It really does not change my opinion of her that she has a personality disorder. I think many viewers would have come to that conclusion themself. And I do think there was someone in the room at Netflix who probably said “are we going to be accused of stigmatizing BPD if we include that as her defense in the movie.” Not that i agree.
The issue with including her traumatic childhood without third party corroboration (in the article it was apparently disclosed by her defense psychiatrist) is that she is a well established compulsive liar. I think abusive childhood would make a lot of sense but it is hard to distinguish fantasy and reality with her
I think the hysterectomy backstory is terrifying and heartbreaking and equal parts fascinating as it applies to the actions she went on to take. I don’t really understand why that was left out
I also understand that the article is written from the perspective of a death penalty abolitionist (which I share myself), and while I don’t agree she should be on death row I also don’t see how the argument really disqualifies her from death row as a stand out against other cases
I think the issue isn’t so much that these additional details would 100% change the audience’s opinion, but leaving them out makes the story incomplete and in some cases incoherent. A lot of true crime podcasts tend to leave the impression that their protagonists just commit crimes spontaneously with no real backstory or motivation.
Including that stuff wouldn’t necessarily justify the actions of the murderers, but it would at least give the audience a fair chance at understanding the context. A documentary that leaves out everything on the defense side would be as misleading and confusing as a documentary that leaves out everything on the prosecution / police side.
Netflix “documentaries” are always, always told from a pre-decided perspective to the exclusion of all else.
I learned that watching their Aaron Hernandez documentary which took the stance that he was a murderer because he was a closeted homosexual, while ignoring the fact that he had numerous female sexual partners so likely wasn’t more than bisexual, was in a heterosexual relationship with a kid, that he was on a lot of mind-altering drugs, and most importantly that he was found to have had severe CTE and brain damage after his death, which is the most obvious reason he became a paranoid killer.
I don’t take their docs as anything more than biased recaps with some salacious details included and some excluded, depending on the producers’ biases.
This was a particularly shitty documentary. It was clear to anyone watching that the documentary was missing significant information and provided almost no background information on the people involved.
There was a lot of discussion about this documentary when it came out. Everyone understood that there was missing information. The audience was not provided enough background information, and there were so many complaints that this was poorly presented and researched. The documentary barely made any sense. Did the author of this article miss that entire discourse?
I think there is definitely an argument to be made about the genre, but these arguments are more about this specific shitty documentary than all true crime documentaries.
This also raises the problem that a LOT of people who commit heinous acts were themselves the victims of abuse through their lives. Many of the most notorious serial killers had absolutely horrific childhoods; a huge portion of child molesters and domestic abusers were abused themselves the same way. How much should that be taken into consideration in a trial?
Not a rhetorical question by the way, this is all murky and difficult.
Anytime someone does something heinous, especially on a serial basis, I assume that they had one fucked up childhood because it’s been proven ubiquitous. I’d be surprised if there are many people that don’t know that, they just don’t care because evil is black and white to them. Like how most people can’t really wrap their heads around severe mental illness and how it can cause people to do bad things. Most people don’t care that they’re delusional and unable to process reality, they just want them punished. The majority of humans have limited capacity to process nuance or complexity.
If we acknowledged that crime is a product of child abuse and developmental neglect, we'd have to acknowledge that the only real way to prevent crime is to prevent the conditions under which these occur, such as poverty and unwanted pregnancies. Which would mean the upheaval of capitalism and the wider spread of socialist policies. And since we as a society will never, ever do that, the narrative about crime being perpetrated only by "evil" people will persist.
Trial? None. Sentencing? Some to a lot, depending on circumstances.
Adults are still responsible for their actions, even if they had a difficult or traumatic childhood. And while it is true that most child molesters were themselves molested as a child, most victims do not go on to become abusers.
I think it should be taken into consideration at trial proportional to the failure of the government to save the child. Like if there were a million reasons to save a child from absolutely horrific abuse and the government did not, the government sentenced that kid to be raised in Hell, and then, what, the government gets to kill them or lock them up forever for acting how people act when they were raised in Hell? Nah. The government doesn’t just get to treat people as disposable when they’re children and then use the results of that treatment to justify actually disposing of them once they’re adults.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t go to prison. I said we should take it into account during sentencing, because we can’t just let the government have a system where it gets to decide who’s disposable as children and then follow through with disposing of them. That doesn’t mean nobody like that ever has to spend significant time in prison. It means we don’t let THAT specific set of circumstances become a pattern. It means we FORCE the government to at least attempt to rehabilitate as many people as we can who are the way they are because of the government’s failures to begin with.
