The Colonel's crime?


Everyone assumes it is to do with children (including Wikipedia) but it's not actually specified.
It could be animals.

reply

The Colonel told Jack what happened during the jail visit...he was with a 15 year old girl and she OD'd. Then they "found something" in his house. He didn't specifically say what, but he said he has a weakness, they're so small and cute. Obviously child pornography. You don't get arrested for a weakness for small, cute animals.

reply

You don't get arrested for a weakness for small, cute animals



Er...yes, you do!

reply

Not if don't touch them, and he said he didn't. Heck in 70's and early 80's you could legally film animals being chopped to bits(Cannibal Holocaust anyone.).

reply

Er...yes, you do!
.

Judging by Jack's reaction and the fact that the dude was beat up in prison....



It definitely wasn't animals.....it was kids.

reply

It's child porn, or it's animal porn, really it's whatever you want it to be and you clearly want it to be animal porn, but that's a leap, you should watch the directors commentary or check the internet to see if PT Anderson gave a definitive answer. Although he is clearly suggesting child porn, that's why you don't get told in the film, he's assuming the audience is intelligent enough to put those few puzzle pieces together themselves.

reply

[deleted]

I always assumed child pornography. plus Jack's reaction.

___________________
he left u NAKED in a DITCH!

reply

[deleted]

I think most people would assume that. It's never specified though. It could be either
(not seen it for a while - what was Jack's reaction?)

reply

Jack is disgusted. & just gets up from the visit & leaves, no more words.

___________________
he left u NAKED in a DITCH!

reply

No, the phone cuts-off.

Since The Col. can't hear him, Jack just nods his head "yes" in answer.

reply

I always wondered if he actual children at his house. Not just the underage teenagers but 11 and under children

reply

I always assumed he had children locked in a dungeon in his basement.

reply

You assume a lot! No children are even mentioned. It's deliberately left ambiguous.

reply

I felt it was left that it could either be children being kept at the house, or child pornography.

reply

No one knows for sure. That was my point really.

reply

It's obviously child pornography. God, no wonder some directors feel they have to spell everything out if some moviegoers are this dumb.

Of course it isn't small animals FFS!!!!

Was it a millionaire who said "Imagine no possessions"?

reply

Nope. You're wrong. Assume all you like.

reply

lol at "purposely left ambiguous"

I mean he says he never touches them, but they found stuff at his house. How would that be animals? What could be illegal about anything with animals? He got that illegal animal porn? he get arrested for owing some animals, they did some tests and found out he was raping them?

What is wrong with you people?

It's obviously child porn and they even give you an example of his ways at the pool party when he comes with the 15 year old girl. You're supposed to pick up on that. It's kind of a precursor. Gives you insight into the character so when he ultimately does get arrested you already know he's a perv. It's establishing that with the pool party.

Meh, I'm pretty sure you're leveling now that I look back through your posts again. You've got people on board believing your nonsense though so congrats I guess.

reply

What could be illegal about anything with animals?


Bestiality?

Gives you insight into the character so when he ultimately does get arrested you already know he's a perv.


So are you saying he wouldn't be a perv if he was just abusing animals? Weird.

A bit odd that you don't seem to realise that's illegal.

You've got people on board believing your nonsense though so congrats I guess.


Probably because some people have noticed, it's deliberately left unclear.

reply

How could he be committing "bestiality" if he isn't touching them?

reply

"Bestiality" is a recognized crime regardless of whether you have heard of it or not.
He could be lying. He wouldn't have necessarily been touching them if it was child porn either.

reply

He was making child porn videos.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

I don't think he was making child porn videos

He was just in possession of child porn.

reply