at Kensingtom Palace, told her the anonymous calls had been traced to her, and warned her to stop or face prosecution, she shamelessly blamed the phone calls on her totally innocent son William! She was utterly ruthless in her self-interest.
And foolish Diana fans buy into her 'loving mother' act. She was a lousy parent who packed both sons off to boarding school as fast as she could, to enjoy the hedonistic life of a single woman. She didn't want her pesky kids getting under her feet when she was seducing her latest conquest!
Diana was a ruthless home wrecker, and a total hypocrite - she had no business criticising her husband for his ONE affair with the woman he loved and is now happily married to, when she was sleeping with any male with a pulse. Frankly Diana's alley-cat sexploits, make Camilla look like a virgin!
So spare us the 'Saint Diana' garbage. Dying at 36 before she lost her sex appeal and was exposed as a hard-faced, self-obsessed, narcissistic horror by the new internet age, is the reason Diana fans idolise her. If she'd lived, grown older and revealed her true, toxic character, her fan club would have disappeared to the four winds - because they are every bit as shallow as she herself was!
Pathetic how her fans harp on about her looks - a woman's attraction and sex appeal are about so much more than mere looks - which fade with time anyway. If youthful good looks are all you've got to recommend you, then God help you!
Camilla has matured into a real woman of substance, doing great work supporting her husband (something selfish Diana could never do), and promoting important women's causes like domestic abuse. Camilla is something Diana never was - a girl's girl. She's fabulous!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you surprised? Christian Horner was cleared of any wrongdoing in his sexual pursuit of a junior colleague - then an insider leaked his Whatsapp messages to her, proving he was guilty as charged! So often these supposedly independent inquiries are a whitewash, cynically designed to make a scandal go away, so the privileged guilty parties can return to business as usual, as quickly as possible.
Sex predators are overwhelmingly male. When they are also wealthy and powerful, the powers-that-be close ranks and protect them. ITV stood by the predatory Phillip Schofield for a staggering eight years, knowing full well he was sleeping with the 34-years-younger 'This Morning' runner/lackey, behind his wife's back.
The sheer hypocrisy surrounding his public 'family man' image (an image which had ironically got him the 'This Morning' gig after John Leslie's sex scandal), is appalling enough. But it's the abuse of power by the wealthy and famous Schofield, pursuing a teenage lad he first met aged ten, which is most concerning.
ITV only turned on their golden boy when it became clear his appalling, predatory workplace conduct around much younger males could be hidden no longer. The 'This Morning' production team and studios are a small unit. It is utterly farcical to pretend, as ITV still do, his bosses and colleagues including co-host Holly Willoughby, knew nothing of the relationship between star and runner.
Huw Edwards, another gay predator with a fetish for very young males was also exploiting a wife to hide his creepy behaviour. There were many staff complaints about Edwards to BBC bosses, but surprise surprise, no action was taken. Only when the distraught mother of a teen boy he'd been pestering and paying thousands to for obscene images reported him to his seniors, was the Beeb forced to reluctantly take action. And today Huw Edwards has been allowed to quietly slip away on a massive pension, having played the mental health card, the full extent of his crimes still not exposed.
Powerful men will always be protected right up to the wire - you need look no further than serial rapist Jimmy Savile to know that, a predator whose victims numbered thousands, and spanned a 50 year offending career. Yet Savile went to his grave with a smile on his face, having been given fame, fortune and a knighthood, and never once exposed in his lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fit_spoonie6760 You didn't fall for that garbage from the defence? They had to find whatever they could to support their far fetched claim that she killed herself.
The two supposed, historic suicide attempts were actually very unconvincing - one of them couldn't even be confirmed to be a suicide attempt, and both happened such a long time ago as to be irrelevant.
But obviously the defence exaggerated them to create reasonable doubt, just as they misinterpreted her statement 'next time you won't find me'. Common sense tells you she was saying 'next time I attempt suicide you won't find me in time to save me'. She plainly wasn't commenting on anyone not finding her dead body! Why would she think about her own corpse, much least want to hide it?
Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand one by one and said their mother wasn't depressed, and certainly wasn't suicidal before she mysteriously vanished. On the day she was last seen, she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up. Her children's gut instinct that she hadn't killed herself, is the reason police looked into it. Her kids knew her better than anyone, their opinion on this should not be dismissed.
