If I were an LA District Attorney in 2011 I would arrest Steve Grogan for the LaBianca murders. He was never even charged for being there. I would play it in the press for all it was worth. Prosecutor reopens famous 40 year old murder case. I would do it seriously, not as a joke. I would get the word out so that the others out there like Kasabian etc who have skeletons would shit a brick.
Then I would take Clem and his dimestore attorney aside and have a chat. "I am going to ask you 100 questions. If you answer every one of them to my satisfaction, I am going to let you plead to time served. Avoid one question, or make me THINK you did and you'll spend what's left of your life in jail."
Bet I got some answers too.
Just sayin'.
35 comments:
Never got how Sadie was charged on two counts of murder when Clem wasn't.
There are other variations of this desire...I've always wanted to see Tex tried for Shorty's death. Why not, go for the death penalty for the scumbag.
I posted awhile ago that Oprah should pay somebody in the D.A. office to file the charges and then get the broadcasting rights for her failing network. Wouldn't it be a gas to see the gang on the witness stand again?
Wouldn't it be a gas to see the gang on the witness stand again?
Are you interested in justice, Leary, or entertainment?
FrankM
Ah yes, panem et circenses - you're right. But we've banned public executions for a reason, and I like to think the structure of our society has progressed in a positive way. To me there was something gleeful in Leary's posting about the thought of Tex being sentenced to the death penalty that struck a nerve.
Guess it depends in part on whether you support the death penalty or not (personally, I don't), but even if we accept it as lawful it doesn't have to be a cause for prurient excitement.
But if it floats Leary's boat, ....
FrankM
Lighten up Frank. I am curious about the case, about people, about how folk change over the years, a bunch of different dynamics. And obviously I support justice, note my desire to see Tex get a death penalty he still deserves.
I recognise your zest for moral spitball fights, but please engage someone else. I'm not interested.
It sure would be nice to be able to float an opinion on a blog without getting derided or belittled by Frank and the other sanctimonious ones. I must be naive but I have never understood people's need to do that. Are their lives that bland and boring that they have to pick fights on the internet for thrills? Just plain pathetic in my opinion.
Not moral spitball fights, Leary, just plain, boring human decency. If you don't subscribe to it, just ignore my posts. But don't deny me the right to make them.
This is the second or third time you've exhorted me to lighten up. I have no wish to lighten up. I'm an old man, and if I choose to cling to my values I shall.
Life and death are increasingly serious matters to me, and as friend after friend, family member after family member, pass over I am not interested in levity.
FrankM
It sure would be nice to be able to float an opinion on a blog without getting derided or belittled by Frank and the other sanctimonious ones. I must be naive but I have never understood people's need to do that. Are their lives that bland and boring that they have to pick fights on the internet for thrills? Just plain pathetic in my opinion.
Well, think about it Leary. You post, and these sanctimonious people reply. Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is, why do they reply. Could it be the content of your posts?
Let us assume for a moment that these sanctimonious people find a fair number of your posts shallow, pointless and occasionally offensive?
And if this is the case, would you abandon your democratic principles and deny them the use of the same right to free speech that allows you to post in the first place to express their opinion?
Now that would be pathetic...
Turning to your last comment, I'm not sure what you mean by 'bland and boring', but it sounds very much like 'not like me'. I have just been reading Cicero, and listening to Wagner (admittedly a curious combination). To many that would be extremely bland and boring, but not to me - à chacun son goût.
But please don't assume that what you find bland and boring will be shared by others. Fortunately, we are all different.
FrankM
adam said.......Never got how Sadie was charged on two counts of murder when Clem wasn't.
Susan Atkins implicated herself in the murders of the LaBiancas by confessing she went along for the ride, for the purpose of finding fresh victims.
Basically she confessed to being a co-conpirator.
There was nothing on Grogan. He was an idiot but not so much as to admit he was there.
Still as the Col. has said, it would be interesting to hold his feet to the fire today.
Who knows, maybe Clem already answered those 100 questions as part of his premature release.
Yes, agree. I am no lawyer, not even a disbarred one, but I would think that Clem has his bases covered as part of his release agreement.
Now, if he ever did anything that would have him brought in on a violation, then perhaps we could get somewhere.
rembe"just ignore my poats"
happy to oblige.
and I would simply ask the same of you. Respectfully, it is never me that starts this nonsense. It always you. There are plenty of others you can pass judgement on and condemn. Just please leave me out of it.
All I said - "my content" as you put it - was to simply muse how interesting it would be to see some of the Family on the witness stand again. To hear from Mary Brunner and others we haven't heard from in years.
And for some reason you felt compelled to question if I was just interested in entertainment as opposed to justice, even though I had stated clearly the purpose of trying Tex for Shorty's murder would be to get him the death penalty if possible.
