Okay ::whimper:: deep breath. Mounties In Pain, aka. Victoria's Secret, continues and goes into the second, and really altogether worse part
( Read more... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 23 2007, 18:41:44 UTC
Maybe I'm the one with an impoverished view of love because I can't make my definition of the term include this concept at all. Love just *isn't* that to me.
Oh, certainly not! I should have said "love". I mean, clearly the person who kills his wife because she was going to leave him thinks he did it out of love, but he's crazy. *g*
This is a good question. And you know, surely they could have written it in there. That there really *was* coercion or she was going to turn in the money and it was those years in prison that cemented her evil horrible plan. You know? Something.
And even if there had been coersion, that fact would have been used to either lessen the charge against her, make the jury see her as more sympathetic and perhaps get her off at trial, or get her sentence reduced. Seeing how she manipulates Fraser, she'd have had a jury eating out of her hand. Cleary she deserved those 10 years in prison. The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day and a night and a day spent in her company keeping each other alive. Frankly, it's not a very GOOD reason for keeping her out of jail, though.
There's something not quite right with that woman, and possibly prison was the experience that let that latent vengeful evil bitchness out of her personality, but it was *still* there and it would likely have gotten triggered by *something* eventually, right?
I think she's been manipulating people all her life, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that SHE was the mastermind behind the robbery while making it seem like it was all Jolly's idea. I can also imagine her in prison, manipulating her way to the top of the food chain. There is just something so very wrong in Victoria, right down to the core of her; I can't see a single redeeming thing about her.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 19:15:35 UTC
And even if there had been coersion, that fact would have been used to either lessen the charge against her, make the jury see her as more sympathetic and perhaps get her off at trial, or get her sentence reduced.
This is true. So her 10 years (and do we think she served all of that sentence or got out early on parole or for good behavior or whatever?) was taking all of that into account. (She does say she had a good lawyer and a good lawyer would have made the most of all of that.)
The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day and a night and a day spent in her company keeping each other alive. Frankly, it's not a very GOOD reason for keeping her out of jail, though.
Well, no. But...(and this is the first this thought has crossed my *mind*)...she did keep him alive there, after he'd warmed her fingers and given his all to keep her alive, she kept him alive. Maybe she didn't have to and there was some kind of kindness in that. Maybe.
I think she's been manipulating people all her life, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that SHE was the mastermind behind the robbery while making it seem like it was all Jolly's idea.
Oooo!! I like this thought!! I could *totally* see that!! Though Jolly wasn't quite mad enough at her for this, IMO.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 24 2007, 12:57:55 UTC
(and do we think she served all of that sentence or got out early on parole or for good behavior or whatever?)
I need to believe that she served her entire sentence, because that would mean that Fraser was still a relatively young when he first met her, 21 or so, and would be quite impressionable. It's the only way I can even live with the idea of him confusing their 'connection' with love.
she did keep him alive there
She needed him; keeping him alive was as self-serving as anything else she's ever done. (I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I just cannot ascribe any good intentions to her after seeing how manipulative she is, and has been.)
Though Jolly wasn't quite mad enough at her for this, IMO.
In my mind, Jolly hasn't figured it out yet, either. She's been manipulating him all along, as well. Clearly she's had some practice; she didn't just start with manipulating Fraser with her 'I was coerced into it' speech.
Or perhaps he is starting to figure it out, I mean, he was angry about the money, but I don't recall anything being said about her testifying against him, which she must have done, yes? Perhaps he just didn't have time to list all the things he's angry with her about before she killed him.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 24 2007, 14:48:16 UTC
I need to believe that she served her entire sentence, because that would mean that Fraser was still a relatively young when he first met her, 21 or so, and would be quite impressionable. It's the only way I can even live with the idea of him confusing their 'connection' with love.
This makes sense. Though I suspect that even at 30-something he'd have been as inexperienced in relationships as most folks are at 21. Learning to distinguish that sort of thing is something that comes with experience more than just raw age, and as far as we can tell, Fraser's spent most of his adult life alone, working in the most remote places.
She needed him; keeping him alive was as self-serving as anything else she's ever done.
::nods nods:: This is true, and I realized it about as soon as I clicked post comment. :D
And please, feel free to be argumentative, I don't mind one bit. :D
Clearly she's had some practice; she didn't just start with manipulating Fraser with her 'I was coerced into it' speech.
Very true. She's obviously been doing it her whole life...
he was angry about the money, but I don't recall anything being said about her testifying against him, which she must have done, yes? Perhaps he just didn't have time to list all the things he's angry with her about before she killed him.
Heee!! I love this idea. And actually that becomes an interesting contrast in their characters. I mean neither of them is a *good* person by any manner of means, but Victoria's *main* resentment through all of this, her main *goal* is to get back at Fraser for turning her in (and to get him back) and she voluntarily gives up a *lot* of the money from the robbery in order to do that. Jolly doesn't care so much about getting turned in, he's not walking around with acid revenge in his heart, he just wants the damned money.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 26 2007, 12:11:39 UTC
Though I suspect that even at 30-something he'd have been as inexperienced in relationships as most folks are at 21.
