Friday, July 29, 2005

There's No Goat Like an Old Goat

Following "Janice's" posts over at KTS is like visting a nursing home to see Granny- it's tough and you feel bad afterwards for pointing out the drool on her shawl. She writes in a big blue scrawl more suited to a small child and replies to like fifty posts at once, all the time citing something she read once as a fact.

She has met NO principal players in this saga.
She has read a few prejudicial books..
She might as well be talking about Clark Kent and Metropolis instead of Tate/LaBianca. It isn't real to her. The KTS ladies are polite to her like to any older lady, never pointing out that she has kind of moved off the plot.

I have nothing against her- she supported me for ten minutes against Heaven back in the day- but even then, she didn't make any sense.

Today she made a snide remark about my facts so this entry is my reply-

Every fact I ever offer is a correct one, not based on the Bug's book or some crap movie. My facts are sturdier than your rattling bones Janice. I will thank you to remember that when the nursing home turns off the computer for the night.

It's Friday- enjoy everybody!!!!

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Thankfully, Heaven at KTS never runs out of inane and inaccurate statements so I don't have to struggle with my daily posts.

For the last few days she has been repeating that Bruce Davis, the new born Christian who wants his freedom, told Clem Grogan in prison that he needed to reveal where they buried Shorty in order to get out.

While you would think a Christian would suggest such a thing because, hmmm I don't know, it was the Christian thing to do, the problem is it didn't happen. Bruce didn't want Shorty found- he always had the chance to claim that Shorty was still alive if he needed to. I know you don't have first hand knowledge like I do, but think about the sheer stupidity of the comment for a moment... the cops wanted to find Shorty to be 100% sure he was dead...whoever revealed the location would get special consideration...and Bruce is gonna tell Clem to do it instead of doing it himself? Doesn't even pass the housewife logic test does it?

What actually happened was that Bobby and Clem were in the same prison, they were friends, Bobby liked the big goofy Clem, the pair worked on a lot of music together in the prison, Bobby being a very accomplished musician and Clem having a strong voice (it is his voice on most of THE FAMILY JAM cd) and Clem complained to Bobby after a parole hearing that the myth was working against him, they would never let him out because they thought he chopped Shorty up, and BOBBY encouraged him to cut a deal to reveal Shorty's remains (see photo).

Thus, through the services of the same bozos like Bug and Kay who prosecuted him, the most mentally unbalanced of the Manson Family Killers now walks among us. Lovely.

Bruce Davis Wants To Move Next Door To You

The KTS Housewives seem to be having a heated discussion about whether Bruce Davis deserves parole more than the next Manson Family killer. Heaven isn't worried because she feels that only Charlie would kill again, because it came so easy to him, even though he never killed ANYONE. Interesting. She also misquotes me as saying Bobby "only" killed a drug dealer- this belittles my point by turning it in on itself. I constantly say that Bobby has served more jail time for killing a drug dealer than anyone in American history. This is an accurate statement.

As far as Bruce is concerned---

1- Their hero the BUG believed Davis was in the UK when Joel Pugh mysteriously committed suicide, perhaps with the help of Bruce.

2- Bruce was not only present at Zero's unlikely game of Russian Roulette, he cleaned the gun afterwards like a nice coverer upper.

3- As one housewife correctly states, he was suspected in the death of Marina Habe.

4- He was convicted in the killing of Gary Hinman.

5- He was convicted in he killing of Shorty Shea.

6- The BUG links Davis to the savage killings of Doreen Gaul and James Sharp.

Should he actually be guilty of these many crimes, then Mr. Davis got off scott free for them.

But hey, KTS is okay if he's released just as long as mean old Charlie stays locked up.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Supreme Doesn't Mean Correct

Heaven at KTS today brings up a good point- if the killers (Sadie, Tex and Katie and Bobby and Bruce and Clem) were given Death Sentences, how could they ever get parole? It has to do with the vagaries of the law.

First off, let's take care of Clem. His trial judge concluded he was almost retarded and did not deserve a death sentence, which automatically overturned the jury decision. He never really had a death sentence. He later cooperated, and got parole. Scary.

The way the law works, if your main sentence is "removed" as in no longer available, you automatically get the next lower sentence. In this case, in 1972 the Supreme Court of the State of California decided that the Death Penalty as it was being doled out without strict guidelines, constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was unconstitutional. Ironically, this was because it was mostly being given to black people.

So immediately, everyone on Death Row got the next lower sentence- life with parole. They could NOT get "life without parole" as this was not an option at the time- this sentence was only taken up by courts in the early 1980s.

Now four years later the Supreme Court, which is only there to INTERPRET the laws, decided the new rules are okay and the Death Penalty came back. BUT it is not retroactive. The killers now had life sentences and that was that. The law allows punishment to go down, not up, for the same offense.

I agree with what Heaven says on an intellectual level, though it doesn't worry me- Tex and Sadie will never walk free. But UNDER THE LAW they have life sentences and UNDER THE LAW have long been entitled to a Parole Date. Change the law I say, don't criticize it.

In Bobby's case, his first trial was hung, in his second Brunner perjured herself, he has been rehabilitated and has remorse. Under the law he is entitled to Parole. Being associated with Charlie, even though he really wasn't in the Family, keeps him locked up.

As far as Charlie goes, I don't think he WANTS to get out so why bother discussing the possibility.

So while I agree that it is bullshit it IS the law.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Kumbaya Charlie, Kumbaya....

Why is it so many people want to be "LED" in their lives? Is it because they want some way of deflecting responsibility for their actions? In the 70s when I was a young Colonel, there was an expression that swept the country after THE EXORCIST- "The Devil Made Me Do It". Now it is "Jesus Made Me Do It." You can be Eric Rudolph and bomb innocent people, but you justify your actions by saying the Lord is to blame. Same with Andrea Yates- kill your own kids and it isn't your fault if Jesus told you to.

If I were Tex Watson and Susan Atkins I would have a very hard time ever waking up again. I stabbed a pregnant lady and many others for no reason that I knew of. After I snapped off the Fame Train circa 1973 and was in jail forever, I'd look for somebody to blame. Thus, they both found Jesus in prison. Jesus forgave them. They can carry on His work.

As the Church Lady says, "How Convenient!"

You would think that after allegedly following Charlie and his alleged commands they would be loathe to follow anyone else. But no- they now do the Lord's work- and if you won't let them breed or be free, then you suck and are against God.

The interesting one to me in this is Bruce Davis- my perception of him was that he was a hardcore badass. He wasn't the Zodiac like some fools would believe- he wasn't clever or even afraid. Yet he too has decided to blame it all on the Lord. I'm thinking there must be other stuff he did we don't know a lot about which drove him into the saving hands.

Jay is Bleeding Lord, Kumbaya....
Chopped a man's head off Kumbaya...
Abby's running Lord, Kumbaya,
Ooooh Lord, Kumbaya

Monday, July 25, 2005

Support the Truth!!!!

The truth does matter no matter what the KTS Haters would have you believe...
And the courts do sometimes get it right...

Today's Telegraph and other papers---

Polanski? He never touched me, says model
By Hugh Davies
(Filed: 25/07/2005)

The former model at the centre of the Roman Polanski libel trial said yesterday that the film director had not talked to her, let alone put his hand on her thigh.

Beatte Telle had declined to give evidence at the High Court hearing over an allegation that Polanski had tried to seduce her shortly after the murder of his wife, Sharon Stone, in 1969. Her statement appears to confirm the Oscar-winning director's claim that a Vanity Fair report about him was untrue.

He called it "an abominable lie" that "dishonours my memory of Sharon".

A jury, without hearing from Miss Telle, was unanimous in awarding Polanski £50,000 in damages against Conde Nast, the magazine's publishers, which is said to face costs of up to £1.5 million. Miss Telle, now 59, said that Vanity Fair's lawyers had repeatedly attempted to contact her to ask her to testify in the case, but she had ignored them.

Once a top model at New York's Ford agency, the Norwegian now lives in reduced circumstances in a one-bedroomed flat in Oslo, with her ailing mother.

However, she appeared to have a vivid memory of the evening Polanski came to her table at Elaine's, the Manhattan nightclub, in August 1969, after his wife was killed by cult followers of Charles Manson.

The jury heard from Lewis Lapham, then a rising young journalist on New York's literary scene, that the director had allegedly tried to proposition her, putting his hand inside her thigh and promising, "I will make another Sharon Tate out of you".

The model said that Mr Polanski did come across to the table where she was eating a steak "and it was if he tried to say something but he didn't".

