Robin Olsen, a pathetic human being in my opinion, is determined to attack the beautiful book RESTLESS SOULS because she fears it will undermine the book about her imaginary friend Patti Tate that she will never write.
In so doing she has leveled charges against the book that are provably false, and gone to Hometown Buffet to rile up Orca Tate about the book, leading to more pointless drivel.
I'll address whatever bullshit I feel like when I feel like it because that is how he Col Rolls!
**** Robin/ Orca sound off about Patti being buried in the Tate plot. They make it sound like some sort of Lesbian Bake Off that allowed Patti to be buried next to her mom and sister. Actually Alisa did the only thing that mattered- she got Roman's permission since he had bought the damn plot for wife and son. She did,in fact, Orca, pretend to be a member of the Tate Family since homophobic laws back then would have prevented her from overseeing burial of her partner.
So there we go, one moronically false comment debunked. I've posted the original burial forms and Polanski's letter.
Trust nothing that these two losers say.
40 comments:
Dont get mad Col, I deleted a post cause I put it under wrong thread. I just wanted to say to all those people who slammed me on other TLB boards for saying she was a psycho and should be avoided like the plague, HAHA I told you so! No I didn't have any proof, when I made my statements, but viewing everything thru common sense eyes, it was plainly obvious. Some boards were blinded by the fact she was posted on their blogs they missed the obvious, which is she is a loser psycho attaching herself to the victims families for her own personal gains. I won't bother to name names, you know who you are.
Most of my thoughts about Restless Souls can be found elsewhere, but since we are on the subject of the burial plot and the Col himself brought it up: I found it very curious in the book that twice it is mentioned that Sharon's casket was visible when Doris was interred and again when Patti was interred. I have personal experience with burying cremains on top of an established traditional full sized grave and here in NY State at least the scenario described in Staman's book (twice) would not have been possible.
I also wondered about whether or not a burial vault would have been a requirement for a casket burial in 1969 and so I did a little research: In California, a burial vault is not required by law but may be required per policy by the owners and operators of any given cemetery. I contacted the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to ask this very question: Would someone buried in a casket in 1969 at Holy Cross Cemetery in Culver City been required to also have a burial vault? My credentials as a blogger on a Charles Manson related internet site apparently weren't bona fides enough to get a serious answer. But here the Col supplies us with documentation that Patti Tate's cremains were placed in a burial vault, so it begs the question of the authenticity of any sighting of Sharon's steely blue casket post-burial.
Starship, you seem bent on nitpicking at every detail in an effort to prove that everything in Restless Souls is a fabricated lie. I've watched and remained silent, but this has reached a new level of absurdity in an outlandish effort to twist the facts as you see fit--which, for the record, are incorrect.
I'm not sure what the difference would be in a burial from 1969 and a burial in 2000 as far as a vault and neither do you. I can only speculate that perhaps in 69 they weren't needed and by 2000 they were--which seems likely and therefore the forms in 2000 included vault fees even if there is no vault--a fee that I did not question then, would not think to question now and quite frankly can not believe that you have decided to use it as proof that what's written in Restless Souls is fabricated.
What I can tell you with 100% accuracy is what I saw when I buried my partner in that grave--one end of the grave site was dug up, Sharon's casket was exposed, Doris Tate's cremains box was at the end of the casket and we placed Patti's ashes next to Doris' in nothing but pure mother earth.
Alisa
There will always be haters. I have literally had people that what not in the room with me on some experiences assure me they know what happened in said room. Let it be.
Alissa,I just finished the book, i thought it was pretty dang good!!
But even if people thought it sucked, you should still get a pulitzer for having to deal with Robin!! She is insane I do beleive, and her homophobic statements are ridiculous and shows her mentality. Some boards may be enamored by her postings, Im
glad this one is not! Common sense goes a long ways people!
Ms. Statman,
I'm glad you replied because it gives me the opportunity to say that I am not a hater, that I also find your book compelling and full of many truths and insights into how the victims' survivors, victims themselves, managed to carry on. If you read my 'review' I thought I made that clear. if not, I am sorry.
