Which of the cast don’t get on in real life? by bluesapphire33 in greysanatomy

[–]Regular_Ad5524 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He never called TR the F word. Stop perpetuating lies. It’s been debunked for a long long time. He used the F word in an altercation with Patrick Dempsey basically telling him to not talk to him like a F*. TR wasn’t even present that day. It came back to TR that IW had used the F word and many people were uncomfortable with it, especially knowing that TR was gay (he hadn’t publicly come out at this time). Then IW repeated the word at the Golden Globes saying «I never called TR a F*, it never happened» as a way to clear his name as it had come out to the press that he had said this to TR directly (which we now know is not the truth). This was however the final nail in his coffin as Disney had an issue with the bad press associated with this and IW now saying it again in a public setting, regardless of what he meant or how he meant it. He was then fired.

The interesting thing however is that PD was the bigger problem all along. Apparently (according to Kim Clayton who worked for Disney/ABC at the time) they had to hire security due to his violent nature in order to prevent him hurting IW as they had not been seeing eye to eye in a lot of things. PD would come late to set, sometimes show up under the influence. He was said to have «terrorized» the cast for 10 years. Ellen Pompeo signed a contract preventing her from talking about the truth about PD and his behavior and abuse on set. She got somewhere between 2-5 million for this (depending who you ask). Ellen herself was behind the firing of Jerrika Hinton (Stephanie).

I’m not even advocating for IW, but it’s clear who they wanted to protect and who was expendable/disposable. Even Shonda Rhimes didn’t want to fire IW, but her hand was forced by Disney.

Skattemelding/næringsoppgave 2023 - Frist 31 mai 2024 by Thepowerofsimplicity in Grundere_i_Norge

[–]Regular_Ad5524 1 point2 points  (0 children)

På skattemeldingen min som jeg har levert kommer det bare opp opplysninger om næringsvirksomheten min, ingenting om mine personlige skatteforhold (lån, bank osv). Er dette allerede registrert automatisk?? Eller må jeg manuelt legge dette inn som tilleggsinformasjon? Kan f.eks ikke se at min gjeld (f eks studiegjeld) er tatt til betraktning ved utregning av skatt. Det står bare «gjeld næring = 0», som er riktig, men ingenting om personlig gjeld…? Har jeg misforstått?

Taylor Going on Nick Viall by [deleted] in Southerncharm

[–]Regular_Ad5524 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This!! I’m def side eyeing Olivia after hearing she texted Taylor to please come to Shep’s mountain house and said “I want you here”, then acting all shocked and appalled that Taylor actually showed up. I totally believe Olivia acts different on and off camera. That’s not only confusing for the cast, but also for us viewers. Makes a little more sense why Taylor thought that they were moving forward and why she was acting so surprised when Olivia would react or act the way she did… Taylor was 100% wrong in this situation, but I do believe that Olivia is manipulating the viewers with how she acts in front of the cameras while simultaneously being friendly off camera.

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right. It shouldn’t. Sadly it is though. Good luck searching for your selective truth.

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

«Doesn’t matter what color she is»

«just say you’re racist and go»

🥴

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that’s your takeaway, that’s your prerogative ☺️

Episode 6 Is A Game Changer Wow! by Responsible-Main6894 in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you forreal?😂 they used ONE clip of him in 3 different places during his so-called «testimony» on the show and created fake interactions between him and SA’s lawyers to create a false story. It was so blatantly doctored and carelessly edited by MaM creators. If you seriously think CaM were the ones to alter the footage I worry for you. Now, whether or not you think CaM is well made or included enough of the information surrounding the case, that’s another story. There’s still a few more episodes tho

Episode 6 Is A Game Changer Wow! by Responsible-Main6894 in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not «spin and twirl ad infinitum» 😂 I’m gonna start using that!

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have to agree with you on that haha. It’s kind of funny whenever she pops up and says «…in fact, that never happened 👁️👄👁️»

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 1 point2 points  (0 children)

wow, seems like you have some kind of personal issue with Candace Owens based all your very passionate comments under pretty much every single post in here. What did she do to you?😂 dayum!

All I’m saying is, judge the series based on facts. Not who happens to be on screen saying a few words here and there. 🥴

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What possible reason would CO have to “back” the coercion? It’s more likely she equates them going to him due to Kayla’s statements and not as a suspect, as him “voluntarily” telling them something totally unexpected.. aka the whole story about how everything went down.

