Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "48 Hours" channel.

@superwoman6413 Yup. Deftly corrected.
1
@peternolan4107 Don't cry, Peter. 🥲
1
@3BK235Y 😉👍
1
@3BK235Y 😉👍
1
The usual gynocentric media narrative in full effect. Of course it's a perfectly appropriate thing to say. It's the very initial stages of an investigation and literally nothing has been proved. It'd be alarming if she said anything else. We've reached the stage now where you're effectively forbidden from saying anything which suggests women can be guilty of wrongdoing. Despite the absolute tidal wave of evidence to the contrary. It's extremely worrying for due process.
1
Possibly. Although realistically the dynamic may well have continued up until they became married. She may have postponed exit until then, when she could have left with assets and money. There's lots of things going on here. I've no doubt she wanted to leave but she probably wanted to have control over the conditions of her leaving. And obviously the doctor will have had a conflicting interest to hers.
1
This is possibly the most chilling aspect of it. Everyone praising her for coming through the trauma (rightly so) but unless she can appreciate the fact her mom is a horrible, irresponsible abusive adult herself then she's only learned half a lesson. Women have shared responsibility in creating toxic environments. They're not perennial faultless victims. Unless you can integrate that knowledge then you risk perpetuating these horrendous crimes.
1
It would honestly look more convincing on Roosevelt Glenn
1
@helpmeImpoor5314 The "cornering" seems to have occurred when she possibly pretended she was pregnant. Or was pregnant and pretended to be drinking the baby to destruction. Or was drinking the baby to destruction. All while having sole discretion over whether she kept the baby or not. Or harmed the baby through drink or not. Or just tormented him pretending to harm the baby through drink. So yes, they were both equally responsible for conception. But only she was responsible for (possibly) lying about conception. Or harming the baby. Or (possibly) lying about harming the baby. Do you understand how the "cornering" works now. I mean...of course you do. You know how this works. You're not stupid. You're just running cover for female manipulation by PRETENDING to not get it. Problem for you is that this type of behaviour is finally starting to get the push back it so readily deserves. Thanks to the internet.
1
@brendi9822 Yeah I get where you're coming from. He wanted to "own her" and she was a willing participant in being owned. In the sense she wanted into a lifestyle that was bought and paid for. It does require active participation on her part you know, he cant just go around "owning people" against their will. I think I made the point perfectly reasonably tbh. I shan't apologise if it triggers you-thats a you problem.
1
@FienDeLaere Lol. You're just offended because you recognise the truth in it tbh. It's not that deep. Nice (failed) attempt at shaming though. 😚
1
@vcall6121 I'm saying there is a far higher incidence of women ending relationships and forcing their dependent children into single parent households than men making that call. Just the observable reality. Sadly. It's not a comment on them feeding their children. I'm sure for the most part they manage to feed their children (or the state does etc etc). I'm just talking about the selfish decision to leave the child's other parent and deny them a two parent home. It puts kids at a huge disadvantage.
1
@mizzury54 Sorry if the truth triggers you.
1
@helena3631 Thats true. And it only takes one person to not want stability to mean that "both parties" dont want it. By definition. Ergo one de-stabilising mom is sufficient to create instability even with a stable dad.
1
@lostineggsaisle Absolutely. It's become extremely common now. As I said earlier there's an awful lot of naivety on display in this comments section.
1
@1694cgrnt Cry harder.
1
@1694cgrnt Triggered single mom.
1
@cheeky6397 It's all perfectly reasonable and fair comment.
1
@1694cgrnt Sorry you're so triggered.
1
@mp7140 Naive is one way of putting it. They're also quite selfish and this can equally be part of their downfall. For instance she was selfishly pursuing this murderous idiot for his money. If she'd actually been judging him using other metrics she wouldn't have become involved with him. We're not honest enough about female psychology. We always have to cast them as "naive" etc. In actual fact a lot of their selectivity is based on predatory and selfish factors. They ignore common sense as a result of naked greed.