She said: "I was very young and wore my hair very long. I looked like a beatnik I suppose.

"He never said that he would make me another Sharon Tate or that he would make me a star.

"He never spoke to me at all."

She said: "Polanski just stood there. He just stared at me for ages. Perhaps I reminded him of Sharon Tate."

Miss Telle said that she was with her then lover, Ed Perlberg, and had no idea who Polanski was until he told her in the taxi home later that evening.

She told the Mail on Sunday that lawyers for Conde Naste "wrote to me several times, but I ignored them".

She added: "At one point I said I was coming to London and I would see them but I didn't. I just wanted to put them off. Ed wrote to me too. He wrote all about that night, saying, 'Do you remember how Polanski came on to you? How he said this and that'.

"I just thought, 'If you remember so much about it than you talk about it in court. It isn't how I remembered it'."

The model said that she was pleased for Polanski. "I'm smiling. He didn't touch me, he just didn't. I'm so happy."

She insisted that her modelling days were not over.

"I know I need a little work done, a nip and tuck here and lose a few pounds. But I'll do that and get back working again."

Miss Telle added: "I was considered a beauty, you know. But Polanski was never fresh with me.

"I never spoke to him that night and I never saw him again."

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Understanding (and Avoiding) the Right of Publicity

A brief google gives us some interesting paragraphs....

Right of publicity, which involves a celebrity’s right to commercialize his own name, likeness, personality or other relevant aspects of identity, has been recognized by a number of states. If you work in digital or print media, advertising or other companies that publish a celebrity’s likeness from time to time, you need to know about the right of publicity of the celebrity. A tension may arise between companies’ First Amendment rights to expression on the one hand and the celebrity’s interests on the other. Being careful about the use of the celebrity’s likeness may reduce the risk of a claim by the celebrity that you have violated his right to publicity.


The right of publicity protects each person,celebrity or not, and allows each to control and profit from his or her identity. A majority of states recognize publicity rights either by statute or through case law. California and some others protect publicity rights even after a person’s death.

You may have a multi-million-dollar problem when you use another’s photo without that person’s permission. A jury in California recently awarded a kindergarten teacher, Russell Christoff, $15.6 million for violating his right of publicity. The violation arose when Nestle U.S.A. used his image without authorization on its Taster’s Choice coffee labels
I looked these up for you because I wanted to address an issue raised by Shelby in an earlier post. Apparently, two years ago, Debra Tate, in an effort to control her legal rights as executor of Sharon's estate, issued letters trying to control the posting of photos on the internet. I went through the Sharon Tate Candids Yahoo group with her help and reviewed these asinine comments made by Debra's rep, Robin Olsen.

But all that needed to happen was that Debra need to be replied to-- "Yes you own her likeness for commercial gain. We are not making shirts or posters or mugs, we are not selling anything. These photos are NOT owned by you. You have no claim here. Go away." Because legally she does not.

Similarly, and I must confess, sadly, when they tried to get Nelson to stop selling the Death Photos online, she had no claim at all...she doesn't OWN those photos. Which is how she couldn't stop the exhibit of Fearless Vampire Killers photos in LA this year...or indeed the sale of Sharon's movies.

She COULD stop a photo of Sharon that she doesn't own being used to sell a new car or something... and similarly could also contract for that to happen.

Debra's rights should be respected--- but she doesn't have the right to threaten people randomly.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Words have Meaning

I've been thinking hard about the Polanski libel case. I am glad that he won. Vanity Fair seemed to think "Fuck you Roman, you suck we can say anything we want to." A jury of smart educated English people disagreed. I wonder if in America, where the educated avoid jury duty, what would have happened....

If you do the math, Roman LOST a lot of money bringing suit. He did it on principle. I admire people with principle. It seemed a bit daft to be pursuing- it only dragged up his past indiscretions. It showed me that one of the most important people in his life was Sharon.

Frequent reader Shelby is on my case about Heaven from KTS- but I must say, what bothered me the most about her and still does, is not her opinions, it is her stupid, uninformed opinions. I make it a point to not speak without being fairly certain of the facts that I am spewing. I am not perfect but I try to be. She doesn't care AT ALL. And if her defense can be that "she read it in a book", then she can weasel out of anything.

TODAY she claims that Roman's "original sentence was 50 years." This in regards to the statutory rape claims in 1977. This is stupid, retarded and FALSE. Roman pled guilty with the understanding that there would be NO jail time. When a friend overheard the judge commenting in a toilet that he was going to make an example of Roman despite the plea, he fled.

The VICTIM doesn't hold it against Roman but Heaven does to the point where even lies are not enough for her.

Says it all....

------ I just read that the verdict was UNANIMOUS. LOL at the Roman haters...

------ I just read that the judge ordered Vanity Fair to pay costs...this could be another half a million- this is one of the best things under English law- it prevents BS lawsuits...Hooray!

------ "Its editor, Graydon Carter, shook his head at the verdict while Miss Tate's sister, Debra, smiled." LOL at the Debra haters!

Sharon Tate, Rest in Peace

Polanski wins libel case against Vanity Fair

By Mike Collett-White

LONDON (Reuters) - Roman Polanski won his libel case against Vanity Fair on Friday over an article saying he tried to seduce a Scandinavian "beauty" soon after his wife was murdered while eight-and-a-half months pregnant in 1969.

The week-long trial was peppered with sensational details of the Franco-Polish director's sex life in the "Swinging Sixties" and raw emotion when he burst into tears while giving evidence.

Polanski also made legal precedent, becoming the first libel claimant to sue via video link from another country.

He is wanted in the United States after admitting having sex with a 13-year-old-girl in 1977, and could be extradited there by Britain if he appeared at London's High Court.

He cannot be extradited from France, where he was born and where he lived most of his life since fleeing America in 1978.

England's highest court ruled in February that the 71-year-old should have access to justice despite his crime.

"It goes without saying that, whilst the whole episode is a sad one, I am obviously pleased with the jury's verdict today," said Polanski, who won 50,000 pounds in damages.

"Three years of my life have been interrupted," he added in a statement. "Three years within which I have had no choice but to relive the horrible events of August 1969, the murders of my wife, my unborn child and my friends."

He said the article, published in July 2002, "could not go unchallenged".

"The memory of my late wife Sharon Tate was at the forefront of my mind in bringing this action."

Vanity Fair's editor, Graydon Carter, expressed amazement at the decision, telling reporters outside the court:

"As a father of four children, one of them a 12-year-old daughter, I find it ... outrageous that this story is considered defamatory given the fact that Mr. Polanski cannot be here because he slept with a 13-year-old girl a quarter of a century ago.

"Nevertheless, it's interesting to see how the wheels of British justice move. I wish Mr. Polanski well."


Polanski's private life was the focus of attention for much of the trial, with Vanity Fair attempting to persuade the jury that he was perfectly capable of "callous indifference" to Tate's memory and had no reputation to hurt in the first place.

Thomas Shields, Vanity Fair's barrister, spoke of "Roman's law of morality".

"This law, I suggest to you, knows of no rules, only violations of civilised conduct which it appears can be readily abused," he told the court.

John Kelsey-Fry, barrister for Polanski, argued that Polanski was clearly distraught at the time of Tate's murder.

He also questioned why Beatte Telle, the Norwegian woman whom Polanski allegedly romanced in 1969, had not appeared.

Polanski admitted having sex with a woman four weeks after Tate's murder and seeking solace in sex with teenaged girls from a finishing school in Gstaad, Switzerland, later in 1969.

But he took offence at the article saying he had promised the "Swedish beauty" in the New York restaurant: "I will make another Sharon Tate out of you."

Vanity Fair conceded it was wrong to say Polanski made the "long, honeyed spiel" on his way to Tate's burial, but said the gist of the story was true and took place a few weeks later.

Hollywood actress Mia Farrow, with Polanski during the evening when the alleged incident took place, appeared as a witness, as did Sharon Tate's sister Debra.

Both Tate and Polanski broke down in tears at several points during the trial.

Keith Schilling, solicitor for Polanski, estimated Vanity Fair's costs at 1.5 million pounds. David Hooper, for Vanity Fair, said Polanski would be "out of pocket" to the tune of 300-400,000 pounds due to the costs of the trial.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Untalented Heaven Attacks The Oscar Winning Roman

This morning Heaven attacked Roman as she always does by lying that he slept with two women a day after Sharon's murder (if this were fact do you think the lawyers for Conde Nast would have ignored it?) and then bringing up the intercourse with Samantha Geimer. She says everyone grieves differently. I say HOW DARE YOU JUDGE THE EMOTIONS OF A MAN WHOSE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS KILLED BY THE NAZIS AND THEN HIS NEW FAMILY WAS KILLED BY TEX WATSON!