If it makes you feel better to dismiss me as shallow and misguided then have a ball. It just seems so childish to me.
"all will be good".
tis a nice thought, Bob, but I don't see it. Frank seems to have some sort of bug up his ass when it comes to me. Everytime I post something he feels compelled to make some sort of snide and snarky remark.
He won't agree with this obviously, but I think it is because I tend to view TLB more through the 'pop culture/anthropology' lens while he takes more of a serious and purist perspective, an almost religous view, regarding justice and such.
Just two different ways of looking at things. Personally I enjoy different perspectives, but some folk on these blogs get downright ornary when they others see things differently than they do.
Do I think getting Family members on the witness stand again would be entertaining? Damn right I do, and feel no need to apolgize for that view. Pope Frank can condemn me, but I love good entertainment.
by the way Bob, did you voodoo hex my Pats yesterday? I heard it was wild there. A black moon hangs over Beantown tonight.
Bobby says:
yes, i dont know. If you flip through the channels there are multiple court tv shows, investigative discovery, CSI this that and the other. Cameras in the court rooms on & on. Perhaps we have progressed.
There is a clash between on the one hand the people's right to know and their freedom of speech and information, and on the other, constraints on human dignity, privacy and what society deems to be inhuman, immoral or illicit.
Public hangings and animal fights (bear, dog, cock and bull) are mostly outlawed now - and anger is aroused when attention is drawn to them. Western (read Christian) teaching exhorts us not to kick the man when he is down, not to mock the weak, to help the needy, etc. These values provide a cement that binds together the world we live in, independent of religious belief. Rejoicing in human suffering can surely not be a part of them.
Leary whines
Personally I enjoy different perspectives, but some folk on these blogs get downright ornary when they [sic] others see things differently than they do.
I'm not sure that Leary appreciates the irony of this comment.(clue: something about pots and kettles).
I don't think I'm getting 'ornery'. I'm not attacking Leary, whom I don't know and have no reason to believe is anything other than a fine, upstanding human being, but I do reserve the right to take exception with what Leary says. I believe I have always done this in a civil fashion.
If Leary finds the prospect of criminal trials that can lead to deprivation of freedom, and perhaps life, 'entertaining' then that is his/her right - as is mine to disagree; that is largely what these blogs are for.
But each time I state a contrary opinion to Leary's we get this 'Frank's getting at me again' line. Frank is not getting at Leary - occasionally he replies to comments that bug him, but regardless of the poster. The last person I 'got at' was the Col, as I remember, who is rather thicker skinned and less self-centred.
I don't 'feel compelled to question' what Leary says - I choose to respond to any post if the whim takes me. My posting history will bear this out. If a disproportionate of these posts come from Leary, then, as I have indicated in a previous post, this may be a reflection of their content.
FrankM
for the love of sanity, let's stop this nonsense Frank. You don't like me and I don't like you. Enough. I find you rightous and sour to the extreme, as well as downright delusional.
How the hell can you claim to be "civil" when you write things like "Leary whines" and "less self-centered" and such. How do you not see those comments as insulting?
Enough. Please ignore my posts. And I will do the same to yours.
Enough.
That isn't whining?
rightous and sour to the extreme, as well as downright delusional
I rather like this - perhaps I shall adopt it as my byline.
But I fail to see why I should ignore your posts. If you are going to exercise your right to post, then I shall exercise mine to comment.
You ignore mine if you wish, Leary. That's your prerogative. We live in a democracy, and I am not harassing you - merely responding to what you say.
I shall continue to post as I feel the urge until the blog closes or I am removed. In the words of our host, the Col, deal with it .
FrankM
Frank...I'll never understand how you can keep arguing that you don't personalize responses to other posters when i think it seems as clear as the words on the page that you do, but you've repeatedly stated your reasoning for disagreeing...so please...
Leary, I was reading several of these posts when Gene Hackman's hilarious "I feel like I'm going insane" line from The Birdcage came to mind....and so your final "for the love of sanity, stop this" was perfect timing...at least to my way of thinking. :)
Hello Marliese :)
It would be so much nicer if you were around more often...
I like this idea Col- very much, and the same idea might work with Bruce as well- the next time he gets oh so close to the light of day...
Thanks Bobby for the compliment at the beginning of this post
gracias, Marliese. I have no idea why I keep getting drawn into these silly spitball fights. I honestly have zero problem with someone disagreeing with me...hell, I disagree with myself often. I just don't like being insulted.
Is you avatar really a photo of you? It seems like a character in a F. Scott Fitzgerald story. Are you Zelda reincarnated?
alright, I am an idiot, but I am going to try this one last time.
