Saturday, September 30, 2006

What Mark Turner was Babbling About

It is my pleasure to burst Mr. Turner's exclusive announcement since my opinion is he is a bad man and an idiot who has no idea what he is doing.

This is what he was alluding to this month on his terrific website.

No, he never responded to my well written list of questions.

And be forewarned- Hendrickson has been promising to release this shit for years and was too busy suing people to actually do anything about it. So who knows.


Experience MANSON for Free

In order to thank you for your patience, we are going to treat you to a free viewing of the original MANSON. From sundown New York time to sun-up California time, MANSON will be available for viewing on certain Exclusive Film Network websites. Unfortunately, downloads to disks will not be permitted.

As you are aware, the motion picture industry is struggling to find its place in the internet community. You will be offered everything from old TV shows to newly made hard core, but we are going to provide you with something truly unique, the REAL. For example, besides the exclusive Manson Family films, over the years, we have obtained never before seen films taken during World War II. "My Father's War" is in post production, and will put you right inside the cockpit of an American fighter as it dog-fights with a Japanese Zero. (ALL IN COLOR)

You will dive bomb and fire upon Japanese warships, but your aircraft carrier will be directly hit by Jap Zeros. (ALL IN COLOR) You will advance on Japanese held islands, and using a flame thrower, flush enemy soldiers out of their bunkers. (ALL IN COLOR) And yes, you will also experience what it was like back in the states, during the war years. (ALL IN COLOR)

There will also be many more unique one-of-kind films brought to you by Exclusive

Because we actually create the finished product, it may take us a little longer, but in the end, we will provide you with something worthwhile. Again, we thank you for your generous understanding.


The original MANSON movie is being updated for a special edition release
MANSON II is due out in 2006
info at
"Absolutely nothing on earth could have prepared me for my passing through the gates of Hell."

"I finally realized that Helter Skelter may have been the reason the killers thought they were doing a massacre that night, but the real motive was known only to one."

"Because the heart of the prosecution's theory was that Charles Manson manipulated the minds of his devoted Family, the fact that, right before the eyes of the whole world, he was actually controlling the very destiny of the Tate-LaBianca murder trial became even more bizarre."

from The Making of MANSON II

for release in theaters 2006

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Riding a Bummer

This is nothing short of brilliant. And if it doesn't make you hug the person closest to you then you are already dead. It belongs on the blog because of Sharon's inclusion. Col Tate is NOT included because the videographer could not get into Debra's bedroom.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Kanarek Sums Up during the Shea Trial

Here's a small part of Kanarek's summation during the penalty phase of the Shea trial. He asks a lot of questions, some off the wall. But the Col likes questions.

The best point he raises in the 400 pages I have read so far is basically, how can you give Charlie a fair trial for this one murder when everybody already knows he has the death sentence for SEVEN other murders.

A good point, no?


Court of Appeal of the State of California

Second Appeallate District

Pages 10,778-10,783

Any Adult Authority that would release Charles Manson in his lifetime, well, they just wouldn’t be there the next day. I mean, there is no – I think that we would al agree that – on that.

Because the focus that’s been put on Mr. Manson, we don’t have to worry – we don’t have to worry, if any of us does so worry, that Mr. Manson is ever going to be released in his lifetime again.

But when you have a police officer like Officer Guillory, taking the stand and testifying to the things that he testified to – under oath – we know by exhibits that we’ll have in the jury room, concerning Mary Brunner, we know the naked power that the prosecution has.

I can’t bring a perjury charge. None of us on the jury can bring a perjury charge. The only person that can present evidence to a Grand Jury – or a file a criminal charge is a prosecuting officer.

So – so when this man, Officer Guillory, takes this witness stand and under oath tells us certain things, there is the test of truth.

Because we see, in the case of Mary Brunner, when you incur the wrath of the District Attorney’s office, what happens. You get prosecuted of murder, and you get prosecuted for perjury

So when Officer Guillory says that he’s been a police officer – for what? Some three and a half years? When he says that on December the 4th 1969 he no longer was a police officer because of something concerning Charles Manson, does this tell us anything? Does this mean anything?

It’s something to turn over. It’s something to turn over in our minds.