Does Geimer want her support? From a 2003 Honolulu Star - Bulletin

"Yes, I'm that girl," Geimer says when asked if she's the one whom director Roman Polanski "raped" during a photo shoot in Jack Nicholson's Hollywood Hills home. The incident made, and continues to make, international headlines. "But it was a very long time ago, and I don't really understand why the media is still interested in me about this. No one in Hawaii seems to care."

The crime made Polanksi, charged with drugging and raping a minor, a fugitive. The director of "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby" pleaded guilty in the case, but, faced with the prospect of up to 50 years of jail time, fled before sentencing to Paris, where he has remained exiled. France has no extradition laws.

Geimer and her husband, Dave, another San Fernando Valley product, left Hollywood 15 years ago to join her mother on Kauai. But that didn't stop the media from tracking her down, spending nights in vans parked outside her home waiting for any of the family to step outside, whenever there were rumors that Polanski might be returning to the United States.

REPORTERS' CALLS began again earlier this year when Polanksi was nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Director category for "The Pianist."

"How strange that reporters ask me if Polanksi should win this award because of what he did, or (if he should) be allowed back into the United States to attend the ceremony," Geimer says. "How strange that a woman with three children and a husband and living in a secluded spot on Kauai has to say, 'Just let the Academy members do their job.'"

"After the publicity came out, I knew it was just as bad for him as it was for me. I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it.

[[In order to avoid attacks I just don't need, let me answer what I think...What Roman did was wrong.. allegedly he didn't think feels like the girl's mother fed her to him ala Michael Jackson...but what he did was wrong...his flight from justice to avoid a vengeful judge after a deal was already made I fully support...and why is this different from Bill Nelson? Well, Bill still claims he didn't do anything AND has the nerve to sit in judgement of other people, no matter how bad. Roman just makes amazing films.]]

The Girl in Question Never Testified....Hmmmm....

Polanski called 'sexual predator'
Director Roman Polanski has "a well-deserved reputation as a cynical sexual predator", a defence lawyer has told his libel trial.

But Mr Polanski's lawyer told London's High Court that the director had been "monstrously libelled for the sake of a lurid anecdote".

Mr Polanski is suing over claims he made sexual advances to a woman shortly after his wife was murdered in 1969.

Vanity Fair magazine denies libelling Mr Polanski in the July 2002 article.

Timing of incident

The article said Mr Polanski made advances to "Swedish beauty" Beatte Telle in New York restaurant Elaine's shortly after the death of his wife, Sharon Tate.

The magazine has since accepted the incident did not happen when Mr Polanski was on his way back to Hollywood for Ms Tate's funeral, but said it occurred about two weeks later.

Ms Tate was murdered by Charles Manson's "family" at the couple's home in Bel Air, California.

Mr Polanski won the right to testify from Paris, amid fears that if he entered the UK he would face extradition to the US, where he is still required to face child sex charges.

In his closing speech on behalf of the magazine's publishers, Conde Nast, lawyer Tom Shields said the key to Mr Polanski's libel action was "Roman's law of morality".

"This law knows of no rules - only violations of civilised conduct which, it appears, can be readily excused."

He said the magazine's case was that Mr Polanski was "well capable of behaving badly" by the end of August 1969.

Mr Shields said the fact that Mr Polanski had casual sex within a month of his wife's death revealed a "certain callous indifference" to her memory.

The defence lawyer added: "As to whether Mr Polanski's reputation is capable of being damaged, sadly, we would say, it is beyond repair."

He went on: "An honourable man would come to this court, an honourable man would return to California, an honourable man would not behave the way he behaved - even in the Swinging Sixties."

Mr Shields added: "These matters are not minor blemishes on his reputation. They are scars which can never be healed."

'Symbolic award'

He urged the jury that even if his defence failed, he should not be entitled to any damages and the jury should give Mr Polanski "a symbolic award", such as "the price of a cinema ticket".

"By that symbolic award, you can send a message across the Channel about the moral values which decent people cherish."

Mr Polanski's lawyer, John Kelsey-Fry said the director had been in "utter grief" after his wife's death, not - as the defence team claimed - "utter indifference".

"The truth is that Mr Polanski was about as removed from callous indifference as is possible to imagine," Mr Kelsey-Fry said.

He said that at a press conference on 19 August 1969, it had been an "inescapable fact" that Mr Polanski was not indifferent to his wife's name and memory, "but precisely the contrary".

"He was at pains - and I mean obvious pain - to honour it, protect it and defend it," Mr Kelsey-Fry said.

"The burden is on the defence to prove their case. The most obvious witness to call if their case is true, and she supports it, is Beatte Telle," he added. "You have heard not one word of evidence from her."

In summing up, Mr Justice Eady told the jury that "much has been made of Mr Polanski's lifestyle and his attitude towards casual sex in his earlier years".

But he said it was important to remember that it was not a "court of morals", adding: "We are not here to judge Mr Polanski's personal lifestyle."

Telling them that an "absolute maximum ceiling" of £200,000 in damages could be awarded, he sent the jury out to begin their deliberations.

The case was adjourned until Friday.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Amazingly Talented to the End

Besides defending his reputation regarding his dead wife, Roman continues to make cinematic masterpieces for us to enjoy like this.

Who Gets the Money?

Today on KTS Heaven tries to answer an important question and rather than giving her usual hatched answers from a book, admits that she is not sure of the answer.

They want to know who gets the money.

What money? Any money made off the Tate/Labianca murders by the killers. Under the Son Of Sam Law enacted in the 1980s, the killers are not permitted to profit from their crimes any longer. By any longer, I mean it is likely that Sadie could have made money from her CHILD OF SATAN, CHILD OF GOD book, except I believe the author took her share and vanished. But she wrote that BEFORE the SOS Law.

In actuality, the killers have been able to avoid paying the victims very much simply because they have not made very much money or because they have scammed it through "ministries" like Tex's.

But there has been a lot of money generated- by Charlie and his music. I believe that just the Guns and Roses recording alone generated close to half a million dollars. Now, this would NOT be covered under is unrelated to the crime, though you could argue that Charlie's fame now is related.

So Geffen records wanted to disburse the money and NOT give it to CM. Oh look, young Bartek Frykowski, son of the drug dealing friend of Roman's, had filed and won a judgment against Charlie in 1971 that with interest now equals millions. Here you go kiddo, you get some cash.

So all the music royalties from G and R to Lemonheads have gone to the grown up son of Voytek for the last 15 years give or take.

Glad to explain it all for yas!

Frequent Commentator Shelby445 points out that Bartek died a year or so ago. She is correct- but the judgment still stands and goes to his estate. Here is some convoluted plea from Sadie to give the estate money....

Tasteless and Vulgar?

Editor recalls Polanski's 'vulgar' seduction technique

20/07/2005 - 14:19:36 A New York editor told the British High Court today of Roman Polanski’s “tasteless and vulgar” romancing of a beautiful Scandinavian model just after his wife’s brutal murder.

A New York editor told the British High Court today of Roman Polanski’s “tasteless and vulgar” romancing of a beautiful Scandinavian model just after his wife’s brutal murder.

Lewis Lapham, who has been editor of Harper’s Magazine for 25 years, was the source of the anecdote at the centre of the film director’s libel case against Conde Nast over a July 2002 Vanity Fair article.

It said that in the aftermath of 26-year-old Sharon Tate’s death in August 1969, at the hand of Charles Manson’s “Family”, Polanski made sexual advances to a “Swedish beauty” in Elaine’s restaurant in New York, “inundating her with his Polish charm”.

It recounted Lapham, as saying: “Fascinated by his performance, I watched as he slid his hand inside her thigh and began a long honeyed spiel which ended with the promise ‘And I will make another Sharon Tate out of you’.”

Polanski’s QC, John Kelsey-Fry, said the article meant that after the death of his wife and unborn child, Polanski went “on the pull” and exploited her name as a “tool of seduction”.

Polanski, backed up by actress Mia Farrow, says the incident never happened.

Lapham, at 70 a year younger than Polanski, told Mr Justice Eady and a London jury that he went to Elaine’s, a haunt of those in the “Seven Lively Arts”, three times a week in the 1960s.

He met his fiend, Wall Street financier Edward Perlberg and his girlfriend, Beatte Telle, a model with the Ford Agency.

“She was a very lovely girl. She was a fashion model from one of the Scandinavian countries and a very calm, pleasant, attractive woman”.

