MovieChat Forums > TheReccher > Replies
TheReccher's Replies
That would have diluted our empathy for Thomasin because of the lingering possibility she's the witch. There couldn't be any doubt she's innocent for the story to work.
About the same time I understood the sky was pink.
Did you notice the man puts mayonnaise in his sandwich and doesn't yell at his kid. They're Indian American.
Season 5
Season 3
Season 2
Season 1
Season 6
Season 4
Hateful Eight skirts the line between higher mid tier and lower high tier. It was slow at times, but it held together with a fluent pace and tone, memorable characters and a finale that stuck the landing. His weakest film is Inglorious Basterds, which I found difficult to watch whenever the Basterds or Landa weren't on screen.
Because the opposite looks far sillier. People change from child-hood to adult-hood but not that swiftly from their forties to their sixties. They just get wrinkles and grey hair added on.
What a wonderful cop-out. Now you don't even need those pesky facts and evidence. Subjective conjecture based on a subjective analysis of subjective behaviour predicated on subjective standards of subjective culture is good enough, because facts are difficult to get a hold of.
You seriously lack critical thinking skills.
Yep. Why is this so hard to believe? Do you honestly think that lying extortionists are some rare unicorn?
You're applying circular reasoning to say that this many false accusations are unlikely simply because I say it's unlikely as an excuse to avoid any research or insight. Instead of looking at each individual account to see if they hold up to logic and scrutiny, you simply say "well they can't all be lieing ey." Yeah they can and they are. You're trying to apply some weak statistical broad stroke argument. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Yes. But let's look at the flip side. Whenever an innocent man is accused of something awful there will always be adults who still prioritize their ego over the truth, because admitting you jumped to conclusions is too challenging. So let him rot, he's clearly the bad guy if I really believe it.
At the end of the day, there is very little evidence to support his guilt and nearly a mountain against it.
They did not find pronographic material in his house. They found innocuous drawings of children on products that are sold to the public.
The penis drawing narrative is a cliche at this point. No, the accuracy of the drawing has not been confirmed. Other than a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, the only one who kept banging on about it is Tom Sneddon. A sheriff with a corrupt past that, when push came to shove, had a very tough time confirming its accuracy.
Michael trusted children the same reason he trusted his pet monkey bubbles. Because of their innocence. Every adult in his life was an awful person. Children don't try to back-stab you and create destructive lies, they don't cheat and abuse you just to steal your money. So, he preferred the company of children.
Yes he was caught hanging out with Gavin Arvizo. A cancer stricken child who he wanted to comfort in his time, and all he did was touch his hand to his shoulder. Like that's hard evidence now?
Try harder.
Yello wall. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. What I was trying to convey is that...
...THAT'S FUCKING STUPID.
My point is that without seeing the picture itself, their testimony as to whether it's a 'perfect match,' is heresay. Especially considering two things. One, it was never used in a court of law, neither the 1993 case or the 2005 case, and two seperate jurries didn't find him guilty after the fact. Many of these men didn't even come forward to confirm UNDER OATH that it's a match. None of them. Even though his defense attorney begged for it, the prosecutor refused. Inconsistencies and vagueries have been found in literally almost all testimonies. Jim Thomas literally said it was confirmed by a friend of a friend of his. "Tiny spot" was stated in one, "almost accurate" blemish in another. The only substantive thing in Sneddon's testimony was the blemish. He went on about "detailed descriptions" from Chandler but never divulged past that. Which anyone could have guessed he had because Michael already anounced to the world he had vitiligo. Jordan Chandler drew a circumsized penis, which Michael doesn't have.
If you still believe this phallic portrait narrative holds any water, I have no words.
Your last sentence is ridiculous too. I've long since railed against adults who think children can't lie. I was a child once. Believe me they do. They can, and they know adults are stupid enough to think they can't and that's why they get away with it. A 13 y/o is old enough to know the value of a dollar at least to a rudimentary degree and should certainly know the value of the money he demanded in court.
Really? Because what I've seen, most Jackson fans have put effort forth to do their research and base their conclusions and reason and facts, while his haters want their conclusions cement so they come up with flimsy cop-outs and conspiracies in the face of reason.
Doesn't matter anyways. The jury obviously found him innocent cause they liked his music. It's obviously true cause it just, it just feeeels right you know.
So let me get this straight, you're saying that Chandler fled the country, stated out loud that he's so desperate not to fight again in court he would literally legally battle subpoenas to show his face and fight the guy who raped him as a child, all because...he did it once already....and, two times in 12 years is really tedious?
Yeah that's not a lame excuse at all.
You haven't disproven a damn thing I said with any sort of facts, and you continue to try and paint this imaginary double standard, like I'm only saying we should always jump to conclusions except for Michael Jackson.
And I'm not saying that Michael Jackson is pathologically incapable of fighting back. I'm just saying, it's going to be a little difficult for him, but if push comes to shove he'll get his lawyers and they'll sue the extortionists for libel after being called a kiddy diddler, what innocent man wouldn't. Practically everyone who knew the man from Feldman, to his nieces and nephews to every celebrity who met him confirmed he had a childish and timid personality.
My claim on his income is not hyperbole. The man was was considered a musical legend at his time and was constantly. Thriller alone got him 175 million dollars. Forbes probably calculated that from the amount of DEBT he was in, but Michael, like all stinking rich celebrities, was loose and irresponsible with his money.
Good for Mister Montagna that he didn't see the obvious extortion attempt. Jordie and his pops were still extortionists.
The first man to bring this comparison up was a doctor at the scene of the strip search, and he admitted that he didn't confirm it himself but needed a 'friend' to do it. A man we haven't seen. At this point it's nothing but heresay until I see the damn photos. Every anti-Jackson report on the so called similarity has been inconsistent, and several of Chandler's claims were demonstrably wrong. Looks like al the kid got was his vitiligo, which you don't need to look at his penis to know, and a lucky guess that there was a black spot somewhere. Why did Jackson agree to it if he was guilty and why didn't they arrest him if a crude children's drawing really matched the description to a tee?
Jordan is not credible. Every sign points to him lying for money.
This guy... [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmCuLJjWl2M[/url]
PRobably won't happen, but would be interesting.
That argument is ridiculous. Celebrities, critics, politicians, athletes etc. have suffered threats all the time I've never seen a case where they abandoned their life and fled the country. Where was there any real evidence that his life was in danger and why didn't he just hire protection or alert authorities? Sorry but a tiny minority of loons leaving Internet tough guys messages might strike fear in the hearts of a few men, but it's not going to force such a large number of people to cower in fear in their house.
Jordan Chandler left the country at the 2005 case, RIGHT SMACK AT THE BEGINNING, by the way, because as a child in the 1993 case he was used as a tool by his extortionist father, and as an adult he consumed by guilt and embarrassment. He couldn't directly say 'no" to showing up in court because that would look weird.
This has been explained already. Michael is a deeply non-contronfrontational person, almost to the point of mental illness. He literally cowers if you so much as disagree with him. A man like that is not going to pound his chest and take you to civil court over it. Especially if it means possibly airing his genitals out in public. He paid an amount of mmoney he could literally make back in a few hours and sweep it under the rug and be done with it as quitely and quickly as possible, an admittedly dumb and gutless decision that backfired on him sure. A better question would be, why would the parents take the money, and why would they bring this to civil court if they wanted justice?
The fucking genitals argument is heresay at this point. Jordan Chandler is about as credible as a taxi driver in a neckbrace, and the person who confirmed the accuracy of the drawing might as well be John Doe because he hasn't shown his face.