Hartman

[Fruitbat]

Just read about Phil Hartman and his wife Brynn who ended up murdering him.

for those that don’t know, he was a comedian and he voiced Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz in the Simpsons.

he was an up and coming actor, she was an underwear and swimwear model. He was 9 years older.

essentially, she had quite a coke habit and was unstable apparently, and was very focussed on wanting to join him in Hollywood hierarchy but she was really just a model. She apparently followed him around on Saturday night live and flirted with the other comedians and was very keen on trying to get “in” as she wanted to be a famous celebrity too, but Hollywood didn’t want her.

she ended up getting very bitter as she thought Phil wouldn’t help her career. She essentially seemed to see the marriage as kind of a stepping stone to better things. The deal was he got a hot wife and she got some help in her career, and she felt he didn’t hold his side of the bargain. Whether he was reluctant to given her drug use and flirting with other dudes, or whether simply he couldn’t get her work, is another thing.

so, eventually she shot him in the head and committed suicide after an argument.

Got me thinking. I’ve nearly always been the better paid one in a relationship and only with my current wife is she reasonably happy to see me do well as she knows I share. My exes I remember some real resentment that I was a good earner. Bit of a rock and a hard place. They want you to be well off then resent you for doing so.

interestint that the case had many reports of the woman’s drug abuse and volatility, yet it was framed as “domestic discord”. Had those roles been reversed you could bet your ass it would be called “domestic abuse”

just thought it was an interesting case and although it was a while ago, hits on some of the key issues men struggle with in the modern world which it’s unfashionable to talk about.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

If you want a real page turner look at Canadian law right now, the narrative is beyond troubling, essentially a woman's testimony to police is now considered evidence within itself, it's insane.

 

[Fruitbat]

If you want a real page turner look at Canadian law right now, the narrative is beyond troubling, essentially a woman's testimony to police is now considered evidence within itself, it's insane.

its always been evidence, well it is in English law, but it’s counterbalanced by the defendants witness statement.

it will still need to get past a jury, and most juries wouldnt convict on “he said she said”

is there something I am missing?

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

its always been evidence, well it is in English law, but it’s counterbalanced by the defendants witness statement.

it will still need to get past a jury, and most juries wouldnt convict on “he said she said”

is there something I am missing?

This is just the surface level view of it, being that you are even going to trial based on he/she said in the first place, that can already be extremely damaging to a man's reputation, not to mention legal fees.

In terms of testimony, when being cross examined, men can be subjected to stereotypes of aggression and sexual aggressive, like for example if your kissing, the stereotype is that a man must have sex on his mind at that time.

What really changes things however is Bill C-51, it's detailed in the first couple minutes of this video, I don't want to type it all out because obviously it's a lot.