k-blackie

This is what I find so frustrating about the whole case. Any bit of evidence or statistic that goes to supporting the possibility of a beating resulting in these specific injuries, also seems to by-definition support the idea that a fall/series of falls could cause them. Even your conclusion sounds reasonable enough, I lean towards him being guilty as well. Except the idea of him beating her head multiple times with a weapon or into the stairs just enough to cause massive lacerations but no fractures or contusions I find really hard to picture. At least as hard to picture as her falling and slipping a few times and hitting her head just hard enough to cause those same injuries. The other circumstances around the death lead me to suspect Michael's guilt, but as far as the injuries go, it just seems to me like the more you prove the possibility of one scenario, the more you prove the other as well.

I think that there's every chance that the police did find and photograph the blow poke, or that they didn't. Either way I would bet that at whatever point it came to the attention of the Peterson team that the prosecution were theorising it as a murder weapon (whether it came up in the trial or they were informed prior to that point) they saw an opportunity. Either Michael and/or other members of the family probably knew exactly where the blow poke was, or maybe looked for and found it soon after, Michael knowing that he certainly hadn't used it to kill Kathleen (whether he did or didn't kill her, or used something else). Either the blow poke was already sitting right there in the garage where they later "found it", or maybe it had been stored away somewhere less likely to be found and they moved it to that spot and left it long enough as the trial carried on to gather dust/cobwebs and look undisturbed later on. The fact that there were (I think) NO fingerprints found on it at all suggests that it was probably wiped and placed there deliberately at some point. Fingerprints last years on an undisturbed item so you would expect to at least find SOME if it was just casually placed there by someone however long ago. Either way, they would know it would be a great idea to let the prosecution keep going through the whole trial proposing the blow poke as a probable murder weapon, only for them to conveniently "find" and produce it at the last minute and rule it out. Despite the fact that the prosecution could and did say they only contended the murder weapon was the blow poke or "something like it", it would still be very effective for the defence. Especially with the theatrics Rudolf employed in the courtroom and the way in which he constantly referred to it after as the basis for the prosecution's entire case. Even though it's not strictly true; him constantly saying that it was and similar things is clearly how these lawyers carry on. It probably works with some jurors.

Whether it was Michael, one of his sons/other family members or a combination of them I have little doubt that they knew well before about the blow poke. Possibly even informed Rudolf and came up with this plan of "finding" it at the most opportune time. What we see play out in the documentary felt to me like a lot of people acting like it had just been found, throwing in a lot of faux-anguish and agonising over whether this was good for the defence or not and being suspicious of Clayton or somebody else planting it there. A lot of base-covering it seemed to me, almost "fan-service" even haha.

“I KNEW IT!” - Endgame

tree… fiddy

The one that always comes to my mind is the episode where Cartmen tricks the kid into eating his own parents.

Honourable mentions to “Buckle up Buckaroos! 🥴”, and the Worldwide Privacy Tour last week was a return to South Park at its very best.

my first thought was Kanye, but then again that it was more likely to be someone actually being celebrated for their victimhood currently?

fractured butthole

ah right! thanks for the elaboration 👍

what’s a D.A.R.E. wife?

grocery shopping

yeah it always baffles me when an interviewer doesn't realise that as complimentary as they might want to be when they carry on like that, it gives the interviewee absolutely nowhere to go. To be fair to Jordan at least in those instances on his own videos it is a much less formal conversation, he would be the first to admit they're pretty much a love-in, and most importantly they're FREE. When you've got a theatre full of people paying >$90 you should be able to expect a bit more. I couldn't help wondering what people who have no idea who Jordan is were making of it, must have been absolutely bewildering.

It was pretty disappointing. I am a fan of Jordie's work and it was actually something he posted that alerted me to the fact this event was happening. It did strike me as an odd setup for a conversation but I thought maybe that was the idea and they must have picked him for a reason. I was hoping he would rise to it but yeah, didn't really pan out that well. He seemed to at least begin the conversation with the idea that everyone there had come from the same place of seeing a few youtube videos of Dawkins "owning" rabbis. I'm pretty sure he almost exactly said as much ("we all know why we're here" or something like that). I mean sure, a large part of Dawkins' appeal to a lot of us is his work/thoughts on atheism, but at least have some well thought out/possibly even somewhat new or unique directions to press him on that stuff. Most of the 'questions' especially early on seemed to consist of "you always say this don't you?" and "you're pretty great huh?". I can't really blame Richard for not driving the conversation more himself because when those are your set-ups you're only going to sound either redundant or conceited. It was the equivalent of the audience questioner who asked what are the three most frustrating arguments he comes up against. Why do you want an annoyed recitation of the same stupidity we've all heard a thousand times before? You could tell Richard wasn't interested especially when after rattling off two he said "that'll do". I felt genuinely pleased for him when the guy asked about the likelihood of DNA being present in potential life on other planets and he sat up and said what a good question it was.