Part of the reason why we’re in the system we’re in is because it works for the government. They don’t have to spend $30k+/year per child to put as many kids in good foster homes and actually take responsibility for their wellbeing (not to mention costs saved on not helping those kids’ parents/families). Then for maybe only like 1 out of every 10 of those kids they don’t help, they have to spend $40k/year to keep them in prison. It works out cheaper to just abandon kids to abuse and neglect and then just lock up the ones who don’t rehabilitate themselves. We have to make it not cheaper to let kids rot in horrible homes if we want any sort of change. And yes, not letting the government lock those adults who were abused up as long causes costs to society, which causes costs to the government, until now all the sudden it’s cheaper to tackle this by actually caring for kids and actually trying to rehabilitate prisoners instead of just deciding everyone who needs help will be defective anyway and locking them all up for as long as possible if they don’t just magically fix everything themselves.
We'd first need to change laws that prioritize parental rights and family reunification.
I'm afraid that's a very hard sell in America, we've been moving in the opposite direction for many years now. We can't even get states to pass laws requiring supervision and mandated doctor visits for homeschooling kids (homeschooling is the preferred educational program for abusers, they can hide their victims away from prying eyes).
I'd love to see reforms. My own state presumes 50/50 custody in cases of divorce. I have personally witnessed kids forced to spend half of their lives with an abusive parent, the bar is so incredibly high for removing parental rights that is almost insurmountable.
I do agree that early intervention (including trying to educate parents better) needs a lot more emphasis, as does actual rehabilitation work while incarcerated. Obviously just jailing people after they offend isn’t solving the larger problem.
I agree a large reason is that it’s cheaper, at least explicitly. Not many adult children go on to sue the government for failure to protect them in childhood.
Another part of the problem is that the treatment of callous-unemotional traits (low to no empathy disorders) is still very much in its infancy, so even if more money was allocated towards creating a robust foster system, as these disorders are partly genetic terrible crimes will still happen (albeit probably less). Treatment of CU needs more money allocated to its research, which would be well worth it for the reduction in violent crime but is hard to justify politically. ‘What do you mean you want to spend MORE on helping psychopaths?’
There’s not much backstory to the hysterectomy. This isn’t one of the many, MANY stories of women being forced or tricked into an unnecessary hysterectomy. She was there for a tubal ligation, they found an ectopic pregnancy, and during the emergency portion of the surgery they performed a hysterectomy to save her life.
Again: she was undergoing a tubal ligation because she did not ever want to have children. The hysterectomy only happened because she was getting her tubes tied.
You’re absolutely correct that I inadvertently condensed the timeline. It doesn’t change the general point, however: she’d had a tubal ligation because she didn’t want to be pregnant.
A year later was undergoing emergency surgery on her right ovary and fallopian tube. She ultimately got the outcome that she’d originally wanted.
I’m confused. An ectopic pregnancy is an embryo in the fallopian tube. A hysterectomy is the removal of the uterus. Why would they have to remove her uterus (and her cervix and an ovary it looks like) for an ectopic pregnancy that, by definition, isn’t in the uterus??
The surgery itself was an emergency surgery and there were further complications on top of that. And if they went in looking for an ectopic pregnancy and found an ovarian cyst?
I don’t have a copy of her medical file, but cascading complications in closely-related systems is a real thing.
"The issue with including her traumatic childhood without third party corroboration (in the article it was apparently disclosed by her defense psychiatrist) is that she is a well established compulsive liar." But those with BPD do not get it without having had an abusive childhood. Whether or not you trust the finer details, her condition would not exist without having experienced criminal levels of maternal neglect. That's the pathology of the condition.
To her friends and partner she alleges her mother is abusive in a very different way than she explained to her psychiatrist. Like I already said I believe she had a abusive childhood but I don’t know how a storyteller is meant to present fact versus fiction with her
This article was posted here before and I do feel it's worth sharing how the director answers the question the author raises -
>Why wasn’t Taylor Parker’s diagnosis, which was presented by her defense, included in the documentary?
