Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Chicken Wing

Member
  • Content Count

    1.4k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

9.2k Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Part of the contract when Pat Robertson sold the original Family Channel. Apparently it's ironclad, they can't get rid of it.
  2. It's almost kind of silly how this whole case, this whole misunderstanding could have been cleared up in five minutes if the girls had just had one conversation, if Kate had told the truth from the start about where exactly she saw Jeanette. The bike thing would have come out immediately. But since Kate couldn't say where she saw Jeanette without revealing the truth about where she herself was, I guess the only way this was ever going to happen was if her own story had gotten busted and she had no choice but to admit being in the living room.
  3. It was June 21, 1994. I too wonder who called the cops to Martin's house, because I agree it seems unlikely it was Jeanette. On the one hand, if she wanted to do the right thing, calling an anonymous tip would avoid her having to admit that she found out by breaking into the man's house. On the other hand, her scared reaction in the first episode when she learned that Kate had been found alive didn't seem like that of a person who had initiated that rescue. I'm glad we got some explanations for things, though. Jeanette's reaction, for one. Now it makes sense why she seemed scared. Sh
  4. Also, I'm not quite sure how the show expects me to feel about Jeanette getting back with the boy who punched her in the face.
  5. Well played, show. Well played. Jeanette was right. She didn't see her that night ... but she did find out she was there. And she looked damn gleeful about it. She is a nutcase, isn't she? Love it.
  6. His tombstone said he was born in 1963 so he was 30 at the time, just turned 31 when he was killed.
  7. Quick Wikipedia search -- he did four months for statutory rape. The actual legality of their relationship was never really in question. Everyone knew that it was illegal for this adult man to have sex with the teenage girl, and he rightfully did time for it. But Amy Fisher still got saddled with the "slutty other woman" label even though she was a victim of a predator. At any rate, I bring up the Amy Fisher situation just because this happened around the same time as the events of this story (early 1990s), and so I'm trying to remember what the prevailing attitudes about women and rape a
  8. But what was the attitude/understanding of consent between parties of unequal status? Was it understood that a relationship between a 30-year-old and an underage teenager was rape even if the teenager believed it to be a consensual romance, or did people still subscribe to the idea that rape was only when someone physically forced themselves on you while you kicked and screamed? Someone brought up Amy Fisher earlier in this thread or one of the other episode threads. That happened maybe the year before this story first takes place. Amy Fisher was underage, 17 I think, when she got into a
  9. Well then someone needs to teach that girl about maximizing her luggage space. Why on earth would you pack a party dress and dress shoes to run away from home? (I say this as if there's supposed to be a logical reason instead of the wardrobe and props people just reusing whatever was already on the set.) It still begs to wonder if he bought her other clothes, though. Never leaving the house or not, it's unlikely she packed enough clothes to cycle through for a period of four months, although I guess it's not implausible to wear the same four or five outfits on repeat for months on end. An
  10. Yes, for a criminal case you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person had to have done the thing they are accused of. If defamation were a criminal case for some reason it would probably never even make it to trial -- there's no "there" there to either girl's arguments from a purely legal and evidentiary standpoint. It's pretty much a literal she said/she said. But this is a civil case, and here you only need to have a preponderance of evidence that the person simply more likely than not did the thing. Jeanette only needs to bring evidence that it is more likely than not that Kate
  11. Okay, so I rewatched the scene where Jeanette flees the house and Kate watches her leave. These kinds of shows, you really need to watch each episode at least twice to catch all the hints. I totally missed it the first time, but I think I found a major clue that might be It. I will put this in spoilers. The first part of what I'm about to say is just recapping what I more clearly saw after watching the scene again. The latter part is the light bulb that went off as to what is possibly The Answer -- pure speculation, but I will hide it in spoiler tags anyway.
  12. Another thing that we still don't know that may or may not come up in the end and may or may not be important: I don't think we know how Martin ultimately got caught, how the police wound up descending on his house and rescuing Kate.
  13. It was good that these scenes were interspersed with Kate’s therapist providing Cliffs Notes explanations for everything Kate was revealing/we were seeing — breaking down how this moment was Martin grooming her, this feeling was actually manipulated, this decision she thinks was her own was actually forced. I’m sure the younger audience gets the point of the overall story, but some of these scenes taken independently might not resonate with the appropriate understanding for more impressionable viewers who might miss some of the nuances of the predatory behavior. I hope the therapist explaining
  14. I suppose. I mean, the argument isn't (or at least shouldn't be) necessarily about Kate not being a victim. The chatroom logs proving that Kate went to Martin's house willingly ... Kate living in the house and wandering around unguarded even while Martin was out... These all contradict Kate's statements to the police. If she is lying about what exactly happened to her, why should people assume she isn't also lying about Jeanette seeing her? I guess that's the case, but it runs the serious risk of discrediting Kate's entire experience as someone who was in fact held captive and victimized by Ma
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size