- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,182
- Reaction score
- 20,060
just a reminder part 2 is airing now
you can watch at 9now
you can watch at 9now
Of all the 1,000s of kilometres of coastline the foot landed on a beach where she would stay when she was a child.
When in doubt, put them all in the plot.And Melissa hiding money all over the place.
I think they have chucked every theory into the production ... maybe.
The condition of the shoe did not look to bad, considering it had an ankle bone in-situ. I would have expected to have seen more sea life growing on the shoe, a bit of wear, a bit of water and salt damage? IMOI’m sure a surgeon or veterinarian somewhere would remove a foot for a quick couple of million and for $30 mil I’m sure I could do without a foot for freedom.
Of all the 1,000s of kilometres of coastline the foot landed on a beach where she would stay when she was a child.
Fancy that.
I nearly spilled the Earl Grey tea over me PingTheRouter when it cuts (pun intended) to the clip where MC positioned sideway, on the deck lolling about in her designer beach outfit, with a screaming lothario to her side, hair less and just, less, IMO. The metalic prosthetic foot was a creative touch. The only positive to this ending is that I didnt spill my good scotch over my crotch, because never the two, should meet!! Anyhow it got me laughing.iv also found it hard to believe she wouldn't leave a note for her son
the ending to that show was so bi-polar for the last 20 minutes... what a crazy ending lol
The condition of the shoe did not look to bad, considering it had an ankle bone in-situ. I would have expected to have seen more sea life growing on the shoe, a bit of wear, a bit of water and salt damage? IMO
I also found it strange that they did not emphasise the connection with the lady that blew the whistle and got her money back as also being the mother of a child that was peers with MC's son. IMO This would have made for a dramatic scene when the penny dropped...
Strange sort of, perhaps there was a cease and desist in place, or some sort of threat of litigation from those you mentioned.From the way that it played to AKs BIG ego at some points and 'innocence', I would say channel 9 will be seeking a further interview with him.
I found it strange that the jeweller such a close connection was not an integral part of the show.
I also found it strange that they did not emphasise the connection with the lady that blew the whistle and got her money back as also being the mother of a child that was peers with MC's son. IMO This would have made for a dramatic scene when the penny dropped...
The mind does surely wonder, doesnt it?View attachment 339005
The casket?
Was she/her foot cremated along with the shoe?
I guess an open casket was not on the cards.
Many questions…..![]()
Strange sort of, perhaps there was a cease and desist in place, or some sort of threat of litigation from those you mentioned.
Litigation in one word. Deep pockets is another.
So many avenues to explore such as the the accounant, (the one accounted for, and the one unaccounted for, see what I did there??), the solicitor, (I know I'm on dangerous ground), the famous Sydney jeweller, (who she was bidding against to secure another multi million dollar bolthole), the chef who was on a retainer and accompanied her entourage overseas , the connection to the diet/power/vitamin drink scheme she was involved in, and where she sunk investors money in, (sorry I forgot the name, still recovering from the Tuesday "tea incident").
Anyhow wouldnt that have been a grand scenario, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, opportunity missed I call it!!
I agree with you. Maybe we need to read in between the lines of all the theories and real life actors that were not mentioned.Strange sort of, perhaps there was a cease and desist in place, or some sort of threat of litigation from those you mentioned.
Litigation in one word. Deep pockets is another.
So many avenues to explore such as the the accounant, (the one accounted for, and the one unaccounted for, see what I did there??), the solicitor, (I know I'm on dangerous ground), the famous Sydney jeweller, (who she was bidding against to secure another multi million dollar bolthole), the chef who was on a retainer and accompanied her entourage overseas , the connection to the diet/power/vitamin drink scheme she was involved in, and where she sunk investors money in, (sorry I forgot the name, still recovering from the Tuesday "tea incident").
Anyhow wouldnt that have been a grand scenario, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, opportunity missed I call it!!
A very costly experience, defamation is only going to end up one way, a winner and a loser. Been there done that.Producers of movies/videos featuring stories about real people have to be very careful not to veer into the jungle of defamation territory.
Even the mere suggestion that a particular person/character (not necessarily even named, but nonetheless recognizable by repute) may have been connected with some criminal or unsavory activity will invite writs.
Safer therefore to leave them out completely.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.