Anonymous wrote:I do think Natalia put Pledge in Kristine's coffee.
Also why would everyone lie against Natalia? Neighbors heard her say things.

As to the neighbors, ever played a game of telephone operator? A simple message by the tie it reaches the end of the line is wholly unrelated to the original message, add in Kristine coming to the neighborhood and spreading rumors of Natalia’s deviance to a bunch of retired old ladies and SSI and SSDI recipients with nothing more to do than stare out the windows all day looking for something to cluck, cluck over and be a part of and you get the Salem witch trials.

I’m surprised they didn’t burn her at the stake. And out the pedo flasher deviant on a pedestal. The neighborhood had to get rid of Natalia but not the weirdo flasher roaming freely around the neighborhood?

If they all were deluded enough to believe that an 8 year old little girl was a 22 year old woman then they also were basic enough to treat her the way a lot women treat a woman who doesn’t conform to and play by the rules. If she was flaunting her “sexuality” openly (a young woman “completion” messing with the old men (ambulatory elderly men are a hot commodity amongst the elderly lady set) in the neighborhood” then the little tramp had to go.

The show is interesting from a sociological stand point.

Anonymous wrote:She was likely abused by her biological family.
Then in the orphanage.

The orphanages are understaffed, her behavior was too much for the staff, she was too manipulative and was able to talk her way out of being sent to another orphanage. The staff saw a chance to rid themselves of her and fudged the records.

She suffered enough trauma in her early years that she was never going to be able to live in a family setting ever again. This is not really uncommon.

The parents didn’t have many choices. She was never going to adapt to family life and she would never see them as her parents. It’s difficult to get residential care and it’s only covered by insurance for a short time.

I have no doubt that Natalie was abusive towards the parents and tried to kill them. I have no doubt that the parents at their wits end and scared were abusive to Natalie.

The solution the parents came up with seemed to actually work for both them and Natalie. But she couldn’t help screwing up something that was going well for her. She has serious mental issues that aren’t going to get better.

Their solution did not work for Natalia. She was a disabled child living in a dangerous neighborhood unsupervised and in an apartment not suited for her disability. Abandonment is not a solution.

X-Rays do not lie. She was a child.

I haven't read the whole thread bc I'm not done with season 2 yet (about halfway). But I am leaning strongly towards both sides are nuts. Natalia had trauma and abuse from the beginning, and probably has a behavior or conduct disorder. The Barnetts sound abusive and unstable as well. No one is innocent here. And a lot of the neighbors and side characters don't sound very bright, but understandably they distanced themselves from a messy family.

Why is everything Michael says a performance? He's just not a likeable human.

That poor brother, smart kid, likely also abused, seems like he could have been successful with the right supports in place.

I'm still trying to figure out the Mans but they're intense in their own way and something isn't quite right there either.

I hope Natalia is getting the help she needs. There still could be hope for her.

Anonymous wrote:She was likely abused by her biological family.
Then in the orphanage.

The orphanages are understaffed, her behavior was too much for the staff, she was too manipulative and was able to talk her way out of being sent to another orphanage. The staff saw a chance to rid themselves of her and fudged the records.

She suffered enough trauma in her early years that she was never going to be able to live in a family setting ever again. This is not really uncommon.

The parents didn’t have many choices. She was never going to adapt to family life and she would never see them as her parents. It’s difficult to get residential care and it’s only covered by insurance for a short time.

I have no doubt that Natalie was abusive towards the parents and tried to kill them. I have no doubt that the parents at their wits end and scared were abusive to Natalie.

The solution the parents came up with seemed to actually work for both them and Natalie. But she couldn’t help screwing up something that was going well for her. She has serious mental issues that aren’t going to get better.

ITA this is a highly likely scenario.

She was likely abused by her biological family.
Then in the orphanage.

The orphanages are understaffed, her behavior was too much for the staff, she was too manipulative and was able to talk her way out of being sent to another orphanage. The staff saw a chance to rid themselves of her and fudged the records.

She suffered enough trauma in her early years that she was never going to be able to live in a family setting ever again. This is not really uncommon.