>Dimmock: Taylor didn’t go into this crime having an established diagnosis, so it's hard to understand the validity of one diagnosis. That being said, there's definitely something very wrong with her. At trial, the defense put on experts who testified that she had several psychiatric disorders, but the State's experts argued her actions were attributed to psychopathy. There’s no way to know for sure. She did not attempt an insanity defense. For [Reagan’s] family, that’s an important distinction: It doesn’t matter what was wrong with her. The jury found her guilty and sentenced her to death.
Not the point of this article, but I was just thinking about this case again and I truly think things could have been so different if their culture was different, less passive, more direct, and less "nice." All those interviews of people gossiping behind her back, saying "well isn't that weird?!" instead of having an honest, uncomfortable conversation to say "I don't believe you."
I don't blame them for her actions, but wow how different things may have turned out if the people in her life told her to cut the shit. Especially the fiance who was the most passive person on earth.
The documentary implies that the fiance did not care for Parker at all, and was hanging in there because of the money she claimed she was inheriting as well as the huge property she was going to purchase. At least that was the very strongly implied tone I got from it.
There are a lot of deep dives into this entire case, and this very article is participating in withholding information as they accuse Netflix of doing so. She had two kids she didn’t have custody of, one of whom came to the gender reveal party of this exact fake pregnancy. She wasn’t hanging out at clinics and parks watching women playing with their children wistfully, she was actively looking up license plates of pregnant women she saw at these places, and even researched teen pregnancy help group meetings. If anything, the people who made the doc left out even more damaging evidence against Taylor. The poor woman she murdered put up a brutal fight to save her baby and was evidently conscious for most of it. I don’t agree with the death penalty, but this woman should not be allowed out of prison ever. She knew what she was doing, and had a lot of chances to stop. It’s all available in the MANY hours of court testimony.
I think waking up and finding out you had a hysterectomy is utterly devastating and I might assume she went into early menopause (edit she wasn’t in menopause as a fellow redditor pointed out she still had one ovary?) unless she was on the right treatment plan(and in red states women healthcare isn’t at its finest.) that would fuck anyone up.
However i would argue that this statement “Parker was shattered when she awoke to find that she could no longer bear children.” Should be could no longer bear MORE children.
She already had two young children and could have focused on them but instead her need to literally kill intentionally a friend and unintentionally that woman’s newborn makes her absolutely not suitable to rejoin society.
Agreed with one small correction. Keeping one ovary is actually ideal if you're having a hysterectomy because it prevents you from going into menopause.
That was one part of the story I really wish the documentary had explored more. She was so stoked to have this “baby”. But what happened with her first two kids? Who had custody and why?
I think when watching any documentary, it’s important to ask whose story is being told and why. I thought as I was watching that it was interesting that there were very few people in her life (besides a few ex-friends who had been watching from afar), and LOTS of people from the ex partner’s life willing to talk about how he had no idea. I’m not saying that means it was fraudulent, but even non-fiction has a point of view
That is a really excellent point, and a great reminder. i naturally tend towards taking things at face value & sometimes forget to flex that critical thinking muscle/media literacy skills when I don't notice any big red flags. "Whose story is being told & why" is such a good, interesting prompt to keep in mind, i gotta remember that!
“While Parker was still under anesthesia, her surgical team procured consent from her then-husband to undertake a total abdominal hysterectomy, removing Parker’s fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and right ovary.”
Wow, that adds a whole new perspective to the thing! I don’t remember any true crime people covering this.
I did assume it was for a medical emergency, but even then it can feel like they have taken away everything for someone who wants a child so bad and she was also pregnant. That’s the only part, other than that I am far less sympathetic than the writer because she was utterly neglectful to the child she already had.
Do you understand that when someone is subject to a medical emergency, things come up and they have to make a choice to save someone’s life when they are unconscious? It is awful but it is a life saving measure. Also she was there for a tubal ligation so it was to not have children
She was there to have a cyst removed- she was pregnant.
I’m not alleging medical malpractice but I think we can all agree that if we went to sleep and woke up to the news that we’re going to go through menopause in our 20s and our pregnancy was terminated we would be a little traumatized! Both things can be true that a procedure can medically sound and traumatic for the patient. Sheesh lol
I don’t know why people are downvoting you for this. She had two children already, and she wasn’t a good mother to them, either. Are we really going to act like new information is going to change our minds about her? I disagree with the death penalty across the board, but other than that she is where she belongs in jail.
I’m also a death penalty abolitionist, so I’m not sure why people took offense to me either.
