And the lawyer is complicit because he was always in love with her. He mentions he doesn't fully believe her.
And she chose him to manipulate him into doing it?
And at the end he's conflicted because he got her off, gets with her but knows he is with a murderess.
Right?
There is no compelling evidence she killed him. None.
She's a woman
Because she's guilty of being a c**t doesn't make her guilty of murder.
Yes it did
Classic examples of the halo effect.
No it's not. I didn't even particularly like the character but there is no compelling evidence against her. The arguments supporting suicide are far stronger.
no she was innocent moron
they literally spoonfeed you this at the end
not everything needs to have a TWIIISSSST you stupid american Black personman
It's impmied the kid was lying and made the story up when he realized he put his mom in the shitter
>kid changes the story 5 times until her murderer mother got away with it
Sure bro he's gonna kill himself with the super lethal method of... 7' fall
I don't think he intended to actually kill himself. He's the kind of crybaby homosexual that would attempt it as 'a cry for help' or to make his wife feel guilty about what she made him do, hence why he jumped from a potentially survivable height, but the idiot managed to hit the shed on the way down and killed himself.
Ehhhh little factoid for you
The burden of proof is on the offense..nitthr defence. She would have gotten off scottfree in any American country.
Europe is far behind legally. Like medieval levels of judiciary
Nah she would've also gotten off Scott free in Europe. I know the European system of law confuses burgers, but ultimately it's also facts that decide the process. The tangents they went off on are only there to explore all possible explanations and backgrounds, which yes is a more philosophical approach, but ultimately still the facts by the code matter. If there is no proof and no statements of a crime verified, she won't get prosecuted.
>And the lawyer is complicit
i dont think you understand what it means
It means he knowingly got a guilty person off
>guilty person
Any proof anon?
you are an idiot lol
Counter me then
Just spouting ad homemons
>prosecutor starts quoting fanfiction
Is Europe justice really like this? "Your honor this is the script of Star Wars 3 where George Lucas self-insert kills a dozen kids just like we are accusing George"
It's about discovering motives you brainlet
So fricking dumb the woman at the Oscars saying she doesn't know if she did it or not. She clearly didn't do it.
Saying you don't know is like watching The Last Duel and saying "we don't know if she was raped or not."
But even the actress was still asking the director a couple months ago on-camera if her character did it or not, and the movie premiered at Cannes nearly a year ago. The director said she'd tell her in another 10 years.
I swear in the red carpet she said the director told her to play it "as if she didn't do it". Personally I don't think it matters, it's fine left ambiguous
Hurrr I don't understand the difference between directing and acting and final editing process durrrr
What are you babbling about? The director was also the screenwriter so obviously it is up to her if the main character is guilty or not, in the same way it is up to an author to decide the motivations and fate of a character in a novel even if they do not expressly explain it to the reader/audience.
The point of the movie was that we have to chose what reality we prefer to believe in, like the kid did.
With information given by the script no conclusive answer is possible.
I'm not even sure what arguments brainlets have who say she's guilty.
>More successful than him
>Still loves him considering she endures his bullshit like blasting music non-stop and his dumb projects
>Tries to adapt to his culture, learns his fricking language and stays in his hometown
The ONLY motive is her being annoyed about living there, but that's not even remotely a reason to kill her husband kek
I'm not even sure what arguments brainlets have who say he's guilty.
>More successful than her
>Still loves them considering he endures their bullshit like throwing nuggets at him and her dumb MLM
>Tries to adapt to her culture, buy a giant house and helps her set up the goals board
The ONLY motive is him being annoyed about living there, but that's not even remotely a reason to kill his family kek
Literally who
Am I supposed to know some obscure burger drama?
I know for sure that the first shot of the movie holds the answer (the dog drops a tennis ball down the stairs to the attic) but I'm not sure what it is. My first thought is its trying to get someone's attention, possibly to show the kid or the mom that the guy is dead upstairs (though one or both of them probably know it already). Any other theories?
She didn't do it
>I'm not sure what it is
The dude slipped on the tennis ball and fell
The whole point of the movie is that two contradictory things can both be true.
It's like Oppenheimer but for people who frick.
She didn't do it.
reported to the authorities