Bryan or Cedric or Dermot

Page numbers from my copy of 4.50 From Paddington by Agatha Christie
(ISBN 0-00-615762-9)

There is a long-running mystery in the 4.50 From Paddington and it is nothing to do with strangled women on trains, or any kind of crime.

The final lines of this classic Christie whodunit read as follows:

'What about Lucy Eyelesbarrow? Wedding bells there too?'

'Perhaps,' said Miss Marple, 'I shouldn't wonder.'

'Which of 'em is she going to choose?' said Dermot Craddock.

'Don't you know?' said Miss Marple.

'No, I don't,' said Craddock. 'Do you?'

'Oh yes, I think so,' said Miss Marple.

And she twinkled at him.

Unfortunately, what seemed so plain to dear Miss Marple has been vexing readers for 65 years!

It is perhaps the final line - she twinkled AT him - that pulls Detective Inspector Dermot Craddock of New Scotland Yard into the running for the role of the future Mr Eyelesbarrow. The 2004 Geraldine McEwan version threw me for a loop as I had never considered him to be 'on the menu' so to speak.

Apparently a later book has Craddock as telling someone he is still unmarried but I don't know as that signifies. Christie is not above continuity errors. There's also the possibility that they began a relationship but it didn't work out. Another possibility is that Craddock is lying - people hide their marital status for all kinds of reasons and it's not so very unreasonable that a senior policeman might want to protect his family by not telling people they exist.

So first I shall consider the wild card entry - Dermot Craddock. Certainly as an intelligent, successful police officer he would be a splendid catch but would he suit the redoubtable Lucy?

I don't think so. Lucy Eyelesbarrow is a force to be reckoned with, immensely intelligent and easily bored. She would not be able to assist Craddock in his investigations and, as his wife, would be constrained in her options. Perhaps she might satisfy herself with motherhood and then the academic career she'd previously rejected but I doubt it.

Lets progress to the two intended prime suspects:

Approaching the end of the novel (p. 208) Miss Marple addresses Lucy's unacknowledged dilemma...

'I know, dear, it's very difficult for you because you are quite strongly attracted to both of them, aren't you, in very different ways.'

'What do you mean?' said Lucy. Her Tone was sharp.

'I was talking about the two sons of the house,' said Miss Marple. 'Or rather the son and the son-in-law'

The son, or rather the sole surviving son (Edmund having died in the war; Harold and Alfred having been poisoned in preceding pages) is Cedric Crackenthorpe. He is unmarried and has been enjoying it. The son-in-law is Bryan Eastley, a WWII Squadron Leader at a loose end in civvy street. Five years have passed since his wife Edie, the former Edith Crackenthorpe, died and he is lonely. Bryan has a rather adorable son, named Alexander, of whom Lucy is very fond.

As a ne'er-do-well artist living in Ibiza Cedric certainly held quite an attraction for Lucy and apparently this solution is the one Dame Agatha had in mind. However, Agatha's romance novels (as Mary Westmacott) are a bit rubbish, as was her own love life. Agatha's first husband, Archibald Christie, ran off with another woman and, although her second marriage, to archaeologist Max Mallowan, seemed happy enough he remarried rather quickly to a woman he had known for years. I'll bow to Christie's genius for detective fiction but I'll form my own opinions on love.

Lucy's interest in Cedric is clearest in terms of pigsties (e.g. "for some reason or other, pigsties came into her mind" p.163) which is in reference to an encounter with Cedric in chapter eleven although there's a possibility, hinted at on p. 143, that they've perhaps continued to meet there:

'Why the pigsty, dear?' asked Miss Marple with interest. 'Do they keep pigs?

'Oh no, not nowadays. It's just - I go there sometimes.'

For some reason Lucy blushed.'

In my opinion, while Lucy might be attracted to Cedric, he is unlikely to be a good match for her. As an artist in Ibiza, perhaps. The island wasn't in those days the clubbing hotspot it is now but the burgeoning package tourism industry would have fitted with her "taste for people, all sorts of people - and not the same people the whole time" (p. 28). She might well have applied herself to getting her husband's art recognised and / or sold. Of course, she had no idea what his art was like - it may have been truly dire!

'He makes me fighting mad sometimes,' said Lucy.

'Yes,' said Miss Marple, 'and you enjoy that, don't you? You're a girl with a lot of spirit and you enjoy a battle.' (p. 208)

But would she have enjoyed that in the longer term? I am unconvinced. Life with Cedric might be exciting but it may well not be pleasant. That particular exchange moves into Lucy noting that Cedric is completely unmoved by his brothers' murders and is making indecently gleeful plans for when he inherits Rutherford Hall - it is perhaps natural to think ahead but two brothers have been killed and he's practically wishing his (admittedly disagreeable) dad dead. The callous attitude and the greed seem to be distinct turn-offs for Lucy.

No, I can't see it being Cedric Crackenthorpe.

Which leaves us with two options: Bryan Eastley or remaining single. There's certainly an argument for remaining single. Lucy doesn't need a husband and doesn't seem to have been hankering after one.

