1.) That these 4 homosexual/bisexual pedophiles would end up all working at the same institution, and conveniently work
-
mikeyg24 — 15 years ago(May 17, 2010 09:16 PM)
I always wondered about the first point. One or two maybe but not four. I mean they weren't priests they could go home and have sex with a woman so it can't have been frustration. Likewise the fact that they were all capable of systematic child sex abuse is more than coincidence.
Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first! -
cookiela2001 — 15 years ago(May 18, 2010 11:19 AM)
And not that his testimony can be trusted, but the one that breaks on the stand says,
"I was drinking a lot then"
Like a drinking problem turns you into a systematic sexual abuser of children? I think the problem usually goes a BIT deeper than that. -
-
mpoconnor7 — 14 years ago(September 18, 2011 08:33 AM)
I agree that Nokes was the ringleader of the group, and the guy who started it. Once he had the guards involved in it just one time, he essentially had them blackmailed and they had no choice but to join him in future incidents.
-
burnhollywoodburn277 — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 01:38 AM)
My Opinion
- Product of work environment combined with peer pressure. The Catholic priests that are in the news for child molestation go after the alter boys because of convenience. Someone previously posted that Nokes was sort of a bully and may have convinced the others to join him.
- The point of having Ferguson was to show that Nokes was not a good person not to confess to everything. Plus being a sunday school teacher, they were counting on Ferguson to have SOME conviction
- Reilly & Marcano saw Nokes for the first time after the period of sexual abuse which has to be very tough to deal with initially, therefore their actions were irrational and emotionally motivated.
-
Livana_Faolan — 13 years ago(May 29, 2012 08:00 PM)
- Reilly & Marcano saw Nokes for the first time after the period of sexual abuse which has to be very tough to deal with initially, therefore their actions were irrational and emotionally motivated.
Or maybe they really did believe that their reputation as hardened criminals, who were willing and capable of murdering people over even the slightest offense, would compel the witnesses to keep their mouths shut. Maybe they were just that arrogant and over-confident.
- Reilly & Marcano saw Nokes for the first time after the period of sexual abuse which has to be very tough to deal with initially, therefore their actions were irrational and emotionally motivated.
-
TheFatDruidofNacyl — 15 years ago(July 30, 2010 10:54 PM)
- I look at this from the eyes of a predator. If someone was sexually attracted to young boys, then they would go for jobs where they had easy access to the young boys. Add the fact that the young boys was in trouble and would be easy pray. I also agree with the alpha male aspect. You may have pedophiles that will be passive enough not to do what the guards did, but the Alpha pedophile brought it to the level they did. By doing this it allowed submissive pedophiles to act out there sick desires.
- I can't remember if they evaluated the guy before hand, but odds are he would be the weakest link of the four. They picked him out of the three remaining guards because they felt he would be the easiest to break. They also built it up to take the guy off guard. I also get the impression that him and the other three guards was pushed into acting out there desires for young children so there was guilt and remorse.
- I would say this was pure impulse from the two characters. They gave a back history of them as grown ups that they didn't care about going to jail, they did drugs and was cold. IT was a pure act of passion.
A man can change his stars
Fear me, Love me, do as I say, and I'll be your slave.
-
TheFatDruidofNacyl — 15 years ago(August 14, 2010 08:37 PM)
Any book, or movie is going to reflect your vision of reality. It is based on your interpretation. You can have 4 people read the same thing and get 4 different responses from the same thing.
The name is Stephen and I'm male.
Fear me, Love me, do as I say, and I'll be your slave. -
BulletHeadedSaxonMothersSon — 15 years ago(August 17, 2010 02:41 AM)
- Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. Not to be pendantic, but what they did doesn't make them gay or bisexual, not even the guy who was said to still be abusing children, because a) they weren't going after grown men and b) BECAUSE they were kids, especially with them being in an already powerless position, it was more about power and sadism as much as sex, if not not moreso. However, your point still stands. As mikeyg24, maybe one or two but not all four. The whole "peer pressure" argument only explains so much as well, despite what other posters said.