The parents didn’t have many choices. She was never going to adapt to family life and she would never see them as her parents. It’s difficult to get residential care and it’s only covered by insurance for a short time.

I have no doubt that Natalie was abusive towards the parents and tried to kill them. I have no doubt that the parents at their wits end and scared were abusive to Natalie.

The solution the parents came up with seemed to actually work for both them and Natalie. But she couldn’t help screwing up something that was going well for her. She has serious mental issues that aren’t going to get better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished watching the first two episodes of "Natalia Speaks". I was floored. The first season was heartbreaking but, I think this second season will clear up a lot of things. The thing that stuck with me is "she was reading an article in Cosmopolitan magazine at 6 years old. What 6 year old can do that"? Um, me. I could do that. It wasn't Cosmo but, at 6 years old, I could easily read any article in just about any publication. I was reading and writing at 4 and by 6, chapter books, articles, whatever, was not a problem. Being able to read a seemingly "advanced" written work is not evidence that a person is an adult. And this Michael Barnett is a nut case. I don't want to spoil it for anyone that hasn't started watching season 2 but the guys a straight up lunatic. Can't wait for the next 4 episodes to drop tonight and tomorrow night.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 7.

Me too! In the 70s for you too?

Around the same age I also borrowed and read all my mother’s Sidney Sheldon and Danielle Steele and Irwin Shaw novels, I read the Amityville Horror, Jaws, Carrie, etc.

Some kids are very good readers who get curious about adult books very early. Other kids are still in chapter books until middle school.

They all have screaming personality disorders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished watching the first two episodes of "Natalia Speaks". I was floored. The first season was heartbreaking but, I think this second season will clear up a lot of things. The thing that stuck with me is "she was reading an article in Cosmopolitan magazine at 6 years old. What 6 year old can do that"? Um, me. I could do that. It wasn't Cosmo but, at 6 years old, I could easily read any article in just about any publication. I was reading and writing at 4 and by 6, chapter books, articles, whatever, was not a problem. Being able to read a seemingly "advanced" written work is not evidence that a person is an adult. And this Michael Barnett is a nut case. I don't want to spoil it for anyone that hasn't started watching season 2 but the guys a straight up lunatic. Can't wait for the next 4 episodes to drop tonight and tomorrow night.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 7.

Me too! In the 70s for you too?

The whole thing almost seems like an elaborate fake story.

Natalia’s crying seemed so fake to me in season 2

I do wonder if Natalia has ever had therapy. It’s fairly common in super religious households to use prayer in place of therapy or to get counseling from your religious leader. In this case, it sounds like her adoptive father is the leader or one of the leaders of her church since they called him a bishop? If she hasn’t been in therapy, that ending was inevitable.

Anonymous wrote:I think Michael is such a drama queen. Like my gaydar is at full tilt. Wonder if Kristine is a beard and controlled him with outing threats.

There's something strange there. He said in the first season that she was sexually abusive to him because she withheld sex or something like that (I'm just reporting, not agreeing). Also, if she was sending photos and texting that little person they interviewed, maybe she did this a lot or they were swingers or she was his beard and she saw other men? Something odd. The way she talked about how hot she was in her texts to that guy seemed like she was very confident in herself and my guess was that shed probably done it before.

I think Michael is such a drama queen. Like my gaydar is at full tilt. Wonder if Kristine is a beard and controlled him with outing threats.

Anonymous wrote:Just finished watching the first two episodes of "Natalia Speaks". I was floored. The first season was heartbreaking but, I think this second season will clear up a lot of things. The thing that stuck with me is "she was reading an article in Cosmopolitan magazine at 6 years old. What 6 year old can do that"? Um, me. I could do that. It wasn't Cosmo but, at 6 years old, I could easily read any article in just about any publication. I was reading and writing at 4 and by 6, chapter books, articles, whatever, was not a problem. Being able to read a seemingly "advanced" written work is not evidence that a person is an adult. And this Michael Barnett is a nut case. I don't want to spoil it for anyone that hasn't started watching season 2 but the guys a straight up lunatic. Can't wait for the next 4 episodes to drop tonight and tomorrow night.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 7.