I stand by the fact that I think there’s a difference between a childless person losing their ability to have any children when they want them, and someone with children losing their ability to have more. I didn’t think that was a crazy thing to say
Im with you, I would be heartbroken to lose my ability to have more kids without my say, but I would have lost my mind if I lost my ability to have kids while childless.
Idk why this is being downvoted, it’s a good point. She did already have two children whom she was not caring for. That was why her mother didn’t come forward sooner, she was terrified to jeopardize the wellbeing of her grandchildren.
Well, she was already going to get her tubes tied anyway. I suppose the door being locked rather than simply closed could affect your mindset. I still think there’s a difference.
Wasn’t she there for a tubul litigation, and while having that procedure done, they discovered the ectopic pregnancy? They didn’t take away her ability to have children, she had already chosen that.
This article pissed me off. There are plenty of people with borderline and other mental illnesses who don’t commit murder. It does a disservice to people with mental illness when you blame mental illness as why someone committed a crime. You can be mentally ill AND entitled and angry enough to kill someone like the Reiners son or this woman.
She had a tough childhood and was abused. So was I and so were millions of us. She still knew it was wrong to stab a woman to death and cut the baby out of her body.
"By omitting vital details from defense teams—in Parker’s case and others—true-crime films portray the grisliest offenses as essentially incomprehensible expressions of wickedness, when the reality is invariably more complicated."
I think this is basically a correct take on true-crime documentary filmmaking, especially the Netflix versions.
Agreed, however this was a terrible story to focus on to make this point. There are other cases that are less cut-and-dry than this one when it comes to the cascading effects of mental illness on crime and responsibility. In Parker’s case specifically, it’s well-established that she’s a pathological liar, negligent parent, and dangerously attention-seeking to the point of befriending a pregnant woman solely to steal her baby right out of her stomach. I don’t think there ought to be much sympathy for her— she deliberately plotted every step, and actively chose to follow through with it as she felt her goal became nearer and nearer.
Yes, she’s mentally sick and should be treated. But i don’t like how this article tries to bring up these details like they’re a gotcha, and we’re supposed to re-evaluate through the lens of Parker actually was the victim the whole time, and she was driven by other forces totally out oc her control.
From the very start, she knew exactly what she was doing.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
It really does not change my opinion of her that she has a personality disorder. I think many viewers would have come to that conclusion themself. And I do think there was someone in the room at Netflix who probably said “are we going to be accused of stigmatizing BPD if we include that as her defense in the movie.” Not that i agree.
The issue with including her traumatic childhood without third party corroboration (in the article it was apparently disclosed by her defense psychiatrist) is that she is a well established compulsive liar. I think abusive childhood would make a lot of sense but it is hard to distinguish fantasy and reality with her
I think the hysterectomy backstory is terrifying and heartbreaking and equal parts fascinating as it applies to the actions she went on to take. I don’t really understand why that was left out
I also understand that the article is written from the perspective of a death penalty abolitionist (which I share myself), and while I don’t agree she should be on death row I also don’t see how the argument really disqualifies her from death row as a stand out against other cases
Korrocks | a day ago
I think the issue isn’t so much that these additional details would 100% change the audience’s opinion, but leaving them out makes the story incomplete and in some cases incoherent. A lot of true crime podcasts tend to leave the impression that their protagonists just commit crimes spontaneously with no real backstory or motivation.
Including that stuff wouldn’t necessarily justify the actions of the murderers, but it would at least give the audience a fair chance at understanding the context. A documentary that leaves out everything on the defense side would be as misleading and confusing as a documentary that leaves out everything on the prosecution / police side.
KellyJin17 | 19 hours ago
Netflix “documentaries” are always, always told from a pre-decided perspective to the exclusion of all else.
I learned that watching their Aaron Hernandez documentary which took the stance that he was a murderer because he was a closeted homosexual, while ignoring the fact that he had numerous female sexual partners so likely wasn’t more than bisexual, was in a heterosexual relationship with a kid, that he was on a lot of mind-altering drugs, and most importantly that he was found to have had severe CTE and brain damage after his death, which is the most obvious reason he became a paranoid killer.
I don’t take their docs as anything more than biased recaps with some salacious details included and some excluded, depending on the producers’ biases.
farty__mcfly | 5 hours ago
This was a particularly shitty documentary. It was clear to anyone watching that the documentary was missing significant information and provided almost no background information on the people involved.