I bought your book, and am glad I did. There is much about you and your story I do not doubt. And yes, you can call me a nit picker, I suppose I am, but I don't believe you or anyone should be surprised that people will have doubts when it is the details of the book itself which raises those doubts. The dialogue is good and I commend you from not hiding from it as you have responded not just to my comments but others as well.
Ms. Statman,
I sincerely admire your articulate composure in the midst of this disgusting nit picking.
Your book is brilliant, beautiful, and brave...
Starship,
Your wrong on this one. My sister worked in the office at Holy Cross in the late 70's and early 80's. Even back then i asked her about Sharon...No vault. Give it a rest.
Ok, Shimmy. I'm entitled to my doubts, especially when they are backed by a set of facts and not made up out of thin air. No vault for Sharon? Ok, I shall take your word for it.
California may very well be different, as it is in so many other things, but my experience in NY State is that great care is given to cremains being buried in an already established grave in that it is buried at most four feet deep so that the original interment is not disturbed. So I am given to wonder.
Starship said>>>>>> But here the Col supplies us with documentation that Patti Tate's cremains were placed in a burial vault, so it begs the question of the authenticity of any sighting of Sharon's steely blue casket post-burial.<<<<<<<
You're mistaken.
In the above post, you are confusing a burial vault with a cremation vault.
From my own experience, i believe the 80.00 vault fee on the invoice is for a cremation vault...a container to protect a cremated remains urn as it is being placed in a grave without a burial vault/liner.
This challenge to Ms. Statman's 'authenticity' is sickening to me, especially in the sensitive matter of her partner's final resting place.
Jesse2112 & Marliese, Thank you for your thoughts...
Marliese I sincerely apologize for you getting the brunt of anger that Dickhead so clearly intends for me, yet sadly took out on you.
Marliese, no, I am not confusing burial vaults...my point being that if one is required for cremains than I would expect that one would be required for a casket...but I could be wrong, or maybe things are different now then they were in 1969.
I just believe it is unlikely that a casket would be exposed like that. But yet it is a scene in the book which carries an emotional wallop. So because I am distrustful that the scene is authentic, and because I am such a nit picker with OCD, it makes me suspicious of other more important aspects of the book as well.
Hey Dickie, we are a place of research, okay? Its just a name. We could have called it "Phred," but that would have been weird. Like you.
"I just believe it is unlikely that a casket would be exposed like that." - starship
I agree, although each state and cemetery may be different. My family has a plot in NYC with places for 9 caskets. 8 have been filled. I was at all the ceremonies except for one. I never saw another casket when a new one was being lowered into the earth. That would have been too much for our family to bear.
Dickhead, it's hard to engage you on serious footing when you ONLY show up to hate. Never once have you appeared on any of the blogs and contributed in a positive fashion. Nuff sed...
Matt.
This blog is based on hate. Colonel spews venom towards others with every thread and comment he writes. He expresses hate constantly. He has from the beginning.
Matt. You are a long time participant here. You have NEVER objected to the Colonel’s abuse of others. You ONLY speak when you are being abused directly. You are completely blind to the constant hate expressed here otherwise. You have never once spoken out against the Colonel when he’s insulted others. You’re a hypocrite and a heel. I’m not a hater. I’m a man who is brave enough to speak the truth within the confines of a completely hateful and intimidating environment. One person’s “breath of fresh air” is another person’s hater. The pendulum swings both ways. The problem is that the pendulum is never allowed to swing both ways here, or on your blog for that matter.
Intimidation. This blog is based on intimidation. Colonel intimidates bloggers into keeping silent. For every Danielle who bravely comes forth and describes my words as a “breath of fresh air”, there are certainly dozens of others who agree. They are simply too afraid to speak.
Matt you are a smart guy. I don’t have to explain the obvious to you further. You know all this to be true.
If exhibiting enough courage to speak the truth and level the playing field every now and then makes me a hater, then I’m guilty as charged and damn proud of it.
Nuff sed.
The only power anyone has over you, Dickie, is the power that you give them yourself.
Nuff sed.
Dickhead, the Col runs his blog his way. I doubt very much that if I scolded him he would change his ways. If I disagreed with his persona to the extent that it bothered me I just wouldn't come here to read any longer. Simple as that.
Dickhead said >>>>>>>Marliese.
Your hypocrisy is nauseating.
