• Content count

  • Joined

Community Likes

496 Excellent

About Mannahatta

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,185 profile views
  1. Lol. If only he were so honest.....The sad part is that he will probably get responses.
  2. Wow. Regarding Mr. Funky's maternal grandmother - that was some scary shit. There seem to be a thousand and one ways for a sociopath to make the lives of others miserable - legal and otherwise. Family members who can emerge from that legacy without becoming completely unhinged or in denial have my utmost respect. And I agree about the genetic predisposition playing a partial role. Thanks for sharing. All of which brings me to another issue I have with Paris's mother, Charity. Apparently the audience for her forgiveness/denial tour are not only adults. She also talks before kids! Although the kids have incarcerated family members, it seems to me that she is just exploiting them for her own purposes. How on earth is her story going to help them? I can see how it might either scare them or make them feel guilty for feeling normal anger. Or, if there are any budding sociopaths in the audience, it might make them feel entitled to forgiveness should they act out in a heinous manner. I understand that she's gone through a lot, but someone with so little insight shouldn't be able to go on the lecture circuit like she's a paradigm of wisdom.
  3. I wanted to see her house too. The latest I could find was this article from 12/8/17. It was a bit disappointing since the photos are mostly either construction shots, close-ups of decorative details, and family shots. That said - you still get a sense of the look they were going for: grand, monochromatic, and cold. (I actually feel sorry for those kids having to grow up in that house.) The Dubrows probably thought they had achieved timeless elegance with all the marble, metal, black and grey upholstery, and cavernous spaces. But I've got news for them - it's all going to become dated in 10 years anyway. LOL I think all the money they put into it just magnified the limits of their taste. Plus, if it's resale that they're interested in, those mega mansions aren't moving like they used to. There's already a glut of them.
  4. And don't forget Tinsley.....Or they can just change the name of the show to "Real Alcoholics of New York".
  5. Although she's proven to be fairly shame-proof in the past - this is kind of sad. I guess she can't hold her liquor as well as I thought. Aside from the alcohol I wonder what was the trigger? Well, at least now she and Tinsley have something to bond over.
  6. Well, the grandmother, Kyla Bennett, did wind up inheriting the (trucking?) business of her daughter's father - the same guy who was murdered. The grandmother creeped me out from the start, but apparently her carefree, smiling manner has served her well in life. And what about her rationalization for those violent, misogynist graphic novels she was sending to Paris in prison? How evil can you get? I wonder how the other daughter turned out. Another weird thing - among many - the mother, Charity, seemed to like to style her young son's hair as if he were a girl. It wasn't just that Phoenix's hair was long. In one scene he had barrettes in his hair. It was as if - in her usual unaware, oblivious manner - she was turning him into a replacement for her murdered daughter. That scene with Charity speaking with a group of women was also very strange. The women all looked like they wanted to run for the nearest exit. A motivational speaker she is not.
  7. Well, I watched "The Family I Had" last night. Made by two independent filmmakers - it's definitely not your usual ID fare. I don't want to discuss the specifics for those who haven't seen it, but I will say that the story of inter-generational familial psychopaths, and the mother's denial (wrapped up in forgiveness), unfolded in a way that was absolutely chilling. So don't let those ads turn you off! It was fascinating.
  8. As I fell down the internet rabbit hole about this case, I came across this article: Apparently the option of outright acquittal isn't always available: ".... the judge dealt a severe setback to the defense, turning down a request for a jury instruction offering the option of an acquittal. Weisberg said the facts of the case did not meet the legal standard: that a reasonable person would have feared imminent death on the night of Aug. 20, 1989, when the brothers shot and killed their parents." This makes sense as the defendants weren't pleading that they were not guilty. The trial was to determine the severity of the charges, based on whether or not the defendants felt their lives were in danger at the time of the homicides.
  9. Quoting Dominick Dunne from the above link: "....I have heard straight from the mouth of a Menendez relative, with whom I met clandestinely during the trial, that the brothers’ account of the molestation was false, gleaned from books they read in jail, beginning with Paul Mones’s When a Child Kills: Abused Children Who Kill Their Parents, a study of true cases and how they were defended in court. Pamela Bozanich, the cool, no-nonsense prosecutor, made the point during the trial that much of the defense strategy was suggested by Mones’s book: “In one of the incidents related in the book, which dealt with sexual abuse as the basis of parricide, there was mention of Vaseline in the incident. There was mention of sex used to punish the child. There was talk about the defense attorneys’ need to collect all photos, diaries, letters, and everything in order to substantiate the abuse. There was indication that the defendant in this case was scared that he was homosexual. . . . There’s information on page 66 that the father’s sex was getting rougher, that the sex included being poked with pens and pencils … that the particular person was dressed up in sweaters in order to make him look younger for purpose of testifying.”...." I for one would love to know what are the actual facts of the case. This series leaves out a lot of what Dunne covered, and Dunne left out or didn't believe a lot of what the series now presents as fact. I would really need to know more about those photos.... ("Blood Brothers" was written in 1995 and got fairly good reviews. But apparently there's a lot of price gouging going on at Amazon due to this series. The current price for it ranges from $42.49 to $162.49. Last week the prices were even higher. Guess I'll have to wait a while for the prices to go back to normal.)
