As mentioned in a BBQ Pit thread today, some videos (including that radaronline link) are unavailable in some countries. Here’s a good-everywhere(?) recording of that phone call. (Click quickly: someone may think they’ve a copyright on that call!)
Oksana definitely seemed to hit the nail on head with “You need medication.”
BTW, Gibson demonstrated disgusting anti-Semitism years ago. What does it take to disillusion us about our idols?
I don’t get the connection between anti-semitism and this.
Bitching about Jews in a drunken rage is no more objectionable than Michael Richards Nigger rant, and yet Richards seems to have weathered that storm.
This phone call, however, is hard to justify on any level.
That doesn’t mean he did it. It certainly implies it, but if there is no physical evidence to show the broken teeth etc, it’s not a slam-dunk that he’ll get cooked for saying that.
Again, I don’t disagree with you, but that doesn’t mean the law is so clear cut. And based on that recording, she doesn’t own a house. So he can’t possibly burn her house down.
You don’t know he punched her. Yet. If the hospital records come out and back up her story, Mel doesn’t have much hope to wiggle out of this.
How do you know this? Do you know California Law? And the law permits the recording of a conversation just in case the other party makes threats?
I am not playing devil’s advocate, and I’m not trying to bust your balls. You just seem much too sure of what’s gone on when you don’t yet.
At this stage I would just like to point out that now would be a very good time to invoke the Australian Uncertainty Principle. Any successful person who has a passing association with Australia is embraced as one of ours. The Bee Gees, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, and many others were born elsewhere but are claimed as Australians, especially if they win Academy Awards. This lasts as long as it suits us.
Of course as soon as Crowe threw a cell phone he became, “New Zealand born Russell Crowe.”
Continuing this tradition I would like to point out that the troubled soul called Mel Gibson was born in New York state and only moved to Australia when he was 12. Having said that, what a wanker.
Yes it does. There is no other reasonable way to interpret it. What else is he saying she “deserved?”
This is ridiculolous. He says he’s going to burn down “that house,” that she’s living in. He doesn’t say “the house you own.” Don’t be ridiculous.
yes I do. He admitted it on tape.
Correct. California Penal Code 633.5:
If you are getting evidence of a threat of violence, it’s legal to do and it’s admissable in court.
I’d just like to share that The Comedy Network just re-ran the episode of the Simpsons where Homer ruins Mel Gibson’s remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I found it darkly funny, given recent events. At the beginning when Marge is swooning over Mel, she goes on and on about how he’s a devoted father who goes to church every Sunday; it seems so sinister now. Near the end, Mel says something to the effect of “There’s no room in today’s gentler Hollywood for violent dinosaurs like us.” and I laughed and laughed.
Reasonable according to YOU, not to anyone who counts.
You said in your last post it was “her” house. She doesn’t have a house. If he says “that” house, that could be interpreted as an empty threat. Like “If you do X, I’ll kill you!” People say that to each other all the time. And most people never do. You never said “I could kill that guy” who just cut you off in traffic? It doesn’t mean you would. Or, it could be that a reasonable person would know that Mel would never burn down his own house. And he hasn’t.
No he didn’t. He said she deserved it. That doesn’t mean he did it. You are hearing what you want to hear.
We’ll see if it’s admissible first. I’ve read nothing that says it is yet.
Your problem is that you are convinced of your own position to the point of ignoring any other possibilities. It doesn’t matter if most of us agree with your position. It matters what the court believes. The burden of proof will be much higher in a court than on this message board.
You also fail to take into account the time she held onto these tapes. If she felt she was in imminent danger, why would she not turn these over to the police immediately? That implies she could have held onto them to try to blackmail him. It doesn’t mean she did that, but if I used your logic, I could say “there’s no other way to interpret that”. So if she held onto this tape of a raving lunatic who was threatening her life without IMMEDIATELY turning them over to the police, I think that’s a problem. If she didn’t feel her life was in danger, why should we?
So. She said that he hit her twice and knocked out her teeth. She asked him what kind of man does that. He said “You deserved it.”
I’d honestly like to hear your ideas on what else that could possibly mean. What do you think him saying it means?
I like fighting with Dio as much as anybody but if in the tape she refers to him knocking her lights out and he says “You deserved it!” that seems like an admission of guilt.
How can a person not take this as an agreement that he hit her in the face? There’s really no other reasonable way to take this without making giant contortions.
Or what Clockwork and Sleeps said.
Damn. Sleeps ninja’d me.
Yeah, but I had cites!
I’m not disagreeing with you all. I believe that’s what he meant also.
But if you want to stretch your mind to the limits of absurdity, you can think that when she says that twice, he goes all goofy and starts making that boo hoo sound, then says “your all angry now”… He sounds like he’s mocking her. He then says “you deserved it” to mock her allegations again.
All I’m saying is that even though he’s cooked in public opinion, he’s not cooked legally yet.
I just read the article, and I see where Dio got the burning down the house comment. The article says that part is not heard on the tape, but he referred to it as “her” house.
The one thing that I did find interesting in the article is that it says the conversation was taped on January 6th. It’s the middle of July. What was she waiting for?
I’m no critic but felt that his Passion of the Christ had a very bizarre emphasis on violence; it led me to think his anti-Semitic utterances were more than “slips of the tongue.” Apparently I was not alone in my thinking:
No idea what you think of his movie, Passion, but its rage made an intensely unfavorable impression on me. I do not think it coincidental that its author was the same voice I heard in the 8-minute phone call.
It’s like Thunderdome… “One tape enters, one man leaves.”
In playing the tapes this morning on the “Opie and Anthony” Sirus show someone made the comment that he sounded like an out of control “dry drunk” (whatever that is).
From that infallible fountain of information, Urban Dictionary:
Reasonable to ANYONE. There is no other LOGICAL way to take it. You’re spinning your wheels with this.
This is too absurd to even bother with.
Yes it does. That’s the only thjing it can possibly mean.
I just quoted you the statute that says it’s admissable.
What makes you think she didn’t? She’s not the one who leaked these tapes, you know.
You have no proof she held onto them or tried to “blackmail” him, and who gives a shit if she did? He deserved it.
Where are you getting this idea that she didn’t turn them over to the police? Cite?
It’s on the tape, radaronline just says it didn’t post that part of the audio, not that it isn’t on there. Here’s the exact quote from MG:
So not only is it a threat to burn her house down (and the semantics of whether she actually owns it are too specious and ridiculous to evn bear discussion), but it also includes a threat of sexual assault.
He obviously means he’s going to ‘set the roof on fire’, common party parlance. Her blowing him is related to her being a whore. You’re reading too much into it, Dio.