Starship’s research has certainly reached a new level of OCD with this cremains baloney, but you take the cake for biggest nitpicker in cyberspace. Your name should be “Scrutiny” instead of Marliese. I have yet to see you accept a single statement from anyone at face value without evidence. Accepting everything in this book at face value is a complete 180 for you. You and Starship have more in common than you realize. >>>>>>>
Well. I've been called a hypocrite by someone named Dickhead. Good for you.
I'm glad you noticed how frustrated i get when people pass off bullshit as fact. You're right...i voice my objection on that sort of thing frequently. So it's a compliment that anyone can recall my history there, though I think calling me the biggest nitpicker in cyberspace is a bit dramatic, a bit of a reach. But whatever, you're entitled. Beats being called the c word.
I like this book. This book is breaking my heart. I find it real. I don't think it's inauthentic or fabricated. i don't think Alisa Statman is a ruthless liar.
I base the gut feeling i have about the book on information that I believe is factual. I believe these people. So WTF do you want me to say? It's my opinion, and i believe my opinion is substantiated by factual circumstances.
On the other hand, I read Debra's statement...I bring up Debra because there's generally an underlying support for Debra in a lot of what you post...in response to the book, and my gut reaction was what a foot stomping little temper tantrum she's having...why doesn't she just write her own book?
And please...let's be fair about facts...Debra Tate has misspoken many times. Want some examples? Here's just a little one...she claims the anal sex Roman Polanski forced on an underage girl was "consensual." Who the fuck is Debra Tate to say such a thing about a 13 year old child? What kind of opinion is that, based on the facts of that crime, or the mere fact that there cannot legally be mutual consent between an adult and a 13 year old child? Debra has misspoken many times.
I understand what the author means when she explains the book is about about Patti's perspective from the time she was an 11 year old child and I understand that liberties were taken. And I don't know how anyone could read any of Brie's sections and not think they're genuine. Oh but I did find one mistake...in the section about Van Houten's parole appeal, she refers to the California State Supreme Court as the Superior Court. But that just makes it real to me...an edit issue, and to her credit, as she goes on, she correctly refers to the proper court. So what. Doesn't make the book inauthentic, in my personal opinion.
You usually show up here only when so inclined to rant and rave and attack someone personally, so have at it. Dickhead.
Dickhead said >>>>>>>> Why would a woman of your extreme sensitivity participate here in the first place? Do you even read the threads? Do you read ColScott’s words? Colonel is the most ignorant, insensitive, classless, douche bag you could unearth. How do you feel about that woman giving a blowjob with her asshole in your face? Great photo. Is that your idea of sensitivity? How do you feel about ColScott’s constant hurtful words towards Debra Tate and others? Is that your concept of sensitivity? If you are so classy, how do you justify your participation here? How does your extreme sensitivty allow you to stomach ColScot but not Starship?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am sensitive, Dickhead. Been told I'm sensitive, and too sensitive my whole life.
I justify my participation here because as a child growing up very nearby in Southern California when all of it occurred, I was afraid to go to sleep at night, afraid of my own bedroom window. I want to know the truth, I think all the killers are liars, and I trust that the col's focus is on finding truth. I expect the ugliness...it's an ugly subject matter. I like his sense of humor, I don't think he's ignorant, i think he's usually right about stuff, and I like his thread titles.
Apparently a lot of other people do too because while everyone loves to rag on about the Col, they're right on it whenever he updates the blog. Also, he doesn't have double standards...he's not going to chastise me for saying an occasional fuck while it's okay for him to say it. He's not a jerk that way. And he was nice to me once when I needed someone to be nice to me on the boards. I'm loyal that way. So shoot me.
If I don't like something he's posted, or don't like a picture, like Matt says...participation here is voluntary, i don't have to look at it. So yeah, i don't read all the threads, and i skip through a lot of what i do read and miss stuff...so you got me there. But you know, the picture you're talking about...at least it's a good looking ass, i don't see any ass 'hole' and the only dick i see is yours.