  10. Jeff has cheated on Susie in the past. There was the Officer Krupke episode where Susie finds a pair of women's underpants in Jeff's possession. Jeff then asks Larry to lie for him and say that they belong to Larry which leads Larry to practice saying "I'm Larry David and I like wearing women's underpants". There was also another episode where Jeff had sex with the mentally unhinged sister of Funkhauser, and later there's a dinner scene where she's coming on to him while Susie is sitting at the table. In my recent marathon watching I think I saw a few other times where it's implied that he's cheating. Now that I think about it - Jeff is actually quite the creep.
  11. I just watched "One Moment" (Derek Paul Smyer). Wow. What a psychopathic narcissist. I bet his lawyers wished he had never taken the witness stand. The smirking, the barely contained laughter, was truly appalling. So much for the veneer of superficial charm. That went out the window whenever he thought he could prove that he's smarter than everyone else. I wished that Dateline had shown more of the trial testimony - especially from his daughter. It sounded like she had a lot more to say and probably more reality based than his sister's glowing accolades. As to the issue of avoiding unwanted pregnancies: most birth control methods aren't 100% effective, not everyone is pro-choice, and sadly a guy like Smyer probably wouldn't get a vasectomy. He'll think that'll make him less of the manly man he imagines himself to be. But I do wonder just how conscientious they were about birth control and if the 2 women involved actually planned to get pregnant. Even if you have family to help you out (and Crystal Taylor's family seemed like very nice people) and even if you don't want him to live with you: you would think that deciding who is going to be the father of your child is a major life decision. If you can avoid it - why bring a kid into a world that isn't wanted by the father? Life is complicated enough. I also wonder if he had threatened Crystal and that's why she was crying when she got off the phone, and also made those comments to her sister. It's so sad she couldn't bring herself to tell them more.
  12. Clearly Shawn's ability to sew let alone design was very limited. So it really pissed me off when she tried to turn her ineptitude into an act of nobility - "I concede." Concede, my ass. The judges would have sent her home anyway. And l for one would have liked to see how Claire's blue outfit turned out. ETA: Awaken I see we were thinking along the same lines there.
  13. Is anyone watching Street Justice: The Bronx? It's another one of these series based on the recollections of a retired detective. Since I had worked in the Bronx for 25 years I had some interest in seeing this show. So I watched 2 episodes but both times felt that there was something so off about this show. The detective, Ralph Friedman, relates the stories in a flat workmanlike fashion with a minimal show of emotion, wit, or insight. The reenactments are cliched with dialog straight out of a 1970s cop show. Plus the pacing is wierd. Interspersed between the cheesy re-enactments they'll throw in some random news footage of the Bronx burning or whatever, and have a random talking head (another detective usually) make some kind of social commentary. And, most important, unlike Shattered, this show is unable to convey any true emotion - any sense of what the victims went through, what made the criminals tick, or even how the people in law enforcement felt. It's like it's going through the motions but it doesn't have any heart. At least, that's my take on it. I'll be curious to know what others think.
  14. I found it to be interesting too. For starters I hadn't realized (or had forgotten) just how sleazy and manipulative Gary Condit was: married with multiple girlfriends, very secretive, bad temper, attempted to obstruct justice by asking women to lie for him, etc, etc. I also didn't know that Chandra had told someone (I forget who) that she had wanted Condit to leave his wife for her. And then there's the question of why Chandra went to a isolated trail in Rock Creek Park that was so rocky it wasn't even suitable for running. Did she go there to meet someone? Also, unlike a lot of the well publicized cases that keep getting rehashed - there has been a major development in this case over the past year: Ingmar Guandique, who was originally convicted of her murder has been released from prison and the decision was made to not retry him. So unlike other cases that are being solely retried in the media this one could actually be retried in court - in the unlikely event that any new evidence pops up. What a sad mess of a case. One more thing - I had to google this - Gary Condit is still married to his wife. WTF
  15. I was struck by how all the women started to talk over Tinsley just as she was expressing her vulnerabilities. No matter what they said to or about her- the point is they weren't really listening to her. They all needed to be in control. I'm of the opinion that they perceive her as being weak and dependent and that's what struck a collective raw nerve. True or not; the one thing these women pride themselves on is projecting strength. And since they refuse to acknowledge their own vulnerabilities Tinsley probably represents all their inner fears. I actually think Tinsley is a great addition to the cast. She's stuck in the past on so many levels and it's fascinating to watch her try to grow. I'm rooting for her. And at least she's not bitchy.