They called Jim, their stepfather 'Dad' and had known him since they were small. He gave one of Victoria's daughters away at her wedding. They had no axe to grind with him - it was a source of great sadness to them that they believed him capable of murdering their mother, and still do. I'm glad after 8 years they finally got justice for their mom.
Suicide victims don't generally disappear - murder victims do. When people kill themselves, their remains are found. But when a woman suddenly vanishes without a trace, and is never seen or heard from again, it indicated third party involvement, ie murder. And an abusive husband is usually the culprit.
Who else but Jim had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He had the motive, means and opportunity. He was losing patience and money, thanks to her poor health and medical bills. After she vanished, he spoke disparagingly of her to detectives - it was plain he did not want her back (he even remarked how glad he was his heating bills had gone down). With her gone, he became less discreet in contacting his mistress Kathy Friday - who her son confirmed had been seeing him since the start of 2013, months before Victoria went missing.
No mystery why he wanted his inconvenient wife out the way. He chose murder over divorce, because he wasn't going to let her have her 50% share of their joint marital assets. He had other plans for that money. Soon he was spending it on hotel trips with his girlfriend, taking pornographic photos of her and having a great time losing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling in casinos with her. He told anyone who asked him that Victoria had killed herself - exaggerating her history of depression to make the lie more credible.
Police even know where he put his wife's body. His employers' chemical sludge ponds, which he had a key to, and which weren't covered by CCTV, were the perfect disposal site. He knew the corrosive contents would destroy all trace of her remains quickly, and without a body he was certain he'd get away with murder. He was wrong.
The defence case was ridiculous. They had to convince the jury a cancer patient who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without her cigarettes and dentures (without leaving a suicide note or any footprints), killed herself by unknown means some distance from the house, and then made her own corpse magically disappear. No wonder the jury didn't buy it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A magnificent woman, of whom her children can be so proud. Their father is a spineless, despicable coward, without sufficient decency or humanity to even own his crime - least of all apologise for it.
You reap what you sow, and Ron will die in prison. Heather's survival as a quadriplegic is remarkable and inspiring. I'm thrilled she hung around for her loved-ones, and is doing good things in this world, publicising the scourge of domestic violence, which blights and ends the lives of so many women and children. Her story is a textbook tale, demonstrating the different stages of the 'Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse'.
The way Ron and Heather met is the classic narcissists 'love bombing', that happens at the start of an abusive relationship. The narcissistic abuser pursues the victim, showers her with compliments and gifts, and persuades her to enter a committed relationship with him (through living together, or marriage and/or having children).
Heather was a glamorous air stewardess, when she caught the eye of super-rich businessman and first class passenger Ron. And he made it his business to find out her phone number. She was flattered at the effort he went to to track her down, and agreed to date him - though she later admitted it was not love at first sight for her. He splashed the cash, took her on lavish vacations, and worked hard to impress her. She was hooked, and they were soon married.
Once the victim is committed, the narc shows his true colours during the next, 'de-valuing stage', and his controlling, abusive ways emerge. For Heather, she said the catalyst was the birth of their first child, Ronnie Jr. That was when Ron's TRUE character emerged, and the charming mask came off - in Heather's words, he became "Scary and controlling".
And the de-valuing meant his compliments turned to insults. This is the time when the narcissistic abuser exerts their power over the victim by telling them they are worthless, useless, and generally chips away relentlessly at their self esteem. Narcissists want to be in control, and what better way to achieve that, than to weaken their partner's self confidence and self belief?
After the de-valuing stage - which can go on for many years - comes the narcissist's final discard. This is the rejection, and whatever form it takes, it is invariably brutal. This means a bitter split, an acrimonious divorce, or even murder. In Heather's case, Ron delivered all three - though thankfully, by a total fluke, she survived his hit man. And she got to have her day in court and see her would-be killer, the father of her three children, locked up for the rest of his life. Bravo Heather - your narcissistic abuser did you terrible harm. But you survived him, exposed his true, evil toxicity to the world, and had him locked up forevermore, so he can't hurt anyone else! An incredible true story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@divyagupta3685 What you sentimental, die-hard Diana fans won't recognise, is that Diana cheated on Charles long before he got back with his old flame Camilla.
He was too much of a gentleman to spell it out, but when he was interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby and said he got together with Camilla "after the marriage had irretrievably broken down", that was what he was alluding to! Charles was hardly going to reveal his wife's adultery on national television, but the facts speak for themselves.