Lapham said he had never met Polanski but knew about him as the Tate killing was the major news story that month.

He had known Abigail Folger, one of the four friends who died with Tate, since she was two, as his mother was her godmother.

He said that he recalled Polanski’s entrance at 10.30pm or 11pm that evening “imposing a hushed silence upon the company in the restaurant”.

“As I said it’s a very noisy bustley place used to celebrity, very rarely reduced to shock and awe, and it was that kind of feeling which greeted Mr Polanski’s arrival because of his notoriety, because of the horrific circumstances of his wife’s murder and the general sympathy for a man having suffered that sorrow.”

He was sitting between Mr Perlberg and Miss Telle, at his customary No 4 - “Writers table” – when Polanski pulled up a chair between himself and the model.

“He began to talk to her in a forward way. He began to praise her beauty and speak to her – romance her.

“At one point he had his hand on her leg and said to her ‘I can put you in movies. I can make you the next Sharon Tate’.

“He meant it as a compliment. He was attempting to impress her, wanting to express his admiration for her looks.

“I was impressed by the remark, not only because it was tasteless and vulgar but because it was a cliché.

“I didn’t speak to Mr Polanski. I had no conversation with him – he wasn’t interested in me.”

Sometime after that, he added, Mr Perlberg and his girlfriend left the restaurant and he assumed that Polanski joined friends at another table.

Lapham confirmed he was source of the contentious passage in the article which was written by AE Hochner, “a very well regarded author in the US and authorised biographer of Ernest Hemingway”.

Earlier, the magazine’s QC, Tom Shields, said it was for the jury to decide what motive Lapham and Mr Perlberg – who were not Conde Nast employees and who had come from America to give evidence on oath – might have had to make up their story.

Polanski gave his evidence on videolink from Paris because of possible extradition from the UK following his flight from the US after his 1977 guilty plea to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The magazine, which says its article was substantially true, now accepts that the incident did not happen when Polanski was on his way back to Hollywood for Miss Tate’s funeral but says it occurred about two weeks later.

It claims that, even if its defence fails, Polanski should not receive any damages as his reputation had already been affected by his 1977 conviction and libertine past.

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Conde Nast Publications Inc. opened its defense of a libel lawsuit by Roman Polanski with testimony from a magazine editor who said he was struck by the director's ``tasteless and vulgar'' comments to a young Norwegian model.

Polanski, 71, is suing Conde Nast at the High Court in London over an article printed by its Vanity Fair magazine, which reported that the film director tried to seduce the woman at a New York restaurant on the way to the burial of his wife, Sharon Tate. Tate was brutally murdered by followers of cult leader Charles Manson in August 1969.

Polanski ``had his hand on her leg and said to her `I can put you in movies. I can make you the next Sharon Tate,''' Lewis Lapham, the editor of New York-based Harper's magazine and the source for Vanity Fair's description of the incident, told the court. ``I was impressed by the remark not only because it was tasteless and vulgar, but also because it was a cliche.''

Polanski, whose films include ``The Pianist,'' says the article is an ``abominable lie'' and an affront to his honor and the memory of his late wife. He testified this week via video link from Paris, where he lives, out of concern he could be extradited to the U.S. if he enters the U.K. Polanski left the U.S. after pleading guilty in 1977 to having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Tate, an actress, and four of her friends were murdered by members of Manson's ``family'' in Bel Air, California while Polanski was in London. Tate was about eight months pregnant at the time. Manson, 70, was convicted of murder in 1971 and is still imprisoned at Corcoran State Prison in California.

`Hushed Silence'

Lapham, 70, today testified that he was dining with a friend, Edward Perlberg, and Perlberg's ``attractive'' girlfriend Beatte Telle at Elaine's restaurant on New York's Upper East Side in late August 1969, when Polanski entered the room, inspiring a ``hushed silence'' among the diners.

Polanski pulled a chair up to Lapham's table and began to talk to Telle ``in a forward way, began to praise her beauty, to romance her,'' Lapham said.

He also told the court that he accepts that the article, published in July 2002, incorrectly reported that the alleged incident happened while Polanski was traveling to Tate's funeral and that some of the wording in the piece, such as describing Polanski's approach as a ``long, honeyed spiel,'' was chosen by its author, journalist AE Hotchner.

Vanity Fair has claimed that the ``guts'' of the allegation are true and that the incident occurred within three weeks of Tate's murder. Graydon Carter, the magazine's editor, has been in court for the proceedings.


Perlberg, 66, supported Lapham's account of their evening at Elaine's, testifying that Telle told him in a taxi ride on the way home from the restaurant that the director had told her to come to Hollywood and he would ``make another Sharon Tate out of her.''

``I thought this was generally creepy,'' Perlberg told the court. ``We ended up agreeing that he had behaved improperly.''

Telle is not a witness for either side in the proceedings.

Much of the earlier evidence in the case has focused on Polanski's admitted ``laissez-faire'' attitude toward sex and his relationships with other women.

Polanski has testified that he and Tate, who married in 1968, didn't have an exclusive relationship and that he had casual sex with multiple women while they were together. He also said that he slept with someone about four weeks after her death. Still, the couple had a ``very happy marriage,'' he said.

Actress Mia Farrow, who was dining with Polanski at Elaine's on the evening in question, yesterday backed his version of events, testifying that the director was too distraught to talk about anything but the murder of his wife and unborn child.

Lapham, the editor of Harper's since 1971, said that he had known one of the women murdered by the Manson family along with Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, since she was around two years old.

The case, which opened on July 18, is scheduled to conclude this week.

Bill Nelson is Not King David

It was just a few years ago that Roman's suit was filed against Vanity Fair and who did VF seek as one of their witnesses but the legendary Bill Nelson. They wanted him to testify that Roman had no morals and probably did something like he was accused of. I recall Bill proudly posting about this on his site. The date was May 17, 2003. I remember it like it was only yesterday.

Dee de ede ed e edeeeeeee Flashback....

Michal Gross was a reporter calling Bill for information on Roman. Bill tried to babble something about a hit and run Roman may have been involved in. Gross wanted more. Bill slagged him off on his site,

Then your friendly COL sent an email to Gross---not only telling him about the slagging, but linking to this IMPORTANT site- all about MOLESTO.

This is a site that I PRAY the biddies on KTS and elsewhere read. Last year, during one of my recon missions to infiltrate and annoy, I was STUNNED that people defended Nelson on ANY level.

Read the citation- That the defendant placed both hands "up my shorts"..... That defendant had his fingers inside her underwear for "about ten minutes ... That as she was seated in the jacuzzi on the defendant's lap that she could feel that he had "an erection"....
These girls were TWELVE years old.

Nelson pled "No Contest"to annoying and registered as a sex offender.

And my new fans wonder why I would criticize Yahoo/KTS? How could anyone defend this man under any circumstances?

And what was part of Bill's reply to me? SAYS IT ALL!!!
David, great kind of the Bible...he murdered, committed
adultry, and yet God recorded him as "A man after my
own heart". Now go figure that one out...
Hebrews 11 is a remarkable chapter of faith. You
would not boast about any of
them being in your family, but God did.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

I never Knew that.....

The kitten image is tragic...from the Guardian...

But giving evidence in court today, Farrow said that Polanski had "brushed off" two women who tried to flirt with him as they waited at the bar for their table.

"He paid no attention because we hadn't seen each other since Sharon's murder and that was so huge. I think I might have been crying and was hugging him and he just brushed them off," said Farrow.

Later, she said, Polanski became so upset that they were forced to leave the restaurant and go for a walk.

"We just started walking around and around the block and he told me about visiting the house where Sharon had been killed and the others and a little kitten that Sharon had and the kitten was still there in the blood," she said.

"You can't believe how the atmosphere was in that time of Sharon's death - the brutality of these unsolved murders - it filled everyone."

Asked by John Kelsey-Fry, for Polanski, whether the director of Tess and Rosemary's Baby had behaved inappropriately in any way with anybody on the night in question, Farrow replied: "No."

Under cross-examination by Tom Shields, for Condé Nast, Farrow admitted she could not be sure whether she and her then boyfriend, Andre Previn, had taken Polanksi back to his hotel after dinner.

But she said she was sure she would not have left him alone in the restaurant.

Who Cares if her sister was brutally murdered?

The next posting is from KTS from another uneducated Red State freak who is more interested in her deluded perceptions of the world than she is in reality.