The 1987 Joan Hickson adaptation is decidedly pro- Bryan Eastley and, of course, Joan Hickson is *my* Miss Marple - the ones I grew up on. so I am well aware I am biased from that version. John Hallam's Cedric was kind of smarmy, sleazy and David Beames' Bryan was far more appealing. I am trying to lay that aside and judge from the text.

I don't think the following can be understated in its significance:

She took up once more her restless, almost aimless prowl round the room. Miss Marple sat watching her. This was a very different Lucy Eyelesbarrow from the one she knew. p. 205

'Yes, go on,' said Miss Marple. 'Tell me. Something has upset you very badly, hasn't it?' p. 206

What has upset Lucy is the possibility of Bryan being the murderer. She has been well aware the killer could be Cedric - he after all stands to gain directly whereas Bryan only benefits as Alexander's father. 

There is an argument to be made that Lucy is more concerned for Bryan because he is somewhat immature - that living under a cloud of suspicion will harm him more than the tough Cedric.

It's not the done thing here in 2022 to think about what a woman can do for a man but considering 4.50 is copyright 1957 and that Lucy, with her First in Mathematics from Oxford (p. 28), became a specialist in the field of domestic service because she likes helping people it is, I feel, relevant. Cedric doesn't need Lucy, she might be pro-active in getting recognition for / revenue from his art career but she could be really useful to Bryan:

'He's always full of schemes of one kind or another, isn't he?'

'Yes, I think he is. They all sound rather wonderful - but I've got an uneasy feeling that they'd never really work. I mean, they're not practical. the idea sounds alright - but I don't think he ever considers the actual working difficulties.'

'They are up in the air, so to speak?'

'Yes, in more ways than one. I mean they are usually quite literally up in the air. They are all air schemes. Perhaps a really good fighter pilot never does quite come down to earth again...' p. 209

A sharp mind like Lucy's could, I feel sure, help Bryan make something of one of his schemes; he has ideas and ambition and courage (and a certain specialist skill set) - none of which applies particularly to Cedric, I might add - he may have no head for the practicalities but if Lucy is anything she's immensely practical. I definitely believe they'd complement each other that way.

Yes, I actually do think that one of Bryan's main things he has going for him is that he's a bit hopeless. Remember, 1957... a married woman had next to no autonomy. A wife needed her husband's CONSENT to buy a kitchen appliance (I know this cos in the late 60s my mum was refused the sale of a washing machine for this very reason). It's my belief that an amiable chap like Bryan would be willing to defer to his intelligent, capable wife; he wouldn't be threatened by her, he'd be proud of her. 

Perhaps I am being unfair to Cedric but if he did inherit Rutherford Hall and a large amount of money (increased but the deaths of his brothers) I think he would (a) consider it 'his' not 'ours' and (b) I think he would lose all motivation to make anything of himself. Lucy admits she likes money (p. 28) but enough to settle for living on a husband's inherited wealth? 

Bryan in contrast is a 'doer' which I feel fits Lucy's character better. Cedric seems the sort to throw his weight about a bit - not to say he'd be controlling but I think it would make for a more unequal partnership whereas Bryan would give her more freedom, more control.

So that's my verdict. Team Bryan all the way. He's a bit of a fixer-upper but he's got less attitude than Cedric and would, I strongly believe, be the more agreeable partner in the long term. And he's got a nice kid. If you're gonna date / marry a parent liking their crotch goblins is a really key thing but also it tells you something about the parent: Bryan has been raising Alexander by himself for quite some time and the boy is kind, polite, etc. Definitely a good sign.

EDIT

Blinkin' typical, I stared at it so long I forgot the most important bit!

On p. 214 Miss Marple does her traditional party piece and finds a village parallel for Bryan:

'Ronnie Wells, the solicitor's son. Couldn't seem to settle somehow when he went into his father's business. He went out to East Africa and started a series of cargo boats on the lake out there. Victoria Nyanza, or is it Albert, I mean? Anyway, I'm sorry to say that it wasn't a success, and he lost all his capital.'

Assuming what I read about Christie being Team Cedric was correct this is the big red flag to Lucy that Bryan is a bad bet, and is warning her off; but Miss Marple isn't quite done...

'He was engaged to a very nice girl,' said Miss Marple. 'Very sensible. She tried to disuade him, but he wouldn't listen to her. He was wrong of course. Women have a lot of sense, you know, when it comes to money matters.'

That is a cautionary tale for both of them. It's implied Ronnie Wells lost his girl as well as his capital (engaged only you notice) because he didn't listen. If Bryan listens to Lucy, if he will take advice and allow himself to trust her judgement he might not suffer the same fate.

I suspect if Bryan and Lucy had gone off to Africa or Australia he could have started an air courier business or flown an air taxi, something of that sort it would most likely have been a success... so long at Bryan stuck to the flying and Lucy kept the books!

Earlier, on p. 116 of my copy, Miss Marple had done the same thing on Cedric:

'Do you know who you remind me of? Young Thomas Eade, our bank manager's son. Always out to shock people. It didn't do in banking circles, of course, so he went to the West Indies... He came home when his father died and inherited quite a lot of money. So nice for him. He was always better at spending money than making it.'