There was a lot of discussion about this documentary when it came out. Everyone understood that there was missing information. The audience was not provided enough background information, and there were so many complaints that this was poorly presented and researched. The documentary barely made any sense. Did the author of this article miss that entire discourse?
I think there is definitely an argument to be made about the genre, but these arguments are more about this specific shitty documentary than all true crime documentaries.
JaunteeChapeau | a day ago
This also raises the problem that a LOT of people who commit heinous acts were themselves the victims of abuse through their lives. Many of the most notorious serial killers had absolutely horrific childhoods; a huge portion of child molesters and domestic abusers were abused themselves the same way. How much should that be taken into consideration in a trial?
Not a rhetorical question by the way, this is all murky and difficult.
KellyJin17 | 19 hours ago
Anytime someone does something heinous, especially on a serial basis, I assume that they had one fucked up childhood because it’s been proven ubiquitous. I’d be surprised if there are many people that don’t know that, they just don’t care because evil is black and white to them. Like how most people can’t really wrap their heads around severe mental illness and how it can cause people to do bad things. Most people don’t care that they’re delusional and unable to process reality, they just want them punished. The majority of humans have limited capacity to process nuance or complexity.
Available-Guava5515 | 15 hours ago
If we acknowledged that crime is a product of child abuse and developmental neglect, we'd have to acknowledge that the only real way to prevent crime is to prevent the conditions under which these occur, such as poverty and unwanted pregnancies. Which would mean the upheaval of capitalism and the wider spread of socialist policies. And since we as a society will never, ever do that, the narrative about crime being perpetrated only by "evil" people will persist.
peachie88 | a day ago
Trial? None. Sentencing? Some to a lot, depending on circumstances.
Adults are still responsible for their actions, even if they had a difficult or traumatic childhood. And while it is true that most child molesters were themselves molested as a child, most victims do not go on to become abusers.
DrakeFloyd | a day ago
This is already the case. Those factors are presented and considered during sentencing. That’s why sentencing allows for evidence to be presented etc
GiantLesbian | a day ago
I think it should be taken into consideration at trial proportional to the failure of the government to save the child. Like if there were a million reasons to save a child from absolutely horrific abuse and the government did not, the government sentenced that kid to be raised in Hell, and then, what, the government gets to kill them or lock them up forever for acting how people act when they were raised in Hell? Nah. The government doesn’t just get to treat people as disposable when they’re children and then use the results of that treatment to justify actually disposing of them once they’re adults.
JaunteeChapeau | a day ago
So now that person is free to roam and predate at will, creating a new generation of traumatized predators.
I see where you’re coming from but it’s not as easy as that.
GiantLesbian | a day ago
I didn’t say they shouldn’t go to prison. I said we should take it into account during sentencing, because we can’t just let the government have a system where it gets to decide who’s disposable as children and then follow through with disposing of them. That doesn’t mean nobody like that ever has to spend significant time in prison. It means we don’t let THAT specific set of circumstances become a pattern. It means we FORCE the government to at least attempt to rehabilitate as many people as we can who are the way they are because of the government’s failures to begin with.
Part of the reason why we’re in the system we’re in is because it works for the government. They don’t have to spend $30k+/year per child to put as many kids in good foster homes and actually take responsibility for their wellbeing (not to mention costs saved on not helping those kids’ parents/families). Then for maybe only like 1 out of every 10 of those kids they don’t help, they have to spend $40k/year to keep them in prison. It works out cheaper to just abandon kids to abuse and neglect and then just lock up the ones who don’t rehabilitate themselves. We have to make it not cheaper to let kids rot in horrible homes if we want any sort of change. And yes, not letting the government lock those adults who were abused up as long causes costs to society, which causes costs to the government, until now all the sudden it’s cheaper to tackle this by actually caring for kids and actually trying to rehabilitate prisoners instead of just deciding everyone who needs help will be defective anyway and locking them all up for as long as possible if they don’t just magically fix everything themselves.
XelaNiba | 17 hours ago
We'd first need to change laws that prioritize parental rights and family reunification.
I'm afraid that's a very hard sell in America, we've been moving in the opposite direction for many years now. We can't even get states to pass laws requiring supervision and mandated doctor visits for homeschooling kids (homeschooling is the preferred educational program for abusers, they can hide their victims away from prying eyes).