This looks like a good place to throw in my two cents about Debra

Tate. I'm very sorry that her sister was murdered so tragically, but
back about three years ago all that stuff came up about "who owns
what pics" blah, blah, blah and she was claiming that she owned
Sharon's likeness and that no one had the right to post pics of
Sharon (or something to that effect). Anyway, shortly thereafter,
the "Sharon Store" opened and it suddenly came to light why
she didn't want pics of Sharon being swapped for free - she wanted to
SELL Sharon's likeness on merchandise (the old "lining of the
pockets" motive). Then, on Sharon's "Biography" she referred to us
as "ooglers" instead of "fans." That did it for me! Then we found
out that "Miss Perfect Debra" was keeping company with convicted
child molester, Don Wilson. Now, the icing is that she's testifying
for her scumbag brother-in-law, Roman Polanski. Please forgive me if
I've left some holes. My memory sure isn't what it used to be! Any
questions about how I feel about Debra Tate? LOL!


Notice she gives a flip of the head to the horrific murder of Debra's older sister, then adds "but". "But" nothing bitch. Her sister was slain in one of the most awful ways I can think of and you say "but"???? Get bent you sow.

BUT, let us analyze her points to see if she has any, shall we?

Debra Tate and the Tate Estate (sounds like a band) OWN Sharon's image for commercial purposes. Same way the James Dean Estate owns his. This means that only the estate can approve things like commercial items such as tee shirts, cups, etc. It does not mean that she can regulate the use of photos she does not own. Maybe she tried to regulate things on the KTS site, but it would be their studied ignorance that made them react to things.

Hey, sow, "the lining the pockets" motivation is the American way. Just because you're on welfare or food stamps doesn't mean that everyone doesn't want to earn a legal living. Debra owns certain rights she wants to exploit for money. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?

YOU are an have no life except what you live through other people. Debra probably feels OOGLED her whole life- doomed to be in her sister's shadow in life and in death. She's entitled to complain about ooglers.

I don't know who Don Wilson is (sorry) BUT we can wrap this up with the complaint that Debra is doing something wrong by testifying for Polanski. Drop Dead Caryn. Polanski is seeking the truth and protecting the memory of the woman you claim to support. Debra is supporting his quest for truth. AND YOU COMPLAIN about that? Anyone who thinks like you deserves the hell that your life obviously is.

We here at the only OFFICIAL Tate-Labianca site wish Debra and Roman nothing but the best in their battle for truth.

LaLaLaLaLa La La La La La

Mia Farrow Backs Polanski in Libel Suit Against Vanity Fair

July 19 (Bloomberg) -- Actress Mia Farrow today denied that Roman Polanski tried to seduce a woman at a New York restaurant days after the murder of his wife and unborn child, telling a London court the film director was ``unable to talk about anything'' but the brutal slayings.

Polanski is suing Conde Nast Publications Inc. for libel at the High Court over an article printed by its Vanity Fair magazine, which reported that he told a ``Swedish beauty'' he would ``make another Sharon Tate out of her'' during an August, 1969 dinner with Farrow. Tate, also an actress, was murdered by followers of cult leader Charles Manson earlier that month.

Farrow, the star of films including ``Hannah and Her Sisters'' and ``Rosemary's Baby'' and the former long-term companion of director Woody Allen, today testified that Polanski had ``paid no attention'' to two women flirting with him at the bar before their meal at Elaine's restaurant on New York's Upper East Side.

``I remember it because I remember thinking how inappropriate it was,'' Farrow, 60, told the court. She said the memory of the evening was ``scalded in her mind'' and that the two spent most of their time walking the city's streets, talking about the ``brutality'' of the murders and crime scene details.

Polanski, 71, has appeared in the case via video-link from Paris, where he lives, due to concern that he would be extradited to the U.S. on child sex crime charges if he enters Britain. The director, whose films include ``Chinatown'' and ``The Pianist,'' left the U.S. in 1977 after pleading guilty to underage sex with a 13-year-old girl. He hasn't been sentenced for that offence and, as a French citizen, can't be extradited from France to the U.S.

Polanski yesterday told the court that the article was an ``abominable lie'' and an affront to his honor and the memory of his late wife.

Manson's `Family'

Tate and four of her friends were killed by members of Manson's ``family'' in Bel Air, California while Polanski was in London. Tate was about eight months pregnant at the time. Manson, 70, was convicted of murder in 1971 and is still imprisoned at Corcoran State Prison in California.

Conde Nast, based in New York, denies wrongdoing and is contesting the claim on the grounds that the facts of the story are mostly accurate. Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair's editor, has been present at the trial, which began yesterday.

Polanski yesterday testified that he and Tate, who married in 1968, didn't have an exclusive relationship and that he had casual sex with multiple other women while they were together. He also said that he slept with someone about four weeks after her death. Still, he said the couple had a ``very happy marriage.''


Farrow today testified that she didn't view Polanski's promiscuity as ``disrespectful'' to Tate, saying that there was a ``big distinction'' for men between relationships and having sex.

``I could never pass judgment on someone in that frame of mind that seeks comfort in any way that couldn't harm anyone,'' she said.

The Vanity Fair article, published in July 2002, gives an account of an alleged meeting between Polanski and Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harper's literary magazine, at Elaine's while Polanski was on his way back to Tate's Los Angeles burial.

Polanski focused his ``Polish charm'' on the female companion of a friend of Lapham's, the article said. ``I watched as he slid his hand inside her thigh and began a long, honeyed spiel which ended with the promise `And I will make another Sharon Tate out of you,''' the magazine quotes Lapham as saying.

Farrow today rejected the magazine's account, saying that Polanski was clearly ``suffering from the loss of love'' and despair during the dinner.

``He was in very bad shape,'' Farrow told the court. ``All of his friends wanted to be with him to support him.''

Conde Nast accepts that the alleged incident didn't occur on the way to Tate's burial in mid August, but later that same month. Polanski's travel records show that he travel directly from London to Tate's funeral in Los Angeles, his lawyers told the court.

The case, in front of a jury of nine men and three women, is currently scheduled to conclude this week.

Brit Details

Polanski's tears at 'slur on Sharon's memory'

By Richard Alleyne
(Filed: 19/07/2005)

Roman Polanski, the film director, philanderer and fugitive from justice, broke down yesterday as he described his shock at being accused of seducing a beautiful Swedish woman while on the way to the funeral of his wife

Polanski, 72, who has lived in Paris since being caught in an under-age sex scandal in America in 1977, was said to have made his advances at a restaurant just days after his pregnant wife, the actress Sharon Tate, was slaughtered by the Charles Manson clan in 1969.

He said it was an "abominable lie" to say that he put his hand on her thigh, as alleged, and told her that he would make "another Sharon Tate" out of her.

The filmmaker, whose credits include Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown and more recently The Pianist, said the allegations, made in 2002 in the American magazine Vanity Fair, whose editor is Graydon Carter, were "the worst things ever written about me".

He made the comments to the High Court in London yesterday where he is suing for damage to his reputation.

In a British legal first, he was allowed to give evidence via a live video link from abroad, to avoid any chance of being extradited to the US. The jury heard that Polanski was working in London in August 1969 when his 26-year-old wife was killed with four friends at their home in Bel Air, California.

The article, celebrating the 40th birthday of the Manhattan restaurant Elaine's, claimed that Polanski stopped off in New York on his way to the funeral.

Quoting the author Lewis Lapham, the story said Polanski tried to seduce a young Swedish woman, to the horror of diners.

"The only time I ever saw people gasp in Elaine's was when Roman Polanski walked in just after his wife Sharon Tate had been viciously murdered by the Manson clan," Mr Lapham was quoted as saying. He said he was with a friend and "the most gorgeous Swedish girl you had ever laid eyes on" when Polanski asked to join them and began "inundating her with his Polish charm".

"I watched as he slid his hand inside her thigh and began a long, honeyed spiel which ended with the promise, 'And I will make another Sharon Tate out of you'."

The magazine has conceded that the event could not have occurred on the way to the funeral because Polanski took a direct flight from London to Los Angeles. But it claims it must have happened just after the funeral and stands by the details. It also says that Polanski, being a fugitive from justice, has no reputation to damage.

The director's counsel, John Kelsey-Fry, QC, asked him: "Is it true that you stopped off in New York and went to Elaine's on the way to your wife's burial?"

Polanski, who is remarried with children, said: "No, it is a lie."

Mr Kelsey-Fry: "Is it true that you tried to pick up or seduce a girl by exploiting the name of your late wife who had just been murdered?" Polanski: "It is an abominable lie."