Now, therefore, the test of truth, as far as Mr. Guillory is concerned, I think is there. And he knows it. And when he tells us, for instance, that in the August 16th raid – recognizing that guilt or innocence is still before us in the penalty phase, and the Court’s going to so instruct us – when he tells us that Danny Decals is sleeping on August the 16th with a .45 caliber gun and a full clip at the time that they come in there, does that mean anything, in connection with the possibility – forget reasonable doubt; but is there a possibility that what we’ve heard in this courtroom is in fact a charade? And a play? And a show?

Is there a possibility that Danny DeCarlo had something to do with Mr. Hinman’s passing away? Is that possible? Remembering that his friend took that sword?

And remembering that that sword was found in a motel, cut in two? And all that we’ve spoken of previously concerning that sword?

It doesn’t have to be, to have happen the way – the way the prosecution would have us believe.

Is that something to consider, as to whether or not we should invoke the death penalty?

“He was lying on the floor, on the floor of the store front that we entered, and he was reaching for the .45. It was on the floor next to him.”

Danny DeCarlo, why would he be doing that? Why would he be sleeping and reaching for a .45?

Now, again – now, in connection with – now, we’ve heard from Officer Guillory the more or less incises planning that went on in connection with this – with this August the 16th raid. It’s a most incredible kind of event, to – to – we have gone through it, and we are not going to belabor it. But doesn’t it sort of make us wonder how come 120 police officers of the crack – what they call the S.E.B., the Special Enforcement Bureau of the Sheriff’s department, all of that surveillance that we’ve spoken about of the Spahn Ranch, does that tell us – does that tell us something concerning a possible doubt as to whether or not Charles Manson is guilty?

When you look at the – when you look at the scene there, Charles Manson, a guy that’s been in – a guy that’s been in prison. He’s walking around with a sword. He gets to a house with his sword. Now, the evidence is he has this hanging onto his person, from the testimony that we have there.

Is this – is this the kind of thinking that is a first-degree murder situation? Or is it one of those that the prosecutor has told us about?

As I say – I’m sure the prosecutor wouldn’t call it an accident. But it is one of those situations where a man walking around with a sword, and coming to the Gary Hinman house – if we assume those facts, just for the sake of argument, are true – that a first-degree murder situation arises out of that/ or is it something else?

It’s something to think about.

Now, the – Officer Guillory tell us about the
–- tells us about the intelligence department of the Sheriff’s department. It seems – and we’ll just mention this briefly in passing – that there’s – it would seem, no doubt, that at the Spahn Ranch, if they’ve heard about, that they had intelligence officers, people posing as the kind of people who would live at the Spahn Ranch; that they would be there before this raid took place.

And they undoubtedly fed information to the intelligence department of the Sheriff. Is this – is this the kind of thing that means it’s impossible for any kind of a conspiracy to rob and kill Gary Hinman? Is it possible? Is it that we can consider? And remembering that the prosecution has not offered a single bit of evidence in connection with aggravation, I think it should be considered.

Now, let’s put it this way: That’s why the psychology and the relationship of these people are more important than words uttered on the witness stand.

If the District Attorney of Los Angeles County wants us to bring in a death penalty, why don’t they put on some – evidence in aggravation?

See, they’re – they’re perfectly free, during the penalty phase, to put on ag- -- in evidence aggravation.

Mr. Barrett was here, with a think file on Charles Manson – which we had to literally pull out of the arms of the federal government. We were all in the courtroom and we know that file came with – with great – with great trouble.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Bobby Beausoleil Interrogates Mary Brunner

Like I said in the earlier post, this was during Bobby's hearing for a new trial.

Remember- If they can abuse and manipulate the guilty, what prevents them from coming after and doing the same to you and me?


Q. I believe the best place for us to start is December 4. Do you recall that date?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened on that date?

A. Starting when?

Q. Let’s say on December 4. Sometime on December 4, you made contact with a Lieutenant Brown; isn’t that correct?

A. He called me first –

Q. He called –

A. -- at work.

Q. And from that point, would you in a narrative from tell us what happened?

A. Yeah. He told me that there were a couple of people here from California that wanted to see me, and I was at work, and I asked them would it be okay if I called them up as soon as I got home from work. Okay, you know, and he said, yeah, that would be all right.