I'd love to see reforms. My own state presumes 50/50 custody in cases of divorce. I have personally witnessed kids forced to spend half of their lives with an abusive parent, the bar is so incredibly high for removing parental rights that is almost insurmountable.
JaunteeChapeau | a day ago
I do agree that early intervention (including trying to educate parents better) needs a lot more emphasis, as does actual rehabilitation work while incarcerated. Obviously just jailing people after they offend isn’t solving the larger problem.
Monkey_Bay123 | a day ago
I agree a large reason is that it’s cheaper, at least explicitly. Not many adult children go on to sue the government for failure to protect them in childhood.
Another part of the problem is that the treatment of callous-unemotional traits (low to no empathy disorders) is still very much in its infancy, so even if more money was allocated towards creating a robust foster system, as these disorders are partly genetic terrible crimes will still happen (albeit probably less). Treatment of CU needs more money allocated to its research, which would be well worth it for the reduction in violent crime but is hard to justify politically. ‘What do you mean you want to spend MORE on helping psychopaths?’
Wide__Stance | a day ago
There’s not much backstory to the hysterectomy. This isn’t one of the many, MANY stories of women being forced or tricked into an unnecessary hysterectomy. She was there for a tubal ligation, they found an ectopic pregnancy, and during the emergency portion of the surgery they performed a hysterectomy to save her life.
Again: she was undergoing a tubal ligation because she did not ever want to have children. The hysterectomy only happened because she was getting her tubes tied.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
She was getting a cyst removed while pregnant
Wide__Stance | a day ago
You’re absolutely correct that I inadvertently condensed the timeline. It doesn’t change the general point, however: she’d had a tubal ligation because she didn’t want to be pregnant.
A year later was undergoing emergency surgery on her right ovary and fallopian tube. She ultimately got the outcome that she’d originally wanted.
GiantLesbian | a day ago
I’m confused. An ectopic pregnancy is an embryo in the fallopian tube. A hysterectomy is the removal of the uterus. Why would they have to remove her uterus (and her cervix and an ovary it looks like) for an ectopic pregnancy that, by definition, isn’t in the uterus??
Wide__Stance | a day ago
The surgery itself was an emergency surgery and there were further complications on top of that. And if they went in looking for an ectopic pregnancy and found an ovarian cyst?
I don’t have a copy of her medical file, but cascading complications in closely-related systems is a real thing.
DrakeFloyd | a day ago
Not all ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tube
PurePerfection_ | a day ago
The article stated that this one was in the left fallopian tube
Abbacoverband | 22 hours ago
Exactly. My dad has Borderline Personality Disorder, but it was not characterized by pathological lying and MURDER.
LadybugGirltheFirst | 18 hours ago
Right. The fact that she has BPD is a possible explanation or reason for her actions, but it doesn’t and shouldn’t excuse them.
Available-Guava5515 | 15 hours ago
"The issue with including her traumatic childhood without third party corroboration (in the article it was apparently disclosed by her defense psychiatrist) is that she is a well established compulsive liar." But those with BPD do not get it without having had an abusive childhood. Whether or not you trust the finer details, her condition would not exist without having experienced criminal levels of maternal neglect. That's the pathology of the condition.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | 9 hours ago
To her friends and partner she alleges her mother is abusive in a very different way than she explained to her psychiatrist. Like I already said I believe she had a abusive childhood but I don’t know how a storyteller is meant to present fact versus fiction with her
[OP] DevonSwede | a day ago
https://archive.ph/9DgvX
OutIn-LeftField | a day ago
Why do archive.ph links never work for me??
ChocChipBananaMuffin | a day ago
they don't work on mobile for me
OutIn-LeftField | a day ago
Oh maybe that’s the issue
Pentirsi | a day ago
I always open these links on mobile and I’ve never had an issue. What browser do you use?
OutIn-LeftField | a day ago
Safari
Bright_Ices | 16 hours ago
They work for me on DuckDuckGo
pandathrowaway | a day ago
Are you on starlink?
OutIn-LeftField | a day ago
Nope. Regular WiFi on my phone and the site just never works for me
Exotic-Question-8292 | a day ago
Turn your wifi off. They used to work for me but now I can't read them unless I'm using data.
FridgeParty1498 | 20 hours ago
why would that matter? are things blocked on starlink?
Warmtimes | 4 hours ago
Yes
rkgk13 | a day ago
This article was posted here before and I do feel it's worth sharing how the director answers the question the author raises -
>Why wasn’t Taylor Parker’s diagnosis, which was presented by her defense, included in the documentary?
