Friday, February 12, 2010

Those Were The Days My Friend






















Why am I posting this now? I don't know. Maybe because I just remembered how super pissed off I was almost two years ago when this fucking lawyer sent me this letter acting as if I somehow was responsible for poor Clem Grogan, the man who BEHEADED Shorty Shea.

And somebody better tell me where the hell Bret is. Hey Bret, give me your site I'll make sure it doesn't fucking disappear every two months.

Yes I am in a bad mood thank you for asking.

(click on the letter to make it bigger and more amusing)

Please comment away about murderer Clem Grogan also known as ADAM GABRIEL. Thoughts?

10 comments:

Marliese said...

I don't understand how truthful statements regarding matters confirmed in public record could be considered libelous or defaming of the convicted murderer's character?

And wasn't the slasher movie comment revealed as hearsay?

For comments to be libelous and consequently defamatory, wouldn't it need to be proven that the comments were maliciously untrue? How can someone suffer defamation when the "defamatory" information is not false?

His first degree murder conviction and subsequent parole is public record, as is the earlier detention at the State Hospital, supposedly for exposure, no?

Isn't this a risk 'the client' takes...as a person convicted in a murder included in some of the most notorious murders in California history...when he chooses to be a public performer?




~Marliese

sptrfn said...

Good to see you back, Colonel. I was afraid that you would leave us for good someday soon.

Matt said...

Love those lawyer letters. I have a file that resides on the floor next to my right knee for those.

Clem is one guy I'd love to see interviewed today. If you listen to some he was learning disabled. Others like Little Paul thought he was so brainwashed he couldn't think for himself (here). What does he have to lose?

St. Circumstance said...

I dont know that any of them should get out. But if Susan Atkins was still a danger - paralyzed and cancer stricken in 2009- How can they justify letting him out while he was still young enough to make you wonder? Are all the parole denials really for the reasons given? would Leslie look different in the eyes of the parole board had she given up Shorty location? Are they looking for remorse, or assistance?

Marliese said...

I don't think Susan was denied because she was considered a danger. She was denied for her crimes. The gravity of her crimes.


~Marliese

Marliese said...

Maybe Leslie would look different if by the time of her third trial she hadn't had the attitude that she wasn't guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to murder.

~Marliese

Marliese said...

I don't understand how the State could have allowed parole to have anything to do with giving up Shorty's location...

What about all the years they refused to say, all the years of grief for Shorty's family, all the years they let him rot? After years of half truths and deceit about Shorty's murder, I don't think finally revealing the location of his remains should have had any impact on earning parole. More like how disgraceful he...all of them really, didn't have the common decency to reveal where he was years earlier.

Andromeda74 said...

After reading that letter all I can say is, Good Lord ! Really glad to be a part of this blog, Ive admired it for a long time. Thanks for inviting me !

jm30 said...

In right to privacy cases, a plaintiff has a case on the grounds of "publication of private information" ONLY when the information was private, not public. The law states: "If embarrassing and offensive information becomes a matter of public record, then a privacy action will not succeed. Embarrassing information like that sometimes published in 'looking back in history' columns (for example, that a person with good standing in the community served a prison sentence years ago) usually is not actionable if basd on information available in public records.

As for the accusation of Adam Gabriel liking to watch "slasher films":

"Published information that is embarrassing or upsetting to a plaintiff is not sufficient to support a privacy claim; the information must be highly offensive to a reasonable person in the community."

Sorry, but Clem does not have a case.

andy said...

i wonder how often he reads this blog