And, in my humble opinion that's game, set, and match to Eastley.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU BELIEVE - Main Stream Media f*cking up again!

This has been all over the news and social media today, with #DeleteFacebook trending on Twitter. As usual, I am furious.

The ONLY sane article I have seen on the subject is this one from The Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-allegedly-aborted-burned-and-buried-her-baby-heres-how-media-covered-it

"Authorities — unaware that the baby had been illegally aborted — reportedly charged the women in early June with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body, as well as concealing the death of another person and false reporting."

However, on further investigation Direct Messages on Facebook came to light, indicating that an illegal late-term abortion had been committed and not a grossly mishandled miscarriage or stillbirth as they had at first believed:

"The messages led Madison County Attorney Joseph Smith to add two more felonies, performing or attempting an abortion on a baby older than 20 weeks, as well as performing an abortion as a non-licensed doctor, to the charges against the mother."

You'd think this would be enough to have the general public up in arms about two women - women we're constantly being told are innately innocent, nurturing creatures - conspiring to kill a viable foetus and then burning and burying its body... Nope. They've spun it into a pro-choice story making Facebook's COOPERATION WITH A LEGAL ORDER the point of outrage. 

In my opinion THIS IS MISOGYNY - women aren't responsible for their crimes, the big bad patriarchy (FB must be masculine because its logo is blue, right?!) is responsible for betraying them.

FORBES HEADLINE: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs So They Could Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion" (has since been edited to read: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs. They Used Them To Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion.")

• FB did not 'give' anything and the original version reads like FB were the ones wanting the girl prosecuted.
• The teen in question also did not simply 'have an abortion' in the usual sense - she was an active participant in an act that is illegal just about everywhere

FIRST SENTENCE: "authorities obtained her Facebook messages using a search warrant"

• all legal and above board - and, as it turns out, for a damn good reason - whether you like it or not

ACTUAL CASE: "court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion"

• This is nothing to do with a decision to end a pregnancy but performing a medical procedure without qualifications, licenses, access to resources etc etc. If you performed an appendectomy on your kid it'd be much the same kind of illegal!
• The girl is believed to have been at least 23 weeks pregnant, well over the Nebraska state limit of 20 weeks - which in itself is one of the more generous limits - this is NOT a matter of a girl being denied options
• This also dates to BEFORE the overturning of Roe Vs Wade - she'd had at least five, or more likely six months to procure a legal, safe abortion. Possibly she didn't know she was expecting until way too late and that sucks but that still doesn't make the DIY approach okay
• I am pro choice all the way but fastening on to a case featuring the desecration of a corpse and the illegal disposal of human remains is faux outrage
• Abortion, where legal, is regulated for a reason - this girl could have DIED and her mother would be facing whatever the American equivalent of murder or manslaughter charges are
• There is another really important consideration here: what if the young woman had been coerced or forced into an illegal and dangerous termination? What if she had not consented to this?! Abortion is legal in the UK but a married man was recently jailed for trying to abort his girlfriend's pregnancy without her consent (link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/darren-burke-home-office-boss-induce-miscarriage-partner-b2102580.html) yet today's narrative suggests we should turn a blind eye to the red flags
• If a teenage girl is pregnant one day and not the next it merits investigation; if a foetus is found burned and buried it merits investigation. The media is approaching it like she went and had a regular abortion procedure and is now facing jail for it - THIS IS NOT THE SAME

Forbes link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/08/08/facebook-abortion-teen-dms/?sh=30efb86e579c&fbclid=IwAR3U4FkASeBUohxdGCAlpoP4uk97ZLgPEXBdmtSiXBLfKDxR6JVVOWaLPUs

This is NOT an isolated incident with this story. The Guardian led with "Facebook gave police their private data. Now, this duo face abortion charges"

• Again, data not 'given' - nothing is 'private' in a criminal investigation - Facebook DMs can be and are demanded to be turned over in other criminal investigations. Are the media really trying to argue a right to privacy where it relates to crime - murder, terrorism, child abuse?!
• The duo were always facing charges - they were up to their unmentionables in implication of illegal acts!

Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/10/facebook-user-data-abortion-nebraska-police

The Independent led with a marginally less click-bait title and admittedly was a more nuanced article. However, it still focused on the irrelevant Roe vs Wade issue and missed several key points, such as not disputing this comment from former candidate for Congress Brianna Wu:

"The difference in abortion being made illegal before Roe and now
is today we have a surveillance state.
If the tech industry were anything like what they pretend to be
- they’d fight this tooth and nail,”

Fight what?! The legal collecting of evidence to prosecute criminals?! This is NOTHING to do with surveillance. FB did not flag any concern and you can bet that if Al Qaida was plotting terrorist atrocities via social media everyone and their auntie would be up in arms that the platform hadn't monitored and reported it.

Indeed, if they'd fought a legally obtained search warrant there'd be hell to pay - what are they hiding etc etc.

Independent link: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nebraska-abortion-case-facebook-privacy-b2142024.html

Dissing Amber Heard again cos it's fun and I loathe her for the damage she's wrought on *real* victims / survivors

DISCLAIMER: everyone has been doing the dog/bee thing so no claims any of the following is an original thought

Note: This is for the lols

For anyone who missed the memo and this sounds entirely too ludicrous to be true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7TX_W1nC6s

[Time stamp 0:48-0:50 Amber says UNDER OATH that her dog stepped on a bee and pulls a stupid face. For the record the owner of the 'trashed' trailer testified the 'damages' consisted of one (1) broken light fitting valued at $62]

"My dog stepped on a bee"

and got bit by a flea

Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea

Johnny Depp hit me

but I didn't flee

my nose was broken but I didn't take a selfie

got r*ped with a bottle but didn't go to A&E

or a GP 

I sh*t on the bed but didn't wee

I'm the princess and the pea

gave me a bruise on the knee

but no you can't see...

He lost one but I lost three

sux no one believes me

I rate the jury D

why am I even free?

A great vegan scrambled egg alternative is ackee

For anyone who missed the memo and this sounds entirely too ludicrous to be true...

https://twitter.com/todayshow/status/1536677940213297155

[Amber Heard claims in an interview that Johnny Depp 'convinced the world' he was, like, ACTUALLY Edward Scissorhands (1990)?! He's a great actor but that is seriously pushing it...]

"Says ... the lawyer ... for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers?"

...the man who convinced the world he was eaten by a bed (Nightmare on Elm Street, 1984)

Given this was his FIRST ROLE I want an explanation as to how he was alive enough the rest of his career?

...the man who convinced the world the film-maker Ed Wood (1994; 1824-1978), policeman Frederick Abberline (From Hell, 2001; 1843-1929), author J. M. Barrie (Finding Neverland, 2004; 1860-1937), John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (The Libertine, 2004; 1647-1680), gangsters John Dillinger (Public Enemies, 2009; 1903-1934) and Whitey Bulger (Black Mass, 2015; 1929-2018) and POTUS Donald Trump (Donald Trump's The Art Of The Teal: The Movie, 2016; b. 1946) ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON

I'm sure I've left out other biographical characters but this lil list would make him (a) 375 years old and counting (b) at least 4 different people simultaneously in the 1920s.

...the man who convinced the world he runs a candy factory full of slaves (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 2005)

the man who convinced the world he was a throat-slitting barber (Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, 2007)

OMG is THAT why she gifted him the engraved knife???

...the man who convinced the world he was a CGI chameleon (Rango, 2011)

...the man who convinced the world he was a vampire (Dark Shadows, 2012)

...the man who convinced the world he was a wizard (Fantastic Beasts, 2016 & 2018)

...the man who convinced the world he was a pirate (POTC, 2003-2017)

Actually, scrub that one. He IS Captain Jack Sparrow.

#JusticeForJohnnyDepp

An open letter to Johnny Depp

"Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp,

I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence,

and see how many people believe or side with you." - Amber Heard

Well, sir... you did. And they did.

A lot of people believed you from the start. People called them Deppford Wives and misogynists.

A lot of people came to believe you over time. The media wrote them off as fans and trolls.

A lot of people came to believe you during the trial, hearing your story properly, and with all the facts finally available to us. Still the media wrote articles about 'the internet' siding with you. Like we're not all individual human beings with eyes and ears and the ability to think for ourselves. They tried to paint it as a war of words rather than of evidence, and the public as idiot sheep who'd huddle together without discernment.

What it came down to was what seven people on a Virginia jury thought.

They believed you.

They sided with you.

Unanimously.

Sorry, I'm British. I had to.

I can't begin to imagine what it has cost you - physically, emotionally, psychologically - to do this. To lay yourself bare before the world. To have all the lowest points of your life scrutinised, dissected... I imagine you feared the world would judge you harshly, but you did it anyway. 

I am so proud of you.

Not to suggest that you were in any way selfish but I know you told your truth for yourself, for your kids, for the people who matter to you... but this has done so much GOOD. I have seen so many people, men and women, opening up about the DV / SA  / false allegations they have suffered. Men especially are often talking about it for the first time because of you. Whether they were fans before is irrelevant, you're a fucking HERO now.

I really hope you've made inroads to changing the dialogue. Everything has been skewed in favour of women for far too long. A lot of people couldn't even imagine that being the wrong mindset before this. People have seen for themselves how messed up it is that she was believed on her word alone; her word that didn't ring true and a lot of times lacked even basic logic. I suspect there's a long wad to go before there's any real change toward true equality but that's not your battle.

You've fought so long and so hard for this I really hope this is the end of your nightmare.

I wish you healing, rebuilding... I hope your ability to love and trust will recover in time because you truly do deserve all the very best.

With the greatest of respect,

Heggie

JDvsAH

IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THE TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE FROM THE TITLE DO NOT READ

THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY I TOOK A PRO-JOHNNY STANCE LONG BEFORE THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND WHY THAT STANCE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED

I have been #TeamJohnny from the get-go. Not because I am a fan, but because it was, for me, the logical stance.

I am a female of the species but I identify as agender and I am egalitarian. Oppression, violence, victimhood... these things can be caused or exacerbated by gender but it's not all one way, and the Depp Vs Heard case is a prime example.

Amber Heard was believed because she is a woman. That's it. Not because her claims were proven true, supported by evidence or even plausible. Because of her sex-slash-gender-identity. Like women can't / don't / won't lie. Like they wouldn't lie about THAT.

Can you hear the eyeroll as I typed?!

Anyone can lie. Some more effectively than others. But believing a lie because of the sex of the person telling it? Beyond stupid.

I've had rows on social media with feminazis (so shall I call them if so shall they act) who would believe ANY woman, regardless. They would literally throw their fathers, brothers, partners and sons under the bus on the word of a stranger who just happens to be female. Zero loyalty, zero faith in the men in their lives. Nice.

So yeah, that's my starting point.

I do not #BelieveAllWomen or even #BelieveAllVictims as a default setting. Which is not to say I disbelieve them, of course. But it's this little thing called critical thinking: the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.

I can at least start at the chronological beginning.

When Johnny married Amber my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG he's got himself a gold-digger, she's gonna bring him down. Call it a premonition. I knew NOTHING about this woman.

When Amber first made her claims my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG she went THAT FAR???

First Allegations

In the first instance I don't know either of these people, obviously. However there's always unconscious bias - this is where gender is a very strong factor, along with race. Most people will lean toward the female, especially a pretty blonde one (see Missing White Woman Syndrome) whether they are overtly sexist or racist or not; it's almost a learned behaviour as the news more heavily reports missing white women / children creating the idea that men and women or children of colour are less vulnerable. Meanwhile, there are others who will default in favour of men, wealth, fame, or perceived power.

I defaulted in favour of Johnny Depp. Why? Because I am a misogynist who respects fame & wealth? I certainly hope not. I certainly believe it's because I know OF Johnny (whereas I only knew of Amber as his Mrs), and had been aware of him / his career for decades. I knew the man had substance abuse issues but from the outset it seemed curious that there had never been a sniff of violent or sexual scandal around his name.

Of course you never *know* but the fact he'd worked repeatedly with certain directors (eg. Tim Burton) and actresses (eg. Helena Bonham Carter, Keira Knightly) suggested that he wasn't a monster to work with.

This was a very short time later amplified by two of his highest profile exes (Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder) saying publicly NOT me too. Along with a number of co-stars (inc. Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet) speaking of him positively. Of course, being an abuser in one relationship does not mean you will be in all of them. But, for me, it was telling that a number of high profile women said 'he wasn't like this with ME'. Naturally some of that might have been their fans asking them to say #MeToo or offering sympathy for their presumed past suffering at JDs hands. But again, respect for saying openly that it didn't happen.

Even more telling has been the distinct lack of anyone coming forward to say #MeToo. For a man now 58 that seems pretty solid. The only ex who spoke against him was Ellen Barkin who recalled him once throwing a bottle at a wall, had no idea of the context, and couldn't even remember how long their relationship lasted.

Honestly, at this point I've lost the plot as to when exactly which photos / statements came into the public eye so I'm just gonna look at the salient points individually.

The Photos

The newspapers carried photos of a 'bruised' Amber Heard coming out of court having applied for a restraining order. Even in grainy newsprint it looked like nothing. Looking at the photos presented in court with the 'bruises' supposedly shown in the 'best light' of the apartment and ignoring, for the moment, the idea of filters, resolution discrepancies etc etc I looked at the pics... is that a pimple? is that a mosquito bite? is it blusher? why can't we see her OTHER cheek for comparison?!

That's not to say she didn't have a bruise. *I* don't bruise well, especially on the face for some reason. *I* have tried to photograph injuries and failed. But then *I* have never tried to use my inadequate photos as 'evidence' in the press or in a court room.

Then there's the black eyes, broken nose, split lip that she supposedly had on the James Corden show. Yeah, not believing that either. Makeup on a split lip? I don't think so. Also, where's the show's make up artist testimony? And the mouth stretched wide photos? Lord, give me strength...

The Cabinet Video

When the cabinet video first came out several things were obvious:

• Amber was recording Johnny without his knowledge in his own home which is pretty gross
  
• He's clearly distressed
• She's clearly goading him
• The video was clearly edited

Did I believe it proved anything? Hell no.

Is violence against cabinetry illegal? Not if you own it. Criminal damage at most if you don't.

If fact, I felt it proved the opposite - he's upset, he's goaded... he slams a cabinet door? Fair amount of restraint there. If that's the most damning video you can leak there's a problem with the claim. And before anyone starts with the 'imperfect victim' argument as stated in the summing up:

“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen.

If you did take pictures, they’re fake.

If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying.

If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.

If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured.

If you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy,” - Benjamin Rottenborn

She did take photos - but they don't fit with her testimony. We can SEE they're filtered, so yeah, FAKE. She also took videos - none of which managed to capture what she claims was happening. All the way up to this case she's been saying she has copious amounts of damning evidence. The evidence we've now seen, extensively, is 'meh' at best. If she'd made these claims on her WORD alone it would have looked better!

The Bottle Incident

This really needs its own headline but most of my reaction to this is the same as in testimony... it doesn't ring true. It's implausible in the extreme that she could have been assaulted in the way she described.

Sadly there are a LOT of comments online calling this out BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED IT.

There is NO WAY you can be raped with a bottle and 'not know' if it broke. If you were bleeding and in pain to the point you thought it was broken EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE is not an optional extra. Ms Heard was in no way prevented from seeking medical care - she didn't. She was in no way unable to access medical care due to poverty or location either.

I've seen repeated claims she made and was photographed THE NEXT DAY walking and acting and dressed normally. Things many victims says is simply not possible.

I can't speak for whether those photos were taken the next day but every victim of this kind of assault, bottles broken or intact, says of her account THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do I believe these self-confessed survivors over Ms Heard? Because IT MAKES SENSE. The very idea of being violated with a potentially broken bottle is enough to make most females, if not most people, wince and cross their legs.

We're supposed to believe that Ms Heard was vulnerable, intimidated, trapped in an abusive relationship but where many / most DV survivors are separated and isolated by their abusers - she was surrounded by her employees, her friends, her sister. Many / most DV / SA survivors (in the US) don't have medical insurance or can't access healthcare due to cost, or fear that it'll be reported back to their abuser. That was never her situation and a lot of survivors are pretty angry that a woman with her wealth and privilege is claiming their level of disadvantage.

As with the Rottenborn statement above it's hard to imagine anyone being assaulted the way Ms Heard describes and deliberately NOT seeking help. If she had sought help she certainly wouldn't be 'crazy' for it - there'd be records, PROOFS of what did or did not happen.

The same is true of her alleged broken nose. I got my nose broken. It was on straight, it was not bleeding profusely, so I followed the NHS advice to just let it heal. Therefore it's not on record. It's perfectly possible Ms Heard did the same... but HER FACE IS HER LIVELIHOOD. It stretches credulity that she wouldn't have at least called a professional for advice or get it checked.

The Testimony

I have said it over and over throughout the trial... I expected acting. Both parties are professional, Hollywood actors for heaven's sake. Despite having the above detailed pre-conceived ideas I still expected to have to watch closely for tells and inconsistencies.

Boy, was I wrong.

If Johnny was acting it was immaculate. There are those who criticise his smiling in court but y'all expect stoic, stone-faced for six solid weeks?! He smiled at his team, with whom he clearly had a good rapport. He smiled at certain things that were said on the stand. There was context.

Amber on the other hand... What the HECKAMAJIG was all THAT about?! On the stand she was over-acting in the style of a dramatic five year old. Only most five year olds are more convincing. Fake tears (and I do think she had something untoward in that tissue - not least cos every damn time she wiped her nose on the back of her hand anyway). All the wrong facial expressions. The borderline rage when she was interrupted or corrected. Y'all don't need to be an expert in acting or body language to see that was dodgy AF.

Off the stand she was the epitome of a cold fish. Example: if Dr Curry had been saying such things about me I'd have been in floods of tears, bright red. Telling the world I'm totally unbalanced? There should be emotion. Nothing. Nose in air, perfect Ice Queen. It's not normal, it's not natural, and no power on this earth can convince me it's genuine.

I've seen commentary that Johnny presented badly on the witness stand. I disagree. It's not about 'performance'. A person can be low IQ, mentally impaired, struggle to express themselves and still they deserve to be heard. Johnny was not eloquent, he was not reciting a script; he was hesitant, nervous, embarrassed. 

Aside from expert witnesses, many of Johnny's were friends & employees of long-standing. And an ex girlfriend calling BS on one of Amber's lies about her.

Amber's witnesses included her sister. And a bunch of friends who admitted they'd been freeloading off Johnny.

Johnny's account gelled with what the experts set, what his other witnesses said. At times, even with the opposition testimony!

Amber's made no sense in and of itself and did not match with anyone else's. How can you ever reconcile that? Her testimony didn't gel with the people she and her team *chose* to back her up.

So, I was working on this opinion piece explaining my personal stance between summing up and verdict. I am literally typing this waiting as the clock ticks down and the courtroom filling up... I think I better leave my reaction for another blog. YIKES!

I shred comments like these for breakfast...

If you've had the misfortune to read my blogs before you'll know where this rant is going.

I am an EGALITARIAN. I believe that fundamental equality is an ABSOLUTE BASELINE of where we should be working from as a society. The fact people think there's equality when there blatantly isn't is INFURIATING.

In the interests of full disclosure I identify as agender which basically means keep your gender stereotypes and expectations out of my cornflakes.

I am also an opinionated potato meaning I can't keep my rants to myself if my life depends on it.

And no, I do not apologise for swearing.

So, I saw this comment and just had to shred it:

"How ridiculous, what inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race", she's excelled & married a Prince to boot. His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have. As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality", this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days. I doubt very much that Harry and his family will experience the problems that ordinary working class families will."

1) "What inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race"" - first up, FUCK OFF WITH THE SCARE QUOTES. How dare you imply that it's anything less than a real and valid factor in how she's been treated?! How goddamned BLIND are you that you can't see the racism in the thread you are currently commenting on??? One thing that particularly gets me in every damn thread is the microaggression of misspelling her name. Honestly, there's an article where (9 times out of 10) it's in the headline but somehow y'all type 'Megan' over and over.

Here's an example of a multitude of times Meghan has been disrespected for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS as her white sister in law: https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Catherine is disrespected in two ways - calling her Kate which she hates, and referring to her by her maiden name ten years and three kids into her marriage - but never once have I seen her called a gold-digger or a monkey.

Sure, there are a couple of other differences, Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee... but I personally have never seen one comment that has even implied those factors have anything to do with the constant stream of hate she's been subjected to.

TBH I think that the public's general loathing of Meghan has a lot to do with her cutting out her toxic af abusive father... who just so happens to be her white parent. If she was seen to be 'embracing' her white family (even though they're the worst trash) I imagine the public might be a little kinder. Which is the stupidest reason for keeping a man like Thomas in your life.

2) "she's excelled & married a Prince to boot" - you really can't see this as being the cause of a lot of her problems?! I don't know how much sh*t she got on a daily basis before she was linked to Prince Harry but I am willing to bet vital body parts that it was a drop in the ocean compared to what she's dealt with over the past few years.

3) "His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have" First up, not all children thrive... lots of minority ethnic and mixed kids really suffer, especially in an education system which expects them to fail, and often leads them by the hand to that eventuality.

Even if Harry & Meghan opt for private education Archie & Lilibet will still be in a minority. They'll be additionally othered by their royal status too.

And just go look at the substance abuse and suicide rates among the kids of celebrities. Rather than growing up in an ivory tower they tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny. Wealth provides many privileges but it causes many more problems; but more than that it's the royalty aspect... they can never escape. Wealth provides no protection or respite.

4) "As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality"" again with the scare quotes like gender equality is a thing that exists. Women are asked about babies & relationships in interviews, men are asked about their work. Women serve less time for the same crime, men are less likely to get custody of their children.

There are DOZENS of articles on the sexualisation of young female celebrities, with special attention to how gross it gets when they 'come of age':

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/millie-bobby-brown-18th-birthday-creepy-sexualized-child

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2509093/celebrities-sexualized-young/

What on earth makes y'all think Lilibet will escape this???? Even if she's fortunate enough to grow up fat and fugly enough not to be targeted that way she'll be forever disregarded and disrespected as a human being because women pretty much only have value if they're attractive.

Similarly Archie will run a very minimal risk of public comment on his looks or body type. That, my dear gammon, is why gender equality doesn't exist.

5) "this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days" Again, the 'real world' (which this guy clearly knows very little about) is rife with gender inequality but women shouldn't have to 'hold their own' like it's a goddamned battle!

6) "experience the problems that ordinary working class families will" Gatekeeping suffering is a really bad look. The bizarre idea that only the 'working classes' experience problems in life... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!! I'd rather be 'poor, obscure, plain and little' than face the wrath that the royal family, celebrities and other in-the-public-eye people face.

The idea that rich people don't suffer like poor people supposedly do is nonsensical. Take the sad, current story about footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and his partner Georgina Rodriguez. Y'all think they don't suffer the loss of their twin baby boy any differently than any working class family?! *Maybe* they're better placed to pay medical costs, funeral costs, therapy to cope with their bereavement... but that's as far as money, status, or privilege goes. The practical aspects only, the pain itself is universal.

There are people bitching about why they were having more children anyway when they already have a daughter together and Ronaldo has other kids via surrogacy (er, large families are okay?), people posting crying-from-laughter emojis, people choosing to make nasty jibes at his skill as a footballer. And I know there's been worse, although thankfully most threads have been good at getting the most offensive stuff deleted fairly quickly.

Even some of the gestures of sympathy are dubious af - everything happens for a reason and it's God's will are incredibly hurtful things to say. Then there's this:

"Liverpool fans are planning a minute's applause in the seventh minute for Cristiano Ronaldo during Manchester United's visit to Anfield this evening following the heartbreaking news of his baby son's death.

Absolutely class!"

How the hell is applauding a dead baby an act of respect or 'class'?! the time-honoured gesture is a SILENCE. I hate to think how the public would react if Archie or Lilibet passed... Commemorative tat memorabilia perhaps?! Just think how Meghan was treated when she revealed she'd miscarried another child... accusations of her cashing in on the loss mama label. Speculation she was lying.

At least most working class families get to suffer their problems, bereavements, etc. etc. in relative obscurity and comparative peace.

Title Fight: Rock vs Smith

 I haven't done a blog in A G E S cos I prefer to vent my spleen at humanity over on Twitter (@HeggieFVK again - my boys are back!!! ;; ) but this one is a gnarly situation...