>Dimmock: Taylor didn’t go into this crime having an established diagnosis, so it's hard to understand the validity of one diagnosis. That being said, there's definitely something very wrong with her. At trial, the defense put on experts who testified that she had several psychiatric disorders, but the State's experts argued her actions were attributed to psychopathy. There’s no way to know for sure. She did not attempt an insanity defense. For [Reagan’s] family, that’s an important distinction: It doesn’t matter what was wrong with her. The jury found her guilty and sentenced her to death.
MasinMadasHell | a day ago
Not the point of this article, but I was just thinking about this case again and I truly think things could have been so different if their culture was different, less passive, more direct, and less "nice." All those interviews of people gossiping behind her back, saying "well isn't that weird?!" instead of having an honest, uncomfortable conversation to say "I don't believe you."
I don't blame them for her actions, but wow how different things may have turned out if the people in her life told her to cut the shit. Especially the fiance who was the most passive person on earth.
doryfishie | a day ago
The documentary implies that the fiance did not care for Parker at all, and was hanging in there because of the money she claimed she was inheriting as well as the huge property she was going to purchase. At least that was the very strongly implied tone I got from it.
K80doesKeto | 18 hours ago
There are a lot of deep dives into this entire case, and this very article is participating in withholding information as they accuse Netflix of doing so. She had two kids she didn’t have custody of, one of whom came to the gender reveal party of this exact fake pregnancy. She wasn’t hanging out at clinics and parks watching women playing with their children wistfully, she was actively looking up license plates of pregnant women she saw at these places, and even researched teen pregnancy help group meetings. If anything, the people who made the doc left out even more damaging evidence against Taylor. The poor woman she murdered put up a brutal fight to save her baby and was evidently conscious for most of it. I don’t agree with the death penalty, but this woman should not be allowed out of prison ever. She knew what she was doing, and had a lot of chances to stop. It’s all available in the MANY hours of court testimony.
MasinMadasHell | 14 hours ago
The victim's young daughter was also in the home while this happened. Throw away the key.
Successful-Winter237 | a day ago
I think waking up and finding out you had a hysterectomy is utterly devastating and I might assume she went into early menopause (edit she wasn’t in menopause as a fellow redditor pointed out she still had one ovary?) unless she was on the right treatment plan(and in red states women healthcare isn’t at its finest.) that would fuck anyone up.
However i would argue that this statement “Parker was shattered when she awoke to find that she could no longer bear children.” Should be could no longer bear MORE children.
She already had two young children and could have focused on them but instead her need to literally kill intentionally a friend and unintentionally that woman’s newborn makes her absolutely not suitable to rejoin society.
GinAndDumbBitchJuice | a day ago
Agreed with one small correction. Keeping one ovary is actually ideal if you're having a hysterectomy because it prevents you from going into menopause.
Successful-Winter237 | a day ago
True
W8andC77 | a day ago
That was one part of the story I really wish the documentary had explored more. She was so stoked to have this “baby”. But what happened with her first two kids? Who had custody and why?
PurePerfection_ | a day ago
I honestly forgot by the end of the article that she already had two kids, they downplayed it so much.
GrouchyYoung | a day ago
If they only take out the uterus, the hormones aren’t altered and early menopause isn’t induced. Only removal of the ovaries triggers early menopause.
Successful-Winter237 | 21 hours ago
Corrected thanks
thesphinxistheriddle | a day ago
I think when watching any documentary, it’s important to ask whose story is being told and why. I thought as I was watching that it was interesting that there were very few people in her life (besides a few ex-friends who had been watching from afar), and LOTS of people from the ex partner’s life willing to talk about how he had no idea. I’m not saying that means it was fraudulent, but even non-fiction has a point of view
baethan | a day ago
That is a really excellent point, and a great reminder. i naturally tend towards taking things at face value & sometimes forget to flex that critical thinking muscle/media literacy skills when I don't notice any big red flags. "Whose story is being told & why" is such a good, interesting prompt to keep in mind, i gotta remember that!
eraserhead__baby | a day ago
She didn’t have any current friends. I really don’t think there was anyone that could have been a good character witness for her.
StoreBeautiful1492 | a day ago
“While Parker was still under anesthesia, her surgical team procured consent from her then-husband to undertake a total abdominal hysterectomy, removing Parker’s fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and right ovary.”