Like a drinking problem turns you into a systematic sexual abuser of children?
And I would say the same thing about peer pressure as for drinking. Like simply being goaded by your friends would turn someone who normally doesn't hurt children into an abuser of kids?
I
don't buy it.
2.Totally agree; it was a stretch.
3.Totally agree here too.
- Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. Not to be pendantic, but what they did doesn't make them gay or bisexual, not even the guy who was said to still be abusing children, because a) they weren't going after grown men and b) BECAUSE they were kids, especially with them being in an already powerless position, it was more about power and sadism as much as sex, if not not moreso. However, your point still stands. As mikeyg24, maybe one or two but not all four. The whole "peer pressure" argument only explains so much as well, despite what other posters said.
-
Steve B1 — 13 years ago(October 21, 2012 08:42 PM)
I just love threads like this because there's always one guy that's got to make a big deal out of the male on male stuff and make sure EVERYBODY realizes that we're talking about not just a pedophile, but a GAY pedophile. As if the gay part makes the pedophilia worse. I'm sorry, it doesn't. Pedophilia is bad all on its own and doesn't need anything to add to the definition.
Your discomfort with the GAY part is noted clearly you're not as uncomfortable with just regular pedophilia. -
rosarypliers — 13 years ago(October 23, 2012 12:20 PM)
Like some other posters on the board, I don't think all four of them were gay pedophiles. They derived pleasure from demeaning, abusing and raping young delinquents. They took advantage of the fact that these young boys were completely defenselessand they felt confident they could get away with anything. Engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same sex does not necessarily make you gay, even if it is voluntary (on your part, at least)that's why in some legal documents, you find the expression "men who have sex with men".
At the time of the trial, only one of the four guards still seemed to be into boysmaybe he was the only true gay pedophile, even though we don't know for sure.
As far as the other points are concerned:
I didn't find it unrealistic Fergueson cracked on the witness stand. A divorced Sunday school teacher. His being religious must be relatively new, since back in Wilkinson the guards mocked Shakes for owning a rosary (and made him say prayers while they were torturing him). When people who used to be anti-religious suddendly turn to religion, it is often because of grave personal problems. (The opposite can also be true.) My suspicion was confirmed when I saw Fergueson clutching a crucifix while recalling scenes from Wilkinson. His cruelty and the boys begging him to stop. He's obviously a tormented person, a nervous wreck. I think he no longer cared that he might go to jail because of his confession.
Now, for Johnny and Tommy gunning down Nokes in a restaurant full of witnessessome minutes early Shakes narrates that Tommy once shot a mechanic who cut the line in front of himat a movie theater. I think the two felt completely safe, since they were well established in the mob. -
imadbasayev — 13 years ago(December 29, 2012 01:24 AM)
I just love threads like this because there's always one guy that's got to make a big deal out of the male on male stuff and make sure EVERYBODY realizes that we're talking about not just a pedophile, but a GAY pedophile. As if the gay part makes the pedophilia worse. I'm sorry, it doesn't. Pedophilia is bad all on its own and doesn't need anything to add to the definition.
Your discomfort with the GAY part is noted clearly you're not as uncomfortable with just regular pedophilia.
Listen you little monkey, I'm not the one who brought up they were f@gs, the op did. Then as usual some pc buffoon has to complain that they're not really f@gs; ya cause straight guys like banging boys when they could get a hooker anytime. Don't bitch at me cause you can't handle the fact that movie had GAY PAEDOPHILES in it. -
MuleDeer — 9 years ago(April 11, 2016 10:29 AM)
Good points OP. It was a very compelling movie but these were weak aspects of it.
It was only 13 years later. Why wouldn't the guard on the stand recognize the names of the defendants and prosecutor and steer clear? He wasn't subpoenaed - he agreed to be a character witness. That he wouldn't find out the names of the defendants and prosecutor is too conveniently unrealistic and requires a huge suspension of reality for the viewer.