As for Starship, I don't understand his obstinate attitude in response to explanations about the burial of cremated remains, along with apparently what he admits he's been told is the law in California. Someone has even posted here verifying first hand information from a cemetery employee...is that not authentic enough that there has to be a 'but'? Furthermore, his experience in New York State is not relevant. Again, i don't believe Alisa Statman is lying, especially not in the sensitive matter of her partner's final resting place...so yeah, i can't stomach the implication that she is lying to give that particular portion of the book more emotional wallop. I think that would be a pretty despicable thing to do...in my sensitive opinion.
Loyal to Sharon, Poirot? Sharon, incase no one has told you, is dead.
Now let's all just lay off of Marliese. She's a lovely, senitive, thoughtful blogger and we need her.
Wow, some of you people are a trip.
If you don't like the Col's blog, then why do you read it? Jus wondering. Heck, I dont like Cats or Lynards sites, but instead of bashing them I just dont log on.
Pretty simple right??
Now lets get back to whats important, ME!! Alissa said my name on a post, I feel special now, Someone get her to do it again please,before this feeling goes away!!!
I can't stand Robin, but is that really her butt Col? If it is and she can keep her mouth shut, I might have to change my mind.
I know,I know, what a sexist thing to say, but c'mon people, thats a cute butt!
April 19, 2012, 7:00 PM
John D’Agata and Jim Fingal Address the Facts
By JOHN WILLIAMS
Minutes before John D’Agata, Jim Fingal and Heidi Julavits appeared at McNally Jackson on Prince Street Wednesday night to discuss the controversial book “The Lifespan of a Fact,” two young women in the crowd were overheard discussing the nature of writing. “When you get down to it,” one told the other, “it’s really all just fiction.”
This was the first sign that at least some of those gathered would be on Mr. D’Agata’s side. “Lifespan” takes the form of an argument between him and Mr. Fingal, who had the impossible task of fact-checking an essay about a Las Vegas teenager’s suicide that Mr. D’Agata had published in the literary magazine The Believer several years ago.
Mr. D’Agata stumps for the elasticity of facts in the service of larger truths or artistic style. In one of the book’s more notorious passages, he says he changed the number of strip clubs in Las Vegas for his essay because “the rhythm of ‘thirty-four’ works better in that sentence than the rhythm of ‘thirty-one.’ ”
Jennifer McDonald, writing on the cover of the Times Book Review, was one of many critics who wasn’t buying it: “D’Agata uses ‘facts’ that aren’t facts to make a statement about a ‘reality’ that is real for no one but himself.”
In person, Mr. D’Agata was soft-spoken, a far cry from his combative persona in the book. He started by thanking the crowd for not showing up with rotten vegetables. He and Mr. Fingal explained that the book’s text was a heightened version of their real-life exchanges, crafted to increase the drama of their conflict and make the whole thing more readable, and that they are now friends.
Ms. Julavits, a founding editor of The Believer, said someone at the magazine had dubbed Mr. Fingal’s original, less coherent pile of fact-checking documents “The Monster.” Mr. D’Agata drew laughs when he called it a “thrillingly obsessive, anal document.” Read more…
Ok, please allow me this: again, the reason I am being an OCD nit picker on this issue is because I have personal experience in burying cremains in an already established grave...in accordance with the law and cemetery policies.
So even though this relevant experience took place in ny state, unless any of you have experienced it first hand, then I think my thoughts on this are more relevant than yours.
Ah Patty, hi, and thanks, i really appreciate what you said. :)
Starship said>>>>So even though this relevant experience took place in ny state, unless any of you have experienced it first hand, then I think my thoughts on this are more relevant than yours.<<<<<<<<
I have had first hand experience in California...far more than I wish, and arranged for my grandmother's cremated remains to be placed in my grandfather's grave in Western New York State.
However, the point was...state law and regulations regarding cremated remains burials in an existing grave in New York State are not relevant to cremated remains burials in an existing grave in the State of California, and I'm guessing that you followed the law with your "experience" in New York State..experience you are citing to question (f not discredit) Ms. Statman's account of burying her partner's cremated remains in California.
Marliese: Interesting article and commentary.
Jesse2112…um, I just wanted to say Jesse2112 again.
Starship: the problem here, as I see it, is that this is a thread that set about to answer the most (in my opinion) egregious accusations Olsen presented on Debbie’s website about Restless Souls. To give documentation and therefore proof that what Olsen posted is incorrect. You then took that proof to set about a whole new allegation and thus perpetuating more lies about myself and Restless Souls for which you have no proof. If, for instance, your extensive experiences of burials had here in Cali, it may have been an interesting (though inaccurate) debate.