Q. Let me go back over that just a second. You say that a couple of people from California; isn’t that correct?

A. He didn’t say who it was at that time.

Q. Did he even imply to you with any words that it might be police officers?

A. I don’t really recall. I just know it was from the Sheriff’s Department.

Q. Do you recall exactly what he said to you on the phone, or any of what he said to you on the phone?

A. Actually, all I remember him saying is that there were a couple of people there from California that wanted to talk to me.

Q. Okay. Proceed.

A. And then I told them I’d call them back at 4:30 when I got off work, and then I called two attorneys, neither of whom I could reach at the moment; and then I tried to have – I asked them to call me back; and before either of them called me back, Lieutenant Brown came to work to talk to my boss and arrange for me to get off right then and there – right then; and then he took me up to the Holiday Inn Restaurant to meet Mr. Guenther and Mr. – and Whiteley.

Q. When you first met with Lieutenant Brown, did he at any time read any rights to you?

A. No.

Q. When you left with Lieutenant Brown, did you have any inkling of who you were going to see?

A. He may have told me at that time, that it was a couple of people from the Sheriff’s Department.

Q. He might have; you’re not sure?

A. He did, either at work of on the way out to the restaurant.

Q. Once he had you in the car; is that correct?

A. Sometime between getting me out of the office at work and before we got to meet them, he told me about it.

Q. And then you said you arrived at the Holiday Restaurant?

A. Holiday Inn.

Q. The restaurant at the Holiday Inn?

A. Right.

Q. There you made the acquaintance of Sergeant Paul Whiteley and Deputy Guenther; is that right?

A. That’s right.

Q. From the Homocide Sheriff’s Department in Los Angeles?

A. Right.

Q. From that point, would you proceed in your tesitmony?

A. First of all, they offered me a drink, and I took one. And I think it was Whiteley said that –

Q. Just a moment. You said they offered you a drink?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was that hard liquor?

A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And you took a hard liquor drink?

A. And I took a hard liquor drink.

Q. So you took a drink. Did you have just one, or did you have –

A. I had two.

Q. You had two drinks?

A. That’s right.

Q. What were you drinking?

A. Manhattans, I believe.

Q. That’s a pretty powerful drink?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did it make you high at all?

A. Yeah.

Q. In other words, you’re not accustomed to drinking?

A. I don’t hardly ever drink.

Q. And then while you were drinking these Manhattans what did Deputy Guenther and Sergeant Whiteley say to you?

A. They said that they had found my fingerprints at the Hinman house. That they had witnesses who had definitely placed me in a stolen car.

Q. Did they name those witnesses?

A. No.

Q. Not at that time?

A. Not ever. Not ever, but a stolen car. He said that you had been doing a lot of talking about me and Sadie was doing a lot of talking about me.

Q. Let me go back to this a little bit. You say, ‘They’ told you. Who was speaking?

A. Whiteley most of the time.

Q. That is Sergeant Whiteley? That is that man there in the green coat?

A. Yes.

MR. BEAUSOLEIL: Will the record so reflect that she is pointing to Sergeant Whiteley from Homocide.

THE COURT: Yes, it may.


Q. And he told you, he mentioned my name to you, in other words?

A. Yes.

Q. And he mentioned Sadie’s name?

A. Yes.

Q. Sadie Mae Glutz?

A. Yes.

Q. Susan Denise Atkins?

A. Yes. He was probably calling her Susan most of the time.

Q. Did he sometimes say Sadie, too?

A. I don’t really recall.

Q. And in what way did he say that I was using your name?

A. Like saying that I committed the Hinman murder. That you were putting the blame of the Hinman murder on me.

Q. Did he say that I was putting all the blame on you?

A. He never really got specific about it.

Q. But he said I was putting the blame on you?

A. Yes.

Q. What about Sadie, did he say Sadie also was putting the blame on you?

A. He didn’t really say anything to – he just said that you two were putting me responsible in a large part for the Hinman murder. I don’t know how much of a part.

Q. Now, let me backtrack a little bit. Before you had a conversation with – before Sergeant Whiteley began speaking to you along those lines that you have just been testifying to, neither one of the officers, Sergeant Guenther, Sergeant Whiteley, or Lieutenant Brown, either, had read any rights to you; is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. Proceed.