Asked how he felt when reading the article, he said: "I was in a state of shock. That was the worst thing ever written about me. I think it was particularly hurtful because it dishonours my memory of Sharon."

He said: "Sharon was sweet, bright, brilliant … She was, in my eyes, the perfect woman."

But he agreed with Mr Kelsey-Fry that his relationship with Miss Tate had not been monogamous.

He said the first time he had sex after his wife's murder was about a month later.

Under questioning by Tom Shields, QC, for Conde Nast, the publishers of Vanity Fair, he was asked if that did not show "callous indifference to her memory?" "No, I never considered sex in those pre-Aids days as something harmful," Polanski said. "Quite the contrary. It would be callous indifference if I did so using Sharon's name …"

He said later: "It was all casual sex for years after Sharon's death. I was unable to maintain any lasting relationships after her death."

Mr Shields read out an extract from Polanski's autobiography in which he told how he had gone to Gstaad, the Swiss ski resort, the Christmas following the massacre and had seduced a number of girls from the local finishing schools.

Polanski said he had sex to prove his "continued existence" after his wife's death.

The trial continues.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Housewives and HouseHusbands Waller

I don't know, the people on the KTS site continue to get more and more sad and desperate to me. Let's look at some of their posts since they "banned" me and try to address them, shall we class?

Well, that's not how members see it tho. There are emotional ties and relationships that have been developed here. People's feelings get hurt. After all, if there really was nothing to fear and it is all just words on a computer screen then wouldn't it be OK for Harold to post? I have to go to work now and pretend that I am saving lives. Have a good day. ~Sue~
My point exactly Sue. What do these biddies fear? If I question their "truth" does that make me bad? If you don't like this blog, don't read it. Notice my point all along- people are AFRAID to speak out against Heaven's tyranny. Why did you allow this, Denise?

Not really,

For many reasons... This group isn't mine, it belongs to Denise and she's told him time and again that she wasn't going to let him back in.

They are just words until you start being harassed by telephone, and various other ways...

Peoples feelings do get hurt and thats what we're trying to stop. No one is saying that you can't carry on private conversations with him or anyone else. But the majority has said over and over that they don't want him here... We can't allow him back simply because 2 maybe 3 people are ok with it, we have to consider everyones feelings...

Now, let's please just forget it and move on to other subjects...



Now aside from a criminal abuse of the apostrophe, Heaven lies ( no one was ever harassed by telephone by anyone) and then states that they should move on- yet she posts another dozen times about me on the group in less than three days. Foolish woman.

Date: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 pm
Subject: The Occult

I was just looking thru Charles to see if I could find an interview that was done with Michael Manson. I know it said that he worked in a strip joint, but I cant find it now. Anyway I came across an article in the (archives):Anatomy Of A Mass Murder. it said that a Gibby was interested in Voyteck' black magic. I didnt know about this. I know Bobby B.'s friend Anger was into the occult. Does anyone else think that black magic played a part in the murders? In some form or another?

Posts like this one REALLY bug me- this pecker doesn't KNOW it said he was working in a strip joint because Michael NEVER worked in one. This is how so much BS about the case gets spread.


I was his target in the group and also in private e-mails. I won't tolerate any of his antics.

If Harold is allowed to stay, I'll leave KTS because the focus of the group will then be Harold and I'd rather spend my time doing something more productive than reading his disrespectful posts-not just about or to me but about the victims.

I was shocked to see a poll about Harold. I can't believe that allowing Harold back would even be considered.


This is an easy one to address- Janice is bordering on senility and was a BIG supporter of mine- I still have the emails- until I refused to kiss her ass properly. Then, like old milk, she turned.

Alexis McKinney
Date: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [KILLEDTHESIXTIES] A message to the group from Pickle

Hey, I know from past experience these people don't take lightly to being talked about and things said to them in a smart ass tone. So, if I were you I'd watch my tongue.

You are so right there, Chica. Anyone smarter than them is NOT tolerated.


I have found Harold's ID's in here and removed them....


He probably still has a spy or two but I can't control the world, yet... But I'm working on it LOL



This made me so happy... I wonder who got banned by mistake. I'm still there and always will be. The truth survives.

m: "Janice Tait"
Date: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: [KILLEDTHESIXTIES] Buliosi

But he was involved in that awful re-make of Helter Skelter last year. I think he will always be involved with this case in some way. It made him what he is today and it's all good as far as I'm concerned-except for the movie-because he worked so damned hard convicting the mad dog killers. A prosecutor of lesser abilities would never have gotten Manson convicted.


See the Post about No Show without Punch. An honest prosecutor might not have been able to get Charlie- that IS true.

: "Heaven"
Date: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:14 am
Subject: Hello all

Just got home from work.. damn is it hot here! Supposed to be about 90 tomorrow!

Thought I'd share something very funny with you all. As I was downloading my emails, the two newest on top were from that Shelby person posting on Harold's blog and from Dale..

Harold has banned both of them LOL

This comes from the man who has bitched to the high Heavens about being banned. He also hates censorship, but removed parts of the email from me that he has posted on his blog. The part where I called him Don Murphy.

Apparently he banned Shelby for her exposing him on his blog...

I'm sorry, but I am laughing my ass off.. After a long hot miserable day, this is just what I needed.. A good laugh.

So thank you Shelby and Dave!!!



For the record- more lies- for like 20 minutes I hit the wrong key that CLOSED one comment thread- to everyone including me. Sad specimens of humanity.

I know who I am. I am not Irish. I do not ban or delete. I hope this Murphy guy can measure up to me. I am also not a disbarred attorney from Hawthorne. Putzes!

Surely NOT THE END- these broads are too much fun!!!!

((That probably isn't Janice in the picture but it fits her anyway))

Fugitive From Morality- Don't You Love Lawyers?

Polanski's sex life under spotlight in libel case
Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:16 PM ET

By Mike Collett-White

LONDON (Reuters) - Roman Polanski's personal life was put under the spotlight on Monday at the start of a libel trial in which the director testified via video link from Paris to avoid extradition to America for sex with an underage girl.

Polanski is suing the publishers of Vanity Fair magazine for an article in July 2002 alleging he tried to seduce a woman while on his way to his slain wife's funeral in 1969.

He was speaking from Paris to avoid the risk of extradition from Britain to the United States, where is he wanted after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. He cannot be extradited from his native France for the crime.

"You are a fugitive from morality," said lawyer Thomas Shields, representing Vanity Fair publishers Conde Nast.

Polanski had just admitted having "casual sex" with other women before and during his marriage to Tate, as well as once four weeks after her murder and at least one incident of having sex with two females at the same time, one of them aged 15.

"You are putting it in a grotesque way," Polanski responded, before proceedings were adjourned until Tuesday.

Lawyers expect the trial, the first in which a libel claimant has sued via video link, to last about a week.

Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and Tate's sister Debra are expected to take the witness stand on Tuesday.

Earlier in the proceedings, Polanski choked with emotion as he described his love for Tate, who was murdered by followers of the Charles Manson clan when eight-and-a-half months pregnant.

"Sharon was sweet, bright, brilliant. She had a great sense of humour ... she was in my eyes the perfect woman," he said.

The 71-year-old also described his reaction to reading the Vanity Fair article, which includes a passage quoting him telling the "Swedish beauty" he was trying to seduce: "I will make another Sharon Tate of you."

"I was in a state of shock," he said. "This was the worst thing ever written about me. It's absolutely not true. But I think it was particularly hurtful, because it dishonors my memory of Sharon," he added.


During Shield's cross examination, Polanski defended his promiscuity after his relationship with Tate.

"The death of Sharon ... was an immeasureable shock to me, and in such moments some people turn to drugs, some to alcohol, some go to a monastery, for me it was sex."

He also recalled the media reaction to Tate's murder, which he said implied that it was the moral bankruptcy of her and her friends that was to blame.

"I felt they were being assassinated for the second time," he said.

The jury watched a recording of a 1969 press conference Polanski gave shortly after Tate's murder and a 1984 interview during which he discussed sex and his days as a boy in Poland fleeing the Nazis at the start of World War II.

Polanski's mother died in a concentration camp.

Both sides in the case now accept Polanski was not at the restaurant, as alleged, en route to Tate's funeral in Los Angeles, but was there within three or four weeks of the murder.

Vanity Fair says the gist of the article is still correct. Polanski says no such incident took place.

Polanski's lawyer, John Kelsey-Fry, drew a distinction between his client's sex life and the alleged incident in Elaine's restaurant in New York 26 years ago.

"This case is not about sex," he said in opening arguments. "It is about that breathtaking and callous indifference to her death and memory that such conduct would require."