Wow, that adds a whole new perspective to the thing! I don’t remember any true crime people covering this.
CiNCEfT | a day ago
Is this not normal? Spouses have medical power when otherwise unable to make decisions. What did knowing that her husband gave consent change?
StoreBeautiful1492 | a day ago
I did assume it was for a medical emergency, but even then it can feel like they have taken away everything for someone who wants a child so bad and she was also pregnant. That’s the only part, other than that I am far less sympathetic than the writer because she was utterly neglectful to the child she already had.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
I would be extremely traumatized to wake up and learn I had an unexpected hysterectomy and would no longer be able to have children
BigSeesaw7 | a day ago
Do you understand that when someone is subject to a medical emergency, things come up and they have to make a choice to save someone’s life when they are unconscious? It is awful but it is a life saving measure. Also she was there for a tubal ligation so it was to not have children
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
She was there to have a cyst removed- she was pregnant.
I’m not alleging medical malpractice but I think we can all agree that if we went to sleep and woke up to the news that we’re going to go through menopause in our 20s and our pregnancy was terminated we would be a little traumatized! Both things can be true that a procedure can medically sound and traumatic for the patient. Sheesh lol
CiNCEfT | a day ago
Have more children. I think that distinction is important - she already had two young kids.
KaleidoscopeSad4884 | a day ago
I don’t know why people are downvoting you for this. She had two children already, and she wasn’t a good mother to them, either. Are we really going to act like new information is going to change our minds about her? I disagree with the death penalty across the board, but other than that she is where she belongs in jail.
CiNCEfT | a day ago
I’m also a death penalty abolitionist, so I’m not sure why people took offense to me either.
I stand by the fact that I think there’s a difference between a childless person losing their ability to have any children when they want them, and someone with children losing their ability to have more. I didn’t think that was a crazy thing to say
Nice-Bit-3550 | a day ago
Im with you, I would be heartbroken to lose my ability to have more kids without my say, but I would have lost my mind if I lost my ability to have kids while childless.
doryfishie | a day ago
Idk why this is being downvoted, it’s a good point. She did already have two children whom she was not caring for. That was why her mother didn’t come forward sooner, she was terrified to jeopardize the wellbeing of her grandchildren.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
Wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy personally
CiNCEfT | a day ago
Well, she was already going to get her tubes tied anyway. I suppose the door being locked rather than simply closed could affect your mindset. I still think there’s a difference.
whiskeytango68 | a day ago
Wasn’t she there for a tubul litigation, and while having that procedure done, they discovered the ectopic pregnancy? They didn’t take away her ability to have children, she had already chosen that.
Old-Acanthisitta4517 | a day ago
She was there to have a cyst removed. She was pregnant and during the surgery they discovered it was ectopic
Powerful-Patient-765 | a day ago
This article pissed me off. There are plenty of people with borderline and other mental illnesses who don’t commit murder. It does a disservice to people with mental illness when you blame mental illness as why someone committed a crime. You can be mentally ill AND entitled and angry enough to kill someone like the Reiners son or this woman.
She had a tough childhood and was abused. So was I and so were millions of us. She still knew it was wrong to stab a woman to death and cut the baby out of her body.
farty__mcfly | a day ago
I cannot believe the Atlantic thought this was worthy of print! Yikes.
evootwin | 6 hours ago
"By omitting vital details from defense teams—in Parker’s case and others—true-crime films portray the grisliest offenses as essentially incomprehensible expressions of wickedness, when the reality is invariably more complicated."
I think this is basically a correct take on true-crime documentary filmmaking, especially the Netflix versions.
koeniging | an hour ago
Agreed, however this was a terrible story to focus on to make this point. There are other cases that are less cut-and-dry than this one when it comes to the cascading effects of mental illness on crime and responsibility. In Parker’s case specifically, it’s well-established that she’s a pathological liar, negligent parent, and dangerously attention-seeking to the point of befriending a pregnant woman solely to steal her baby right out of her stomach. I don’t think there ought to be much sympathy for her— she deliberately plotted every step, and actively chose to follow through with it as she felt her goal became nearer and nearer.
Yes, she’s mentally sick and should be treated. But i don’t like how this article tries to bring up these details like they’re a gotcha, and we’re supposed to re-evaluate through the lens of Parker actually was the victim the whole time, and she was driven by other forces totally out oc her control.
From the very start, she knew exactly what she was doing.