I have asked you to ignore my posts, Frank, because clearly they irritate you and you feel compelled to denounce me.
For example, in the previous thread I made a tongue in cheek comment about Kerouac punching out Charlie. To everyone else I think they say it was intended as humor. But you felt obliged to insult me with your "Arrested Development" line. Why? Why can't you just see something you don't like as just somebody with a different sense of humor or perspective than you? Why do you feel so compelled to belittle and insult someone who's thinking or humor fails to meet your lofty standards.
It is not whining, it is a straightforward request to stop this idiot nonsense so that people can focus on more interesting matters. And hopefully venture a thought without the fear of being derided by the likes of you.
Not a whine. Just a plain old plea.
ah...St. Circumstance and Bobby, I sincerely appreciate your kind words...you're both very generous, and your supportive compliments very encouraging...
Really, in the last few weeks, you've said some of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me on the blogs...and I appreciate it more than i can say. Thank you. :)
Leary, no, not channeling Zelda.
Poor Zelda.
It's Marilyn! Google 'Marilyn Monroe in big hat' and you'll see. :)
St. Circumstance, since Zelda was mentioned...just a little LA fyi, the apt house where F Scott Fitzgerald lived with Sheilah Graham and dropped dead of a heart attack is just across the strip and over a block or two from the Chateau.
And when your trip gets closer, remind me and I'll explain where 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' is too...same West Hollywood neighborhood.
And then there's Book Soup and the cool news stand next door, and Duke's ...the coffee shop that used to be at the old Tropicana Motel on Santa Monica Blvd...where Sanders stayed when he wrote a lot of The Family, now located next to the Whiskey on the strip...and on and on...
I love LA.
Back on topic...
Col, your "if I were an LA District Attorney in 2011" idea is brilliant...ideas like this earn your blog its 'Official' TLMB status.
Yes- this really was a great idea..
my journey down the California coast will be in the Spring Marliese- and I will absolutely be asking you again for some tips before I go...
Interesting - tried to Make reservations a few days ago at the Marmount for my birthday and the surrounding days which I will be in the LA portion of my trip- and they wouldn't sell rooms yet??
They told me they " hadn't set Spring rates yet" and I need to call back...
I have been around a bit- but never heard that before in my life..
lol- what do they adjust rates by season according to weather??
:)
St., the Chateau is a sleazy overrated den of bloated egoes and expensive coke whores: you don't need it. If Patty were you, she'd go stay at the Andaz which was the old "Riot House" from the Led Zeppelin days. Much, MUCH cooler.
Ahhh Patty- great minds think alike lol
We looked into that as well- and will most likely go that way instead...
I hear they have a pool on the roof with a nice bar and a good view of LA...
although...
I have had the fascination with the Chateau for such a long time...
I may deal with the coke whores anyway lol...
and as far as over-bloated Egos...
lol - I think I will be o.k.
But I do appreciate this and all tips about the area from all my friends out there who have them to offer...
St. Circumstance, the chateau and some other places only book three months ahead...they don't want to clog their system with eventual changes and conflicts and no shows etc.
There are a lot of elegant, beautiful, traditional, cool hotels in Beverly Hills and West Hollywood...i have no doubt you'll do your homework and go from there...you know what you want.
Patty's Just Sayin.
Thanks Patty- Im listening
Thanks Marliese :)
I don't usually get into someone else's argument, but I can't help it.
I am so with you Leary. Frank, you are sanctimonious and worse, you are humorless. No reason to take leary's throwaway comments like assaults on human rights.
and please, the commonplace Latin tags? Satis, iam....
muchos muchos gracias Fiona.
I teach this writing class and I always tell my students that one of the keys to creative writing is to be unafraid to be wrong. Because unless you are Faulkner or such if you write ten pages you will have to throw out four of them and rewrite the other six.
Point being I feel the same way about posting on these blogs. People should be able to post a thought or a joke or such without the fear of being assaulted and insulted by someone who disagrees with them. There is enough difficulty and conflict in life without having to deal with it here. I thank you and Marliese and Bobby and others who seem willing to speak out against nastiness. I honestly feel like an idiot for getting involved in these tiffs, but my Irishness just doesn't accept being insulted.
now on to more interesting matters.
Steve Grogan was not involved in the Labianca murders.
Unless new evidence comes out showing he was, Steve will never be charged in those killings.
George Vreeland Hill
George Vreeland Hill said...
Steve Grogan was not involved in the Labianca murders.
Unless new evidence comes out showing he was, Steve will never be charged in those killings.
???? not involved?? He was in the car! That is conspiracy right there, just like Susan. I wasn't involved, but then again I was 2 at the time and living in the Phillipines
Post a Comment