She did it, right?

She did it, right?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nah, i believe her
    they were both broken and shitty people, but she wasn't a killer
    she would've been found guilty if not for her son lying tho, that's for sure

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Trust me she did it. I was arrested and charged with 5 counts of assault and 1 mischief and 1 uttering threat. I did all of it. But I pleaded not guilty to everything. When I testified I only admitted to the mischief. Even though the person I was in a conflict with had a mark on them I said I accidentally hit them and they bought it. I was only found guilty of mischief and in sentencing I was discharged. I got away with everything. It was fricking sick. I literally beat the system. It cost about 8k though. But now I'm suing the person who called the cops on me for 8k I'm going to win. Absolutely kino.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I did it so she must have
        Indisputable reasoning.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        low iq narcissist

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously. No one kills themselves like that. It's not high enough.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No one kills themselves like that.
      they do if they're trying to frame up someone with murder

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No one tries to kill themselves like that; it's not high enough
      >Makes sense that someone would use that height for a murder though

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were fighting and she pushed him over. She probably didn't think she was killing him. Just some shit you do in an act or rage. People often fight and one person uses the attack of choking and accidently kills the person. They honestly didn't realize they were doing something deadly because they were enraged.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >They were fighting and she pushed him over.
          She's not strong enough. They showed the height of the railing comparative to his body. She'd have to lift and throw him or suddenly get super strength to have pushed with enough force.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He had injury on his head (they said it) she must've hit him in the head and after that hide that killing object

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that's not the point

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy was wearing Palestinian badge during the Oscars. Is it safe to say he is blacklisted from Hollywood forever?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy simultaneously looked lile he was 52 and 25

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't think she did tbh. The forensic evidence wasn't anywhere near conclusive to suggest she did and a significant motive wasn't there either. The father was a weak beta cuck who decided to jump.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She pushed him but it was a freak accident that killed him (hitting his head on the shed)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was no sign of a blow to the head from the balcony and they would've found the weapon. Not to mention that they showed she would've need to lift and throw him over the side for him to travel with enough momentum to get where he did. No woman is doing that. He jumped. He probably just did it for attention but the moron hit his head on the shed.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He jumped but it was a freak accident that killed him (hitting his head on the cuck shed)

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this about the black woman that died at that sleepover party?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He jumped but it was being a cuck that killed him (hitting his freak on the accident shed)

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Her husband acted like such a fricking woman. All the women on twitter shitting on him are projecting.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously yes, after he fell he crawled 2 meters away from his home (the home she was in)

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ambiguity is the point. It's about the unknowability of relationships from the perspective of a third party

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone knows the point. That's not going to stop people debating over whether someone did it or not though. People still argue over whether Total Recall was a dream.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hear this out
    in the house, there are duck tapes plastered around so that the blind kid don't get lost
    when the kid is interrogated, he doesn't get the duck tape right even though he should know them by heart by now
    here comes the theory: the mother switched the tapes, right?
    GUILTY.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't get lost*
      esl moment

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >duck tape

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        source?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Eyes Wide Duck.

          Seriously though, I wouldn't have a clue. I doubt it made it into whatever they were shooting.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even if she didn't physically push him, she was still morally responsible if it was suicide.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >she was still morally responsible if it was suicide.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't get the whole premise of the movie.
    Why would they ever charge her, there was absolutely no hard evidence at all. And the best circumstantial evidence they had was that a married couple had a fight.

    And then they actually charge her, why do they even need to argue for suicide; they establish that the reason the investigators believe in murder is because there was no blood found on the top of the shed. Yet if they want to argue for suicide they need to argue he did in fact hit his head on the shed. But if he actually did hit his head on the shed, then you don't need to argue for suicide because a simple accident of him falling out the window would be a sufficient explanation.
    The story then sets up the boy's statement to "sway" the jury when in reality his testimony should have no weight at all, given they already established him as completely unreliable. Which also goes back to the beginning where there's a huge point being made that they believe the wife killed her husband because the son messed up his first testimony and mixed up his memories.

    So at first the unreliability of the boy's statement is used as evidence that the woman did it, and in the end they nonetheless use it as evidence that she didn't, which is ridiculous. If the judicial system really works like that in France then it's a joke.
    The prosecution did nothing but create stories instead of presenting facts and the defense ignored the fact that there was no evidence for any of the claims and they couldn't even present a murder weapon.

    Somebody please explain what I missed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      French Justice probably.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought there would be a plot twist

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like what?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She didn't do it but her son did make up that story about his dad at the end. She knew he lied and that's why he afraid of her coming home thinking she might be disappointed in him.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I heard this stupid fricking song over and over while I try to score with some chick, I would def kill whoever is playing it

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe. This is basically the female version of "The Hunt".

    People that categorical refuse this didn't get the movie. She is a master manipulator. What you are being shown is not the truth, but interpretations of what might've happened. The movie makes this very obvious.

    Stop simping for the woman. She just got away with it because there wasn't enough evidence/material to convict her.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit you people are braindead. Why is everyone these days so fricking stupid, and can't understand a simple story?

    The entire story is about the fact that SHE DID NOT DO IT PHYSICALLY, SHE DID IT BY THE WAY SHE TREATED HIM BY BEING A c**t.

    That's the moral of the story.

    So yes, she killed him, just not in the empirical way the world requires, but by being a b***h.

    The moral of the story is: don't be a fricking c**t.

    And if you're in a relationship with a c**t, leave.

    That's all.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *