so she didnt kill anyone........ - Talhotblond (2009) Discussion

[–] hodie 11 years ago

Wasn't Manson part of a conspiracy though? Mary never advocated violence as far as I know, but Manson kept talking about a coming war, if I remember correctly.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply

[–] stellastey 11 years ago

yeh she didnt seem to advocate violence but she most deffo did manipulate these 2 guys,pretty much the same as manson manipulated the family.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 10 years ago

I don't think she is the same as Manson at all! It's not the 'pretty same', when he told his cult followers what to do, she did not. She even warned Brian, which I don't really think was much more than for more attention but she still did. And she told the whack job he was taking it a bit far when he talked of killing Brian. She is a person who I doubt feels remorse but who's to say she was really to take any threat seriously, all he did was lie and try to sound like some big man that he never was.

reply

[–] BareMinimum 11 years ago

I didn't like the turn the film took near the end when it tried to place a large amount of blame on this woman. She manipulated two guys to compete for her so that she felt better about herself. It's something a lot of women do. It's not a criminal act. It just so happens one of the men she was manipulating was someone with mental health issues; an impotent, chip-on-his-shoulder guy who was looking for some way to prove his manhood. She never suggested violence – that was just where "marinesniper" took it, and he went to the extreme. And to imply that she shouldn't have access to a computer anymore was just silly.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 10 years ago

Shouldn't any blame be placed on the two men? They needed to get out of the house and try to date actual PEOPLE (or recommit to their existing spouse, in Mr. Montgomery's case) rather than idealize and fantasize about some blonde teen on the Internet they've never met.

Mary Shieler (the actual teen's mom) was clearly off, but didn't engage in anything illegal. There will always be wacky people out there, and there will always be people laying out temptation. But when someone takes the bait, that's their own action they need to look at and deal with, and take responsibility for.

reply

[–] abby8 10 years ago

I agree with cookie. The mother did nothing criminal. The documentary did a pretty good job at relaying the story in an evenhanded manner until the hour mark, when it gave WAY too much screen time to the actual murderer and another jilted party and basically let them blame an innocent woman for 15 minutes straight.

Yes, the woman was batty. And kind of sad. But the implication of the film's ending is that it's LESS FORGIVABLE to kill a man over an older, somewhat unattractive woman (though she actually didn't look so bad for her age in that last blurry photo). The film is basically saying it's MORE ACCEPTABLE to kill a man over a smokin' babe. That's a pretty screwed up message... certainly more screwed up than anything Mary Shieler did.

reply

[–] BlindMan-11 10 years ago

Abby8...I agree with your thoughts.

1. The mother was wrong in using the daughter's pictures but she could have lifted any other girls pictures for the ruse. So I think that her major 'crime' was putting her daughters trust and pictures out on the net for her own benefit.

2. When she did 'sense' that Montgomery was a serious threat and warned Brian, she did do the right thing and Brian 'waved her off' so it was a 'misstep' in that she did not contact the police. Contacting the police based on a internet threat would be pushing it and as she did warn Brian (NOT TO SAY he has any fault in his death) should have heeded the warnings.

3. Montgomery does not show any real remorse in that he wanted to appeal his sentence in that he was 'pressured' into claiming he was guilty.

This is the one part of the legal system that has always amazed me.

Ok so I did it, but you got to prove it. And if I can get a really good legal team (OJ SIMPSON comes to mind) then lets see how we can twist the truth and/or make evidence not be acceptable or come up with a 'plausible' story that can fly, then you get off on a technical basis or .... not going to rant any further on this topic.

Yes this faking of who a person is on the net goes on every second - from the African scams - the fake lotteries - viagara - et. al. and they will continue to go on because the old saying holds true still.

Some people do not subscribe to the truth: If its too good to be true - guess what - it probably is not true.

I wear my net \O^O/ to make sure I am seeing what others see.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GirlwonderReturns 10 years ago

I can't believe the number of people who think this woman got too much heat. There would not have been a criminal act if not for her actions. Brian Barrett would still be alive if not for her actions. Which means that she was absolutely responsible for his death despite having not pulled the trigger. From what I gathered, Montgomery told her fairly early on that he would kill Barrett "for a dime". Yet she kept going, and going, and going. This is aside from the fact that what she did to her own child basically amounts to rape. How can anyone defend someone who can do such a thing? Unless you live your life online too and can empathize with her. She played as big a part in this as Montgomery himself. Without her lies and manipulation, there's no murder. How is this difficult to comprehend?

the implication of the film's ending is that it's LESS FORGIVABLE to kill a man over an older, somewhat unattractive woman (though she actually didn't look so bad for her age in that last blurry photo). The film is basically saying it's MORE ACCEPTABLE to kill a man over a smokin' babe. That's a pretty screwed up message... certainly more screwed up than anything Mary Shieler did.

abby8 - seriously? Honey, just... no. Sounds like you're defending her BECAUSE she's older and unattractive. You're creating discrimination where there isn't any. The film is saying that she's horrible because she not only lied and played two men against each other, resulting in one of their deaths, but exploited her own child in order to do so. This woman sent her daughter's fcking underwear to a man to jerk off over. She had cybersex with more than one man while pretending to be her own daughter. And the filmmakers are more fcked up for what you perceive as them "picking on unattractive people"? Holy cow.

Saying "I apologize" is the same as saying "I'm sorry." Except at a funeral.

reply

[–] abby8 9 years ago

The woman engaged in delusional roleplaying. However weird and mentally unbalanced that behavior is (and to me, it's totally alien and unbalanced), it is not illegal or criminal.

Killing someone is criminal and illegal. She killed no one. While I'd argue both married parties in this "triangle" were pathetic and unwell, Montgomery is solely responsible for the criminal actions that were committed.

Plus, Montgomery engaged in practically the exact same delusional roleplaying by lying about his age and marital status. Perhaps you're defending him because you sympathize with older, unattractive male losers?

Again, the film suggests that it's somehow *more OK* to kill someone over a pretty young woman, and it's LESS OK to kill someone over an older, frumpy woman. Life hack: KILLING A DUDE OVER ANY WOMAN IS BAD. It doesn't matter how hot she is or isn't.

reply

[–] BlackDog123 9 years ago

If she had come clean to Montgomery and he hadn't killed Brian, I *FIRMLY* believe he would have re-enacted this entire farce with someone else, ultimately ending in violence. He was unhinged. I do not think he was deliberately manipulated into murder (the Manson reference someone made earlier). I am in no way excusing that woman, but wow. How are identity theft and pre-meditated murder even comparable?

I also didn't like the implications that Montgomery's actions would have somehow been less reprehensible if he had been talking to the "real" Jessi.

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

reply

[–] plumlogan 9 years ago

The bottom line is that she got two guys to compete for her attention. Men and women do this all the time, and sometimes they even lie when they do it. It's not illegal, it's not a crime. She didn't encourage any violence.

You can't legislate away every uncomfortable factor of human nature. If people went to jail for playing mind games, half of the world would be incarcerated at any given moment.

reply

[–] disturbedtool68 10 years ago

Not criminal but she does have a huge responsibility in the cause and effect, results of your actions way. Plus Thomas was threatening her and Brian, through her. So it wasnt like she had no idea this was coming. Maybe she didnt actually believe it would happen, but at some point she really needed to stop the game.

Thomas had no choice but to admit he wasnt "Tommy". Brian wasnt hiding anything. Mary was the one who continued the charade and if she had come clean, Brian would still be alive and Thomas would probably be on the internet prowling for someone new and exciting.

And the ending with her husband and daughter spoke volumes. He doesnt believe she has any remorse whatsoever, and her explanation to her daughter only caused her daughter to break off all communication with her.

And to imply that she shouldn't have access to a computer anymore was just silly.

That's a funny concept in itself. There are easy ways to tell if the person you are talking to online is who they say they are. We shouldnt give her too much credit.

===

All The World's A Stage

reply

[–] scarlettsdad 10 years ago

I saw the TV movie before the doc and agree with you. I felt the mother should have at least been charged for not reporting Montgomery's threat to kill Brian but instead she takes a sexual thrill from it. She was the one who made sure the "game" continued by pushing a psycho, using Brian and then including other men the same way. Definitely not defending Montgomery here as he was a murderer in waiting, but it's right there in the texts that she has an immense amount of blame in his actions. I think the reason she never reported any of this so she wouldn't have to give up her game.

reply

[–] LillyStryker 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure she got immunity for single-handedly providing a suspect, a motive and cold hard proof.

reply

[–] shortygutherie 7 years ago

Now that makes sense!

reply

[–] vinceb-3 9 years ago

Unbelievable how many people defend this evil woman, to do that to your own daughter is despicable. She also cowardly refused to speak on camera, attempted to rationalize her actions, and worst of all, apparently was pulling this charade on multiple people. I'm no prude, and certainly not here to defend the men who took the bait and ran with it, but this lady is on the lowest rung.

reply

[–] random_guy2 9 years ago

No one is defending her in the sense of saying her actions were right, but it is absolutely ridiculous to say she "is on the lowest rung" compared to the man who actually murdered another human being.

She lied online. Bad? Sure. Using her daughter's pictures certainly makes it worse. But it is not even in the same category of bad as murder.

reply

[–] vinceb-3 9 years ago

One needn't commit murder to be a despicable human being. This woman is despicable.

reply

[–] transmentalist 9 years ago

One needn't commit murder to be a despicable human being. This woman is despicable.

Whereas Montgomery is somewhat less despicable? That's what you seem to be saying.

I think there actually is a sizable contingent of IMDB'ers and people in general who would, at least reflexively, place Shieler on a "lower rung" than Montgomery.

It's twisted, but makes sense from a primitive, primal perspective (that is still uncivilized and kind of dumb).

It's OK in many people's minds to kill a competitor. How many times do you see similar sentiments spouted on discussion boards?

But getting fooled the way Shieler fooled Montgomery ... that hits a nerve with those same people.

It's a theory I have, anyway. But yeah, there are indeed people posting in this very thread who would go to great lengths to characterize Montgomery's actions as less culpable than Shieler's.

reply

[–] fountainclown-12370 8 years ago

Hmmm no not the same at all. He encouraged people to kill others. She wanted two guys to desire her. Totally and completely different things

reply

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 8 years ago

It is though... not when it's 2 people who are work-buddies and know eachother IRL and who 1 of them he have threatened to want to kill previously, and she still plays her game for her to get attention risking not only their lives but her own daughters

We crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

reply

[–] prosodic 8 years ago

She is not a Manson. They all were playing games, even Brian. I think it is despicable for the film-makers to try and place blame for the murder and results largely on the woman involved when the main man acted horribly. He bloody killed someone. But no, it's all the woman's fault. *beep*

reply

[–] tenaroberts 8 years ago

No she didn't kill anyone, but she was equally disturbed interesting that she was miffed that he lied about his identity. There has been talk about Thomas being fat and ugly, but Mary was anything but T H & B. She wad reprehensible for pimping her daughters identity for her sick sexual game.

reply