The Two Charlies

People have been writing in to ask me what I meant in an earlier post about there being many Charlies. It's because people don't stop to think about things that something as obvious as this needs to be explained.

The Charlie who takes part in all the stories we have heard is the first Charlie. He's a sometimes good looking, always working the con, hustler, preacher, lover, what have you in his early 30s. He has between 1 and 20 girls at various times who worship him as a savior. He has between 1 and ten boys and men at various times who do the same. He is on his way to a rock career. He just got out of jail and talks a great game. Celebrities listen to his patter and some take him under their wing. He is the Charlie of legend.

Things change during the trial. You can see photos and footage early on of the above Charlie. He's ready to play. He now has worldwide attention and he loves it a lot.

Our basic theory here at the Official T/L Blog is that the BUG, while in the process of getting Charlie for crimes he may not have committed , decided to make Charlie into a Dragon of legend. St George (Bug) then would slay that Dragon (Charlie). But please note- HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT WITHOUT CHARLIE'S COOPERATION. We believe that Charlie is a typical Hollywood animal, a narcissist, an attention whore, who was MORE than ready to be that Dragon. Think about it. Charlie always wanted to be famous. And now he is more famous than almost every other real celebrity of his day.

That is where the second Charlie comes in. He acts crazy and wild because that shows he is a dragon and that gets the attention. And somewhere in there he loses his way and the act becomes reality.

People change. The David Lynch who made a coherent film like THE ELEPHANT MAN does not exist anymore. The Charlie who rants in interviews is a crazy, lunatic, disturbed old man.

But if you believe that he was always thus...then you have played into the game the BUG always wanted you to play.

With Charlie's assistance, of course.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

More on Mother Mary

I'm scratching my head too Mother Mary. You are one lucky bitch!

I was wondering after the last post how Mary Brunner was able to skate on the Hinman murder when she never testified truthfully according to her agreement and then I found this - it is apparently a famous case study.

Near as I can tell, the court decided that since BUG et al wanted to use her to get Manson and Bobby, and they did get Manson and Bobby, then even though she flip-flopped and lied, the deal is still in force.

Gotta love lawyers.

Also note on the page that Howard Weitzman, he who would someday be an OJ lawyer repped Brunner.

Mary bought a new home near Eau Claire Wisconsin in 2000. Gary Hinman, who she helped tortured for three days back in 1969 doesn't own any house any longer.

[4] Assuming their initial agreement was properly enforceable, the People contend that Brunner did not fulfill her part of the agreement and hence they are not bound to fulfill theirs. The argument runs: The People bargained for Brunner's truthful testimony in proceedings arising from the Hinman murder; fn. 5 Brunner's testimony in the Manson trial contradicted her testimony in the Beausoleil trial; accordingly, at one of the trials she must have been untruthful; therefore, she did not give the bargained-for truthful testimony.

We look on the matter somewhat differently, because in our opinion the People got substantially what they bargained for. The purpose of their bargain was to secure murder convictions of the most reprehensible of the Hinman killers. Brunner testified at the Beausoleil trial, and Beausoleil was convicted. She testified at the Manson trial, was impeached by her Beausoleil trial testimony, and Manson was convicted. The People, however, argue that convictions are immaterial, pointing out they are not permitted to bargain for results but only for full and truthful testimony (People v. Walther, 27 Cal.App.2d 583, 591 [81 P.2d 452]; People v. Green, 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 834-839 [228 P.2d 867]; People v. Lyons, 50 Cal.2d 245, 265-266 [324 P.2d 556].) While it is indisputable that the People can bargain only for testimony and not for results, the issue here is not the validity of the bargain but the extent of a party's performance under the bargain. Performance can be measured, at least in part, by results. Since the People got their hoped-for results through the use of Brunner's testimony, we conclude, albeit somewhat pragmatically, that enough of the bargain was kept to make it operative. We note that validation of the grant of immunity from prosecution for murder does not bar prosecution for perjury and that the grand jury has indicted Brunner on four counts of perjury arising out of her testimony in these cases

My Mother...My Sister..My Mother and my Sister?

It never made much sense to me that Mary Brunner was granted immunity against Bobby, testified against him, then changed her story and STILL was given immunity. She should have done time for everything, though only did time for the Hawthorne Robbery. Did you know at one point she actually pretended Charlie might not be the father of her son Michael?

This is from an appeals court ruling denying Charlie's appeal on the Hinman/Shea killings--

a. Were the foundational requirements satisfied?

Manson fires a general barrage at the admissibility of the testimony of Brunner particularly the receipt of Brunner's testimony in the case of People v. Beausoleil, supra, as prior inconsistent statements. The prosecution called Brunner as a witness and propounded to her many of the same questions propounded to her in Beausoleil. However, in the case at bar, contrary to her testimony in Beausoleil, Brunner denied going to Hinman's house in July 1969. She specifically denied going to Hinman's house in the latter part of July 1969, with Bruce Davis, Robert Beausoleil, or Susan Atkins. She admitted knowing in the latter part of July 1969, that Hinman was dead, but denied that she was in any way responsible for his death. She denied seeing Atkins hold a gun on Hinman. She denied seeing Beausoleil strike Hinman with a gun or seeing injuries to Hinman's head. She denied bandaging Manson's finger and denied seeing Atkins bandage Hinman's head. When confronted with a transcript of her testimony in Beausoleil and given an opportunity to explain it, Brunner admitted testifying at the trial of Beausoleil, but testified in the case at bar that her testimony in the prior trial of Beausoleil was a lie, and that she lied in order to obtain immunity, to avoid a revocation of her probation, and to keep out of jail and retain possession of her child which had been fathered by Manson. She was given every opportunity to explain the reasons for the conflict between her testimony in the case at bar and her testimony in Beausoleil. fn. 13 {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 31}

At the outset of the direct testimony of Brunner, the prosecutor undertook to examine her about a grant of immunity from the district attorney's office but Manson's lawyer and Manson personally objected. Because of his interference with the trial Manson then had to be removed from the courtroom and was held in an adjacent detention cell. Manson nevertheless continued to disrupt the proceedings by shouting through the open door of the detention cell and the court was compelled to close the door. fn. 14

On his own motion, the trial judge undertook an in camera investigation of the circumstances under which Brunner had been granted immunity in People v. Beausoleil, supra, and the terms of such grant of immunity, but counsel for Manson objected vigorously and repeatedly to any such inquiry by the court. The court appointed a lawyer (from the same law firm which previously represented Brunner) to advise Brunner regarding her rights. The lawyer did so and informed the court that Brunner had been fully advised her of her rights. The court impliedly found that the prior testimony of Brunner in Beausoleil had been free and voluntary. (Evid. Code, § 402, subd. (c).)

[8a] Prior inconsistent statements of a witness are admissible as substantive evidence if the requirements of Evidence Code section 770 are complied with. (Evid. Code, § 1235; California v. Green (1970) 399 U.S. 149 [26 L.Ed.2d 489, 90 S.Ct. 1930]; People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981 [92 Cal.Rptr. 494, 479 P.2d 998]; People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 194 [121 Cal.Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015]; People v. Collins (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 617 [118 Cal.Rptr. 864]; People v. Allen (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 32} 196 [115 Cal.Rptr. 839]; People v. Marcus (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 676, 679 [111 Cal.Rptr. 772, 58 A.L.R.3d 594]; People v. Jenkins (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 893 [110 Cal.Rptr. 465]; People v. Freeman (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 488 [97 Cal.Rptr. 717].)

[9a] Manson now contends that the prosecutor was guilty of suppressing evidence regarding the terms and extent of the grant of immunity given to Brunner. It is painfully evident that the failure, if any, of complete candor and disclosure regarding the grant of immunity was caused by the objections, filibustering and obstructionist tactics of Manson's counsel and to a lesser degree by Manson personally. At trial Manson successfully objected to the prosecutor doing precisely what he now argues the prosecutor should have done.

Manson also claims that the prosecution withheld from the jury evidence that Brunner was uncertain whether or not Manson was the father of her child. Brunner was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer that Manson was the father of her child. If she had doubts regarding paternity it was incumbent upon her to express them either on direct or cross-examination. fn. 15 The prosecutor is not the witness.

The prosecutor and Manson's lawyer went over the transcript of Brunner's testimony in the Beausoleil trial. Manson's lawyer was allowed to offer any additional part of such testimony which he desired. Manson contends that none of the prior testimony of Brunner should have been received in evidence because the prosecution failed to offer portions of such prior testimony in connection with seven allegedly important facts. The claim is obviously an afterthought raised for the first time on appeal. No such claim was made in the trial court. As noted, Manson was allowed to offer any portion of such prior testimony which he desired.