The Cast
Chris Rock (b. 1965), a 'comedian' of dubious humour
Will Smith (b. 1968), an actor
Jada Pinkett Smith (b. 1971), Will's wife / an actress

The Plot
Rock is presenting the Oscar for best documentary (going to Questlove for 'Summer Of Soul') at the 2022 Academy Awards. Smith is up for (and eventually wins) best actor (King Richard - which it turns out is about tennis and not Shakespeare). But before that can happen Rock goes off script and makes a 'joke' about Pinkett Smith and G.I. Jane 2.

The Event
Smith strides up to the stage and slaps Rock across the face (a lot of reports and comments say it was a punch, depending on exactly what you think you see in the footage, personally I'm not interested in trying to analyse it although I will say that I thought it looked FAKE) before returning to his seat.

The Fall Out
Naturally enough the morning after the night before it's practically the only thing the interwebs are talking about. There are a whole bunch of takes that I'll tackle in no particular order.

1) Violence Is Always Wrong
I don't think there's any disagreement that Smith was at fault. It was an unacceptable reaction. However the calls from certain people (mostly, from what I've seen, outraged white men) for Smith to be stripped of his well-deserved Oscar is also an unacceptable reaction. Sure, Smith may have lowered the tone but Rock used a joke that was not pre-vetted and consequences were had. I feel it is worth noting that Smith apologised to the Academy for his actions... but not to Rock.

2) It was a G.I. Jane joke
This was Rock's response although TBH I'm not clear what he could have meant by that. My INITIAL response was that he was making a rude comment about Pinkett Smith's career. G.I. Jane (1997 movie starring Demi Moore in the title role) was a rubbish film - Moore got a Worst Actress Razzie and it made a loss at the box office Meanwhile Pinkett Smith's movies include a number of sequels, remakes, cameos, voice roles, etc. It's not an exaggeration to say she's most famous for being Mrs Will Smith.

3) Ableism
The G.I. Jane character is most famous for being BALD. Pinkett Smith suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease. Smith, and a large proportion of the internet denizens putting in their tuppenceworth (myself included) that 'making fun' of people's illnesses, disabilities, visible differences and so forth is entirely unacceptable.
If a 'joke' of that sort was made in a classroom or playground it would be classed as bullying; if it was in a work environment it'd be 'creating a toxic working environment'. The context of an awards ceremony does not make it okay.

4) Political Correctness Will Kill Comedy
First off, Chris Rock isn't remotely funny. Secondly this was not a skit in which fun was made of bald people or bald women, it was a specific comment directed at a specific woman. That's not 'political correctness gone mad', it's being 'anti-bullying'. I dislike the whole 'roasting' thing anyway but certain topics SHOULD be off limits, especially when aimed at individuals.
Since my mum's incapacitation my tolerance for stroke jokes has become non-existent but try to be funny at her expense and I'll show you an alternative meaning of the word 'punchline'.

5) The "maybe Chris Rock didn't know about the alopecia, I didn't" argument
This one is REALLY hard to swallow. Unless Rock had been living under a rock it's really damned unlikely. I don't follow celebrity shit beyond what pootles past my nose when scrolling Twitter but I've known about her alopecia for ages (she was diagnosed in 2018). It's had a lot of publicity.

6) It was just a joke
Okay, so this isn't REALLY a point here but following on from the maybe-he-didn't-know idea... In 2009 Chris Rock PRODUCED AND NARRATED a documentary called Good Hair, on the subject of the importance, social acceptance, and desirability of black American women's hair.
There is literally NO WAY IN HELL he didn't understand that a woman like Jada would hold their hair as an integral part of their identity and grieve its loss. Even if a woman has chosen to shave her head joking about people's appearances is never a good move.

7) Smith is henpecked / cuckolded / at his wife's mercy yada yada yada
Obviously, I don't know these people but I've seen bits and pieces over the twenty four years of their marriage. Whether she has cheated on him or whether they have an open marriage is entirely their business. Personally I dislike the dynamic they have as a couple but if it works for them it has nothing to do with anybody else.
The idea that Will hit Chris because 'Jada made him do it' is not outside the realms of possibility but I dislike the inherent sexism. When a woman is seen to be 'controlled by her husband she is an object of pity; when the reverse seems to be the case he is seen as pathetic, an object of ridicule.
IMHO it looked like Will was laughing uncomfortably at Rock's joke (knowing full well he was on camera, being seen by the world) and then caught the expression of hurt on Jada's face. Knowing that she'd just been insulted before an audience of over fifteen million at the most prestigious awards ceremony in the cinematic world must simply have been too much.
I also want to note here that in a long and prestigious career this is the VERY FIRST TIME I have seen Will Smith's name linked to any kind of questionable behaviour, let alone violence.
Rock however had insulted Jada at the 2016 Oscars too, making fun of her non-appearance as she hadn't been invited to attend. He's been in hot water for other controversial jokes and has not exactly led a squeaky-clean life. People in glass houses and all that...

My Review: Three Stars (wink-wink, get it???)
Violence is a pretty poor response but I can understand it. I have been bullied and I abhor trying to pass off hurtful behaviour as comedy or banter. Everyone sucks here, but Rock somewhat more than Smith.