A. I don’t really know where I was at.

Q. You testified that Sergeant Whiteley was telling you that I had put all the blame – that I had put the blame on you; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And Sadie had also done that?

A. And Sadie had done that, and he said that he knew that you had done the murder and that I knew – he told me that I knew that had done the murder and that in exchange for my telling him about you killing Gary I would get immunity, I’d get my probation dropped, me restitution dropped, I could get custody of the baby again.

Q. What did he tell you the consequences were if you did not give him the statement?

A. If I didn’t give him a statement my probation would be violated. I’d be arrested for Gary’s murder. I could forget about seeing Bear.

Q. You said – what was that again? Could you tell us exactly what happened? You said something to the effect that you could forget about seeing Bear?

A Seeing the baby.

Q. First, Bear, who’s Bear?

A. My son.

Q. Your son, and how old is your son?

A. Two years.

Q. Is that his nickname, Bear?

A. That’s right.

Q. Is that just part of the nickname or is that a complete nickname?

A. Oh, he’s got other nicknames.

Q. Would you tell the Court the nicknames of the child.

A. His full name is Sunstone.

Q. And the last name?

A. Sunstone Hawk.

Q. And he was referred to, at least when he was an infant, as Pooh Bear; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s right.

MR. KATZ: Perhaps, your Honorm for the record, could we have the spelling by Miss Brunner of those names?

MR. BEAUSOLEIL: I’ll spell it.

THE COURT: Spell the names of the baby for the record.

THE WITNESS: S-u-n-s-t-o-n-e H-a-w-k.


Q. And Pooh Bear, would you spell Pooh Bear, please:

A. That is spelled a lot of different ways. Some people spell it P-o-o-h

B-e-a-r and some P-u B-e-a-r.

Q. I hope Mr. Katz is satisfied. Now, you say Sergeant Whiteley said something to the effect that you could forget about seeing Bear. Would you in more detail tell us what was going on.

A. Well it’s like the Court already has custody of him and I just won’t get it again.

Q. Now, in reference to not being able to see Bear, you were also told before this that you might be charged with murder, is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. Was there anything implied between the murder charge and the custody of the child?

A. The two sort of go hand in hand.

Q. Could you tell me how Sergeant Whiteley or Deputy Guenther, whoever it was telling you this, put them hand in hand, if they did?

A. If I’m arrested for murder, I’m going to the California courts and Bear is not going to be anywhere around.

Q. Is that pretty much a quote?

A. That is a rephrasing.

Q. Rephrasing, but that is what they told you; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any other conversation – let me ask you – I’ll withdraw that last question. Did either officer get emotional during that conversation?

A. Guenther – at one time Whiteley left the room and Guenther got quite emotional and I got crying.

Q. Did you get emotional, too?

A. I started to cry, yes.

Q. What was Deputy Charles Guenther saying to you? What was he doing when he got emotional?

A. He was – he was telling me how wonderful they were being, really trying to save me from a mess and how you people were putting things on me and how rotten everyone out here had been, you know, how – about what you were supposed to have done with Gary, and it was – and he was just telling me how hard they were trying to see to it that I could stay back East and start a new life, you know, that sort of business, and, you know, get my son and how I really ought to go along with them.

Q. You stated several times they mentioned your son. Did they mention your son several times?

A. They did because they know how a baby would affect me.

Q. A reference to how you feel about your child, how do you feel about your child? Let me rephrase the question. You love your child very much, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. I would imagine he probably means more to you than anything else in the world; isn’t that correct?

A. Than most anything else.

Q. Anything means more to you?

A. Yeah.

Q. Could you tell the Court what it is?

A. It means more to me, Bobby, that I undo what I did to you.

Q. When you say that – to undo, what you did, what you did, did you not tell the truth at that time?

A. That’s right.

Q. I’ll continue. I’ll go back to where you were and we were talking about how you felt about your child. You love him dearly; isn’t that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. You’d do what you could to protect him from any kind of harm; wouldn’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. Just about anything?