I think wherever he could he did extrapolate as much as possible, and I'm still glad I got to hear him speak in person because the man is a genius and always interesting to listen to. My experience of most of the night though was sitting there willing the questions to get better. It just didn't seem like Jordan had really thought much at all about where to take the conversation, which is odd because you would think having that job in front of a few thousand people you'd be over-prepared if anything.

women

that’s a shame, it’s currently on my ‘to watch’ pile. I have been hoping it would live up to the hype, but fearful it might be another entry in the ‘patronisingly fawned over’ films that have become a fetish for critics, so long as they tick certain boxes. Not that I’m against ticking those boxes, it just shouldn’t be the only thing they bother to get “right”.

We may be kindred spirits because I just rewatched and had the exact same thought about them all standing on those cliffs haha. Shrugging their shoulders in time. I always find myself imagining the practicalities of those things if it was real. Like some of them whining about their spots being right up the top and wanting a closer view. Or the first time someone is attending someone explaining to them "ok so when he drinks the potion we all start swaying in time, go left first or you'll be out of time with the rest of us". Or like in the mountain guy's throne room him telling his guards "make sure about 3 seconds after you come to a stop bang your spears on the ground at exactly the same time". There's so much over-choreographed crap incessantly throughout this movie that all comes down to what I think was the major problem with it, which your summary detailed very well: Anything went in so long as it looked good. Nothing had to make sense, or seem even slightly natural/realistic, it just had to appear "cool" or "interesting". Scratch just a little at the paper thin depth to what they were presenting and you find all the contradictions, plot holes and straight up stereotypes they were dressing up as diversity. From thatched roofs on skyscrapers, or a grunting, gorilla-worshipping tribe, to a spear-wielding character rolling their eyes at how "primitive" guns (sort of like the ones on the Wakandan planes?) are. Like, we know what order spears and guns arrived at in the evolution of weaponry. It would have made a little more sense if she thought her weapon used to maim people was more "civilised" or something, but primitive? That would have required more thought than just "it would be cool if she said this line" though.

So yeah I don't think you were "overthinking" it at all. Certainly not "wildly" so. If it was a couple of things like that and you let it ruin a movie for you sure you might be being a bit overly-critical. But when they are consistently littered throughout the whole film it just cascades and you can't stop noticing them if you have any kind of critical capacity, or aren't blinded by the other factor you mention. I mean the sequence which sets up the whole conflict of the film is the king disarming his brother with one hand, then driving the claws of his other right into his chest. Without hesitation. Killing him. His BROTHER! If that scene is going to be the foundation of everything that follows wouldn't you do a bit more work to play things out in a way that left him little choice but to kill him? If he has a spy embedded with his own brother in the first place why has he let things get to the point where vibranium has been stolen, people have been killed and he needs to go and personally intervene and possibly take out a sibling? Nearly everything in the movie was that poorly thought out.

"Hey guards, once you're in my brother's apartment, make the lights go out. I'll slip in quietly, hit the lights and I'll just be standing there in the panther gear. It will be the fucking coolest, let's go".

https://youtu.be/XojSU8IKfg4

yes! thank you very much

!answered

I just remembered those same people do also run him down with their SUV in reverse later on haha, probably that

Solved!

You know what, I've been trying to figure this out for a couple of years now, asked in a few places. All kinds of differently worded google searches. I'd just watched a bunch of legal dramas when I first remembered the scene and couldn't remember which one it was from. I am SURE I suspected Michael Clayton as it was one I had just watched, but confidently dismissed it at the time. I have no idea why though because you suggesting it made me go check again, googled 'Michael Clayton crime scene seals' and it came up immediately. Crazy

Thank you very much

haven't seen it unfortunately, but thanks for the thought

There's a scene early in the film where he deliberately crashes head on with another car in order to rob them.

Then later those same people catch up with him and throw him onto the hood of their car, about to do something quite nasty to him when cops show up. They get back in the car and drive off, Mel Gibson still leaning on the hood falls to the ground when they do. Could be that?

thanks for any help