[8b] On direct examination in the case at bar, Brunner at her court-appointed lawyer's urging, ultimately invoked the Fifth Amendment against 3 of the 72 questions propounded by the prosecutor. But, she nevertheless thereafter testified fully on cross-examination. She did not refuse to answer a single question on cross-examination. Manson's counsel indicated he had no further questions and subsequently {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 33} admitted that he had cross-examined as fully as desired. Brunner was not excused as a witness but remained available under court order for recall if desired. We note parenthetically that Manson called Brunner as his witness during the penalty phase of the trial after the jury had returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. At the time of her testimony during the penalty phase of the trial, Brunner had been charged with the murder of Hinman (allegedly because she had violated the terms of the grant of immunity; see People v. Brunner, supra) and she was also charged with perjury. At that time (during the penalty phase of the instant trial) Brunner did consistently invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. This fact does not alter our conclusion that she was fully examined during the trial in chief. In our view what happened at the penalty phase of the trial was nonprejudicial in view of the fact that the jury did not impose the death penalty.

Manson's lawyer objected to the offer of the testimony of Brunner as given in the Beausoleil case as a prior inconsistent statement on the additional ground that the requirements of Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235 had not been satisfied since Brunner was not "available" for cross-examination in view of the fact that she had invoked the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that by testifying as fully as she did Brunner had waived the privilege against self-incrimination. (Rogers v. United States (1951) 340 U.S. 367 [95 L.Ed. 344, 71 S.Ct. 438]; People v. Freshour (1880) 55 Cal. 375.)

We conclude that Brunner was legally available for cross-examination; that in fact she was fully cross-examined by Manson during the guilt phase of the trial to the extent that he then desired; that the requirements of Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235 were fully satisfied; and that Brunner's testimony was not inadmissible because she was not available for cross-examination. [9b] Such prior testimony was not inadmissible because it was given under a grant of immunity. The facts regarding such grant of immunity were fully disclosed to the jury in order that it could evaluate such testimony in the light of the fact that it was given under bias and prejudice, if any, generated by a grant of immunity.

Manson also argues that the grant of immunity was unlawful because it was not approved by the court and that therefore Brunner's prior testimony was inadmissible as a matter of law. [10] The words of the court in People v. Brunner, supra, are apropos: "Yet while these factors bear heavily on the weight [italics in original] to be given the witness' testimony, they do not impinge upon the validity of the bargain itself." (P. 915.) The propriety of the grant of immunity has been judicially {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 34} approved and upheld by a final judgment of this court. (People v. Brunner, supra.)

Since we conclude that Brunner's testimony was properly admitted into evidence and that preliminary foundation requirements under Evidence Code section 770, were satisfied, the weight to be accorded such prior testimony as an inconsistent statement was a question for determination by the jury.

b. Was Brunner an accomplice and if so, was her testimony sufficiently corroborated?

Manson argues that the Brunner testimony in People v. Beausoleil, supra, should not have been admitted because Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law and her testimony was not corroborated. The argument is devoid of merit for two reasons: (1) Brunner was not an accomplice as a matter of law, and (2) the testimony of Brunner (as given in the case of People v. Beausoleil, supra) was sufficiently corroborated.

[11] Brunner was not an accomplice as a matter of law because there was a conflict in her testimony as to whether or not she was even at Hinman's house in July 1969. Brunner's testimony (as given in Beausoleil) was corroborated by evidence of the physical facts surrounding the death of Hinman, by the testimony of Bailey (see infra, pp. 36-37), and others, by the fact that Beausoleil's fingerprint was found in the Hinman residence, and by the several admissions of Manson personally. The corroboration was more than substantial. (People v. Smith (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 41, 45 [84 Cal.Rptr. 229]; People v. Henderson (1949) 34 Cal.2d 340, 343 [209 P.2d 785]; People v. Scofield (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1018 [95 Cal.Rptr. 405]; People v. Williams (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 458, 462 [275 P.2d 513].)

[12] Manson argues that since Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law the court should have instructed, sua sponte, that Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law. As already indicated, the argument is based upon an improper assumption. If Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law, the conclusion would be correct. (People v. Ferlin (1928) 203 Cal. 587 [265 P. 230]; People v. Jones (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 74, 94-95 [39 Cal.Rptr. 302].) However, the rule applies only where there is no conflict in the evidence that the person is in fact an accomplice. (People v. Coffey (1911) 161 Cal. 433, 446 [119 P. 901]; People v. Jones, supra.) {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 35}

The jury instructions which the court gave defined accomplice (CALJIC No. 3.10), advised the jury that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated (CALJIC No. 3.11), defined the sufficiency of the evidence which was required to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice (CALJIC No. 3.12), cautioned the jury that the testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with distrust (CALJIC No. 3.18), defined the criminal intent requisite to be an accomplice (CALJIC No. 3.14), and that one accomplice may not provide the requisite corroboration for another accomplice (CALJIC No. 3.13). Manson's argument that the court should also have instructed, sua sponte, that Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law, ignores the fact that there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not she was an accomplice at all. An instruction that Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law would have clearly constituted prejudicial and reversible error, since such an instruction would have been tantamount to an instruction that her testimony in the case at bar was untrue and that her testimony in People v. Beausoleil, supra, was true. Such an instruction would have usurped the jury's function to determine which version of the facts was true. "... Where the facts are in dispute as to the knowledge and intent of the asserted accomplice, the witnesses' liability for prosecution is a question of fact for the jury." (People v. Gordon (1973) 10 Cal.3d 460, 467 [110 Cal.Rptr. 906, 516 P.2d 298].)

The court correctly instructed the jury on the law applicable to accomplices and the prosecution correctly argued to the jury that if Brunner told the truth in the case at bar, she was not an accomplice, but if she told the truth in her testimony in People v. Beausoleil, supra, she was an accomplice. (People v. Gordon, supra, pp. 472-473.)

When Manson argues that Brunner was an accomplice as a matter of law, he inferentially admits that she was telling the truth in Beausoleil and lying in the case at bar. Such an admission might have been significant if it had been made at the trial level. It does not change the rule when made in this court.

c. Was the prosecutor guilty of misconduct in arguing that Brunner's testimony was corroborated?

Manson argues that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct and was permitted to mislead the jury by misstating the facts and the law in several respects. He argues that what the prosecution characterized as corroborating evidence of Brunner's testimony (in People v. Beausoleil, supra) was not legally corroborative evidence. Manson devotes 10 pages {Page 71 Cal.App.3d 36} of his opening brief on appeal to this argument. (Pp. 116-126.) Time and space do not permit a detailed analysis. In many respects the arguments are nonsensical. For example, Manson argues that evidence that Manson admitted slashing Hinman's ear was not corroborative of the testimony of Brunner because Manson's admissions did not specifically admit when he slashed Hinman's ear.

Manson argues in effect that evidence is not corroborative evidence unless each bit of evidence standing alone is sufficient to connect the defendant to the crime. Such is not the law. If the sum total of all of the evidence (other than the accomplice's testimony), connects the defendant to the commission of the offense the requirements of Penal Code section 1111 are satisfied. Here the defendant's admissions alone are sufficient to provide corroboration. [13] Direct evidence is not required but circumstantial evidence will be sufficient. (People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 43 [121 Cal.Rptr. 269].) The requirements of Penal Code section 1111 are satisfied if the sum total of all of the evidence connects the defendant to the crime and is sufficient to convince the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth. (People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 466 [116 Cal.Rptr. 133].) Even slight circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. (People v. Thurman (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 725 [104 Cal.Rptr. 804]; People v. Manson, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 102.)

Consequently the prosecutor had a right to argue each bit and piece of the evidence even though each bit and piece standing alone would not have been sufficient to supply the requisite corroboration. Just as an artist creates a mosaic a piece at a time, so a prosecutor creates a picture of guilt by consideration of individual bits of evidence, otherwise insignificant, which in totality convince the seeker of truth. The prosecutor was not guilty of misconduct merely because he characterized bits and pieces of evidence as corroboration when standing alone such bits and pieces would not have been sufficient to sustain a conviction. If the sum total was sufficient, the argument was proper. The sum total was sufficient. (People v. Hathcock (1973) 8 Cal.3d 599 [105 Cal.Rptr. 540, 504 P.2d 476]; People v. Jenkins, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d 893; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326]; People v. McFarland (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 807 [95 Cal.Rptr. 369].