1
@daisymiano925 The hopes of him changing would be exactly what I would characterise as ignoring all common sense in favour of naked greed. I doubt she'd have been entertaining any such hopes if he was broke. No, I think we need to be real about female psychology. We're always trying to sugar coat the greed and call I something else. Something innocent. Fortunately the internet has started to expose this for what it is and we're seeing some pushback against the gynocentric narrative thats dominated the culture for decades. . She chose a murderous narcissist psychopath because he was wealthy. Sad but true. She was hoping to gain so she rolled the dice with a lunatic.
1
@JohnSmithh644 Someone's grumpy!
1
@HayMan-k9x Hi! Thanks for chiming in with absolutely nothing new. Please see all of my previous replies!👍
1
@Mataylor17 I mean it's definitely frequently mommy's fault, yes.
1
@GregDeman Well said. This is one of the biggest lies perpetrated against society (and against men in particular)
1
Disagree. As a society we're dishonest about a lot of female behaviour and motives. At the end of the day, women are just as flawed and as ill behaved as men. We have no trouble accepting the reality of men's poor behaviour, however we're completely deceptive and dishonest about female poor behaviour. We prefer to think of women as innocent and pristine perennial victims (nb it's women who peddle this narrative the most, despite it being women who are most aware of female nature). This does untold damage to the men's lives it affects. The young lady in the video was a baby trapper. She was determined to manipulate the killer into a relationship/future he clearly didn't want. When a man does this we call it coercive control. Women can virtually get off with murdering a man now if they can prove coercive control. When a woman does it however we do not forgive the man, instead we deludedly call her an innocent victim. The internet is (thankfully) showing us a clearer, more balanced view of the world.
1
The cops were in a difficult position to be fair to them as Gabby LITERALLY admitted to assaulting Brian. Really if she was being treated fairly by the police she should have been arrested there and then for her assault and (ideally) the two should have gone their separate ways. Instead she returned to the situation. Not because she was an abuse victim with no other options but because she was doing what she wanted to do; ie driving around vlogging herself. Brian was clearly part of that instagram vlogging experience. Sadly the mutual violence clearly continued between the two and at one stage escalated tragically.
1
@chantallvardas0730 Appreciate the endorsement!
1
@Useryofcsdnx So she was so desperate (possibly because she was such an horrendous relationship proposition) she became highly manipulative? Fair enough. Lets stay consistent in that case and keep the same energy we have for men who are so "desperate" they become manipulative. 👌
1
@DiddlyD-xx2ih AND her inability to understand that-by his not directly telling her that-she was just a friend with benefits/sex. Burden of proof also falls on her to engage brain. 😀
1
@lajohnson1967 Gonna have to dismiss your opinion as worthless once again I'm afraid. Doubtless you're accustomed to that though.
1
@lizc6393 I am a lawyer as it happens. But that's by the by. Yeah I understood the point; it was basic enough. Equally, the fact a few women aren't fastidiously tidy doesn't invalidate the general point. It's the general point that prevails. 👍
1
@lizc6393 Okay. I think we can agree to disagree on that. You're respectful about it so I've no wish to argue. 👍
1
@trinleywangmo No. That one won't fly I'm afraid. Jane is one of those women where-conveniently-everything is always someone else's fault and not hers. The program erred in saying the legal team chose to not allow her to testify. It was HER decision alone whether to testify or not. Lawyers don't get to make that decision for you. They will have ADVISED her to not testify I have no doubt. That will have been on the basis that she would have been torn apart by the Prosecutor under cross examination because her story was full of holes and not believable. That was almost certainly GOOD advice. If she'd testified back then the case against her would probably have been even more overwhelming because none of her responses would have withstood scrutiny. Blaming her daughter was bizarre in the extreme but it said more about her than it did about her legal team. As did the testimony of her own sons against her. You're quite wrong in your analysis. She's just capitalising on the fact she didn't testify now and pretending it was down to poor representation when it simply wasn't. Some women are just that ruthless and manipulative. A hallmark is how everything is everyone else's fault. You know it when you see it.
1