More often than not, I’m criticized for coming onto these blogs to comment. “They" say it’s unprofessional, that it’s ruined the integrity of Restless Souls, and that I’ve embarrassed the Tate family by doing so. They claim that I’ve attacked Debbie Tate when all I’ve actually done is address her attack on me. What they don’t understand is that it is on these very blogs that the lies about me were started and so it is here where they must be addressed. Lies that (as documented here) were started by Olsen over 11 years ago.
At that time, because I had Patti’s children in my custody, I decided to remain silent—as I knew this would be Patti’s wishes. She would have told me to take the high road, not stoop to their level, and to let it go.
The problem with that theory is that people assume silence = guilt and therefore Olsen’s claims (along with the help of Bill Nelson and others) had a decade to snowball into a massive fictitious freak show of who I was and what I’d done. And, as we’ve learned through the Hitler and Goebbels’ legacy: that people will believe any lie, if it is big enough, and told often enough, and told loud enough. So, I’m here and on other blogs to be in your face a little bit to hopefully put to rest some of the old lies and to try to stop some of the new lies (such as your vault claim) from gaining any sort of momentum.
For the doubters and the closet readers who will be reporting to others on the Statman-hating and “pro-Sharon” websites/blogs/discussions: No matter what you say, in my heart, I know that Patti, PJ, and Doris are proud of Restless Souls because it is nothing more than a loving tribute to their memory. And, I’m equally confident that they’re proud of me for taking a stance against those who attempt to turn the book into anything but that loving tribute.
I read a comment on another blog where one of Paul's passages was flagged as suspect because he remembered exactly how a window sounded when he opened it. Um, he was a "Military Intelligence Officer". Those guys are trained to remember everything. Sights. Sounds. Smells. Nothing gets past them.
In open forums everyone has an opinion. Sometimes I'm impressed with the deep thought and consideration put into peoples' comments. Other times I'm reminded that many people speak from a point of their basest fears and hates.
As an old favorite comedian of mine Gallagher says, "The public are bovine".
Marliese in an Angel :)
Mrs. Statman- your book was an incredible tribute to some real American Hero's who suffered way too much... I feel honored that you would spend a few minutes discussing this with us, and graced by your presence here...
I read the book twice, and I am Pro Sharon, and pro Statman
and Marliese in an Angel....
:)
Alissa, thank you for responding to my post and understanding the purpose was to inject a little humour into the discussion.
I am sure it is very hard for you to have to explain every detail in a book you worked so hard on. Please keep in mind that if people didnt question things, we would be more of a society like North Korea than the great USA. And just ignore the ones that are disrespectful or just plain mean.
AlisaStatman said...>>>>>>
Marliese: Interesting article and commentary. <<<<<<
Hi,I didn't post an article...just a rant in response to that troll, dickhead. Starship posted the article.
Your composure with all this is such a lesson in civility. i'm embarrassed and ashamed of the hate that's been tossed at you from the blogs.
I wish you and Brie peace.
I
ST. Circumstance said...>>>>
Marliese in an Angel :)<<<<<
I'm glad you're here, St. Circumstance. You always make everything all better. :)
Marliese I am always here if you need me
:) Saints and Angels need to stick together
Hello again, Ms. Statman,
Again, I bear you no ill will. I am not on Debra's side in any of this, I am merely responding to what I read in my copy of your book through the perspective of my own experience.
I make no claim about a vault because I am not privy to the facts, although I tried to garner them. I freely admit that Sharon Tate may well not have been buried in one and that her casket may have been exposed twice when cremains were subsequently buried in the same lot.
What I have said is, that because of my own personal experience, I find it unlikely. If you see this as an 'allegation' that's your perogative but it sounds a bit too harsh for my ear.
At the same time, again because of my own personal experience, I find it extremely unlikely that Holy Cross Cemetery and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles would have ever allowed you or anyone else to do what you did without being satisfied that you had Roman Polanski's permission.
So with that, I shall give you and my OCD a well deserved rest.
Post a Comment