In 1985 Diana moved full-time to Kensington Palace, London, and began living the life of a single woman, abandoning Charles to live alone at their country estate Highgrove in Gloucestershire. He was lonely and turned to Camilla for company. She was a neighbour in Gloucestershire and a trusted friend, as well as former love - and she too was stuck in a loveless marriage.
If Diana was in love with her husband as she pretends, she would have happily lived at Highgrove with him, and been contented to be a wife and mother in the countryside. But she was bored to tears of Charles, and wanted to re-live her teenage years in the bright lights of London as a single woman-about-town. She had umpteen affairs with unsuitable men, many of them other women's husbands - and not one ounce of conscience or care about breaking up other women's homes!
So stop re-writing history to fit your false, fairy tale view of the 'saintly' Princess Diana. She was a toxic, promiscuous, self-serving narcissist, who cared so little about her parental responsibilities, she didn't even take 2 seconds to fasten her seat belt and wound up leaving her poor children motherless.
1
-
Rhonda is like a naughty child, a devil one second, a sweet angel the next. Her vulnerability breaks my heart - this poor woman has suffered like we will never know, in her 45 years on the planet. There are many, many clues, if you take the time to listen to her, rather than judge her.
What can be done to turn around the lives of all the Rhondas in this sad world? She was ultimately sent to jail. Will that experience be a positive one, that will help break the negative cycle when she comes out again, and resumes her life as a free citizen? Of course not. Prisons are brutal places - if anything, it will set her on a worse downward spiral. I fear Rhonda may not live a long life, and worse, she doesn't care.
Shout out to the police, who behaved with impeccable professionalism and humanity throughout, recognising while Rhonda was a gigantic pain in the ass, she was also a human being - and a very sad and broken one. I am praying for Rhonda.
1
-
'BBB', 0:06 - "So in this video I want to talk about just two things that came out of Amber Heard's interview, which to me, in my view, show that she was being deceptive throughout her testimony in the trial".
This statement is slovenly - shockingly so, from a British barrister. 'BlackBeltBarrister' should not have used the word 'SHOW' in the middle of that lover-long, cumbersome and frankly clumsy sentence, but 'CONFIRM'.
'BBB' used several superfluous terms, but the word that was not only superfluous but also inaccurate, was 'show'. In context of the recent 'Depp Vs Heard' trial and verdict, and Johnny Depp's unanimous and resounding victory, the word 'confirmed' would have been a far better and more accurate choice.
The jury returned its verdict after an exhaustive, 6-week trial, in which Plaintiff Johnny Depp's claim of defamation against Defendant Amber Heard was unanimously upheld. He won - it's a done deal. She WAS 'being deceptive throughout her testimony in the trial' - the jury told us so. So any public discussion from this point on - even by Heard and her legal team - MUST respect that jury's conclusions. #AmberHeardIsALiar
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OMG that lovely young couple, murdered by a woman-hating LOSER who couldn't bear to see them happy! Kylen's Dad is right - they deserved safe, affordable housing, and only if they could have had it maybe they'd be alive today. Two women alone in a camper van were an easy target for a sicko with a gun.
Respect to those much-loved twin souls who can never be parted, and to their loved ones who fought for truth and justice. The ending is a tragic one, but at least their murderer cannot harm anyone else. He has gone to Hell, demanding no taxpayer-funded bed and board for the next 40 years.
Two big-hearted, decent, hard working young people with their whole lives ahead of them, brutally taken from this world at the pull of a trigger. America's gun laws are so crazy,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed - When this murder trial is done and that evil PoS is locked in the cage he'll die in, the Keystone Cops MUST be held accountable for their disastrous botcheddouble murder investigation!
Richard Allen wasn't 'hiding in plain sight', as that buffoon Supt Doug Carter claimed - He wasn't hiding at all! He lived and worked a stone's throw from the crime scene, and pretty much gave himself up to a marshal the day after the February 2017 murders, confessing he was there the entire time Libby and Abby were - even on the bridge - wearing the same blue jeans and coat as 'Bridge Guy' on the infamous video.
Yet police failed to invite Richard Allen in for interview! That didn't happen until October 2022 - almost five years later, following a re-evaluation of the early investigation.
Richard Allen, a highly dangerous man, has been at liberty all that time, free to kill more females, be they women or children. The police failed to keep the public safe - and failed to deliver justice for two much loved little girls, enjoying a walk at a popular beauty spot, on a fresh Winter's day, as any kid should.
1