True, but we've seen that, despite coming across as innocent and naive, Fraser is actually quite people savvy. I think that he might not have been so quick to a) believe that this connection was love and b) question his decision to turn her in if he'd met her years later. Those appear to be issues of a younger, inexperienced man. (And I mean inexperienced at life, rather than relationships, per se.)
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 26 2007, 15:35:52 UTC
Good point! You're right. So he was young and kind of foolish, and looking back on that "relationship" through a very golden sort of haze. Seeing her as a "what if?" when she really wasn't one.
Oh, certainly not! I should have said "love". I mean, clearly the person who kills his wife because she was going to leave him thinks he did it out of love, but he's crazy. *g*
This is a good question. And you know, surely they could have written it in there. That there really *was* coercion or she was going to turn in the money and it was those years in prison that cemented her evil horrible plan. You know? Something.
And even if there had been coersion, that fact would have been used to either lessen the charge against her, make the jury see her as more sympathetic and perhaps get her off at trial, or get her sentence reduced. Seeing how she manipulates Fraser, she'd have had a jury eating out of her hand. Cleary she deserved those 10 years in prison. The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day and a night and a day spent in her company keeping each other alive. Frankly, it's not a very GOOD reason for keeping her out of jail, though.
There's something not quite right with that woman, and possibly prison was the experience that let that latent vengeful evil bitchness out of her personality, but it was *still* there and it would likely have gotten triggered by *something* eventually, right?
I think she's been manipulating people all her life, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that SHE was the mastermind behind the robbery while making it seem like it was all Jolly's idea. I can also imagine her in prison, manipulating her way to the top of the food chain. There is just something so very wrong in Victoria, right down to the core of her; I can't see a single redeeming thing about her.
Reply
This is true. So her 10 years (and do we think she served all of that sentence or got out early on parole or for good behavior or whatever?) was taking all of that into account. (She does say she had a good lawyer and a good lawyer would have made the most of all of that.)
The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day and a night and a day spent in her company keeping each other alive. Frankly, it's not a very GOOD reason for keeping her out of jail, though.
Well, no. But...(and this is the first this thought has crossed my *mind*)...she did keep him alive there, after he'd warmed her fingers and given his all to keep her alive, she kept him alive. Maybe she didn't have to and there was some kind of kindness in that. Maybe.
I think she's been manipulating people all her life, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that SHE was the mastermind behind the robbery while making it seem like it was all Jolly's idea.
Oooo!! I like this thought!! I could *totally* see that!! Though Jolly wasn't quite mad enough at her for this, IMO.
Reply
I need to believe that she served her entire sentence, because that would mean that Fraser was still a relatively young when he first met her, 21 or so, and would be quite impressionable. It's the only way I can even live with the idea of him confusing their 'connection' with love.
she did keep him alive there
She needed him; keeping him alive was as self-serving as anything else she's ever done. (I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I just cannot ascribe any good intentions to her after seeing how manipulative she is, and has been.)
Though Jolly wasn't quite mad enough at her for this, IMO.
In my mind, Jolly hasn't figured it out yet, either. She's been manipulating him all along, as well. Clearly she's had some practice; she didn't just start with manipulating Fraser with her 'I was coerced into it' speech.
Or perhaps he is starting to figure it out, I mean, he was angry about the money, but I don't recall anything being said about her testifying against him, which she must have done, yes? Perhaps he just didn't have time to list all the things he's angry with her about before she killed him.
Reply
This makes sense. Though I suspect that even at 30-something he'd have been as inexperienced in relationships as most folks are at 21. Learning to distinguish that sort of thing is something that comes with experience more than just raw age, and as far as we can tell, Fraser's spent most of his adult life alone, working in the most remote places.
She needed him; keeping him alive was as self-serving as anything else she's ever done.
::nods nods:: This is true, and I realized it about as soon as I clicked post comment. :D
And please, feel free to be argumentative, I don't mind one bit. :D
Clearly she's had some practice; she didn't just start with manipulating Fraser with her 'I was coerced into it' speech.
Very true. She's obviously been doing it her whole life...
he was angry about the money, but I don't recall anything being said about her testifying against him, which she must have done, yes? Perhaps he just didn't have time to list all the things he's angry with her about before she killed him.
Heee!! I love this idea. And actually that becomes an interesting contrast in their characters. I mean neither of them is a *good* person by any manner of means, but Victoria's *main* resentment through all of this, her main *goal* is to get back at Fraser for turning her in (and to get him back) and she voluntarily gives up a *lot* of the money from the robbery in order to do that. Jolly doesn't care so much about getting turned in, he's not walking around with acid revenge in his heart, he just wants the damned money.
Reply
True, but we've seen that, despite coming across as innocent and naive, Fraser is actually quite people savvy. I think that he might not have been so quick to a) believe that this connection was love and b) question his decision to turn her in if he'd met her years later. Those appear to be issues of a younger, inexperienced man. (And I mean inexperienced at life, rather than relationships, per se.)
Reply
Nice!
Reply
Leave a comment