A. Just about. Just about.

Q. You feel it is the best thing for him to be in the custody of his mother?

A. Yes.

Q. At this time, or do you think he would be better – it would be better for him if he was in your custody?

A. You said in the custody of his mother, that’s me.

Q. I’m sorry. In the custody of your mother.

A. Right at this moment, you know, there is nothing that – you know, I tried to change that but I wouldn’t because it was stopped.

Q. What do you mean by it was stopped?

A. I tried to get custody back of him but I couldn’t.

Q. That was promised to you; is that correct?

A. No, this was last December I tried but it was stopped from this end. It was okayed by the Social Work Department but it was stopped by someone else.

Q. Do you know who that someone else is?

A. No one volunteered that they did it, no. I can imagine who did it.

Blogging The Yalkowsky Collection- Volume 37 of Something

Sorry about being so lax in examining the collection. There are just SOOO many documents ( I mean boxes!) and when I read them I like to astral project back to the trial and see if I can understand the motivations of everyone involved. Remember that the Col is only after the TRUTH- he is not pro or con anyone.

So I read a huge volume last night- Vol 37 of what I THINK is the Hinman Penalty Phase for Manson. It could be the Shea Phase though. I will let you know as I decipher this shit.


- Leslie’s TLB Testimony is read into the record by Kanarek- she and the girls have refused to testify since the defense being put on is not CHARLIE’s Defense.

- Kanarek is trying to establish that witnesses were bought and pressured to lie. He reads back Leslie’s testimony about how the arresting officers spent two days offering her immunity and the $25k reward as long as she sold Manson down the river. We should all muse on her life had she done so.

- Leslie talks about how they never made plans. “If the Fountain of the World would ask us to come sing on Friday night, we would keep in mind that on Friday night we most likely should try to get to the Fountain of the World.”

- Leslie’s attorney Marvin Part recorded interviews with her and then shared them with his former associate, BUG. I am sickened.

- Leslie first took LSD with her Dad (?) when she was 15

- Leslie and Ouisch made a jug that said Helter Skelter on it.

- Bobby filed a petition for a new trial and acted as his own attorney during it.

- Mary filed an affidavit saying she had been made to lie in the first Bobby trial and that Bobby didn’t kill anyone.

- Then she didn’t want to testify in the new trial hearing so he subpoenaed her.

- Mary tells a long involved story about how she was pressurized to say Bobby did Hinman. I will have the elves transcribe this exchange.

- We then see how the judge essentially lays it out for Mary- tell the truth, ie, say exactly what you said before, that Bobby is guilty and you can go back to Wisconsin and see your son tonight. Don’t do that, and you’ll be charged with murder and perjury and never see him again.

The Mary stuff is particularly distressing. I mean think about it-

- Bobby did it. We know that because he says now he did it.

- Bobby is entitled to a fair trial.

- Bobby has one witness against him- Mary.

- Mary is promised immunity to testify truthfully.

- She does.

- She regrets it.

- She is then literally THREATENED to stick with the story.

Yes I understand that the truth is the truth and all that.

But as a disbarred attorney or not, the fact is, Mary IS allowed to say whatever she wants to. If she provably lies, they can do her for perjury- which actually they later do.

What we cannot have is District Attorneys promising candy and freedom if you tell their version of the story.

More reason why the BUG is such a cringe-inducing fellow.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Joe Foolio Wants to Defend The Evil of Mark Turner

Joe Foolio asked me why we were official.

I referred him to this post from last year since I cannot rely on his reading skills.

I googled the name Joe Foolio and got this image.

It is fun to have a Doctorate. The Col is one fart smeller!

Linda Kasabian Talks- Part Three

Boo hoo Hoo BUG


Linda Kasabian Talks- Part Two

anyone creeped out by the bad re-creation?

Punch/Bug is here and he has so much to say. He'd have to be since Linda needs to be stage managed.

Hey Bug- Nellie revealed that that track record story was bull noogies.

Linda Kasabian Talks- Part One

She looks so harsh and bull-dykey. No mention of her kids.

I bet the BUG was proud of this interview.
Dunleavy is such a scumbag.

Friday, September 15, 2006

20 Questions for Mark Turner

I went to the well-designed website of the evil Mark Turner and it reads that on Halloween, "MANSON will be seen around the world." Is he talking about the film? Or people in masks?