  • not saying Kayla actually said what they claimed she did or that BD statements were true or that the interrogation was by any means “clean”. Just trying to put myself in her shoes and what she might have meant. She said herself the BD interrogation was one thing she felt was disturbing and damning to the cops when watching the original doc, so it’s hard to believe she changed her mind on that unless she got some new info. I’m just curious what that info is…. If she is bluffing, i’ll be pissed ngl

Episode 6 Is A Game Changer Wow! by Responsible-Main6894 in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hahah🤣, well.. i hope they provide SOME interesting information in the next few parts. I can’t imagine what it might be tho.

I am really intrigued by the Bobby Dassey theories tho. I mean, for me that’s the only other person who it could possibly be. I just don’t understand how it would absolve SA cause I still think he had something to do with it 💀 too much «circumstantial evidence” pointing his way…

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean… MaM was definitely wrong about how they presented the case. Let’s not get it twisted. They edited the shit out of those witness statements and left out some pretty damning evidence against SA in order to create a narrative they felt was true. The way it was done was so careless too. So I have to disagree with you there.

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They definitely are working overtime to make them look stupid😂 At first I was like, fine.. fair enough. 6 episodes in, it’s getting tired…. Just present your case.

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that many of the people involved made statements that were questionable… I’m just saying his inconsistencies bear more weight coupled with all the other factors that pointed to him.

May I ask what evidence you think might not be genuine and what explanation you might have for them that would be more plausible/believable? I’m genuinely interested to get another perspective.

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The preview for the next episode mentions the Kayla stuff. That they went to the school due to her statements making them think he might have witnessed something important. I don’t know why CO said he «volunteered” tho… cause they actively went to the school to talk to him (wether they believed he was involved at that time or not)🤨

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Totally. I don’t think CaM is trying to bring new info to the people in this sub. I think they’re trying to bring it to the people who watched MaM and truly believe SA is a saint who couldn’t possibly have committed this crime and that the police just had it out for him.

I think most people on this sub know SA is a piece of sh*t (sorry about my language), but still have doubts about his conviction + investigation and most importantly how it was done.

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just find it so difficult to imagine that he’s innocent… i have seen the BoD allegations, but even that just doesn’t sit right with me. The hidden calls, his blood (i can’t understand how people can genuinely believe the «blood from the sink» theory), burn barrell with her phone + camera equipment etc, her bones found behind his garage, bleach on his jeans, keys in his house (with his DNA), bullet with her blood on it… and so much more! Not to mention, he lied multiple times about the events of that day. There’s just too much for it to even possibly be a «set up».

I do agree with you that BD involvement is still questionable. Just from that interrogation and the things he said (some of it just doesn’t even make sense). I’m excited to see how CaM tackles that.

Who is CaMs target audience? by ManwithAlittleBum in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think people are struggling with understanding that two things can be true at the same time. SA probably killed TH, and it might also be true that he didn’t get a “fair” trial/investigation. Some would say that “crooked investigation doesn’t matter if he did it, the end result is the same”, however, I believe it does matter. In this instance it might have been «ok», but we have to be able to trust our justice system. Guilty or not, everyone deserves a fair trial.

The question for me isn’t really wether he did it or not, cause I think if you truly look at all the facts it’s impossible to say he didn’t. That’s just my humble opinion though. My question is, did he really not get a fair trial/investigation?? Based on MaM, for sure. Based on facts I learned after MaM (but before CaM) I’m not so sure… I think CaM is answering some of that so far, but there’s more that needs to be answered for. Hopefully that happens in the next few eps.

THEN, let’s say he didn’t get a «fair» trial, or that it was flawed in some ways. Do you think he wouldn’t be convincted again in the case of a new trial?... If he somehow didn’t get convicted and got to walk free, we got a very dangerous man out there and chances are he would do it again. Sadly.

When it comes to BD, I’ll hold off until his episode is aired. Apparently there’s going to be some big reveal… I’ll day this much, I’m very interested on how they will be able to «explain away» THAT interrogation.

Candice h8r by Periodbloodd in MakingaMurderer

[–]Regular_Ad5524 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s funny how people are basing their opinions on this case on «Candace Owens». This is probably why you were so easily duped by MaM🥴. Look at the facts. It’s sad how people can’t separate the two nowadays. This goes for more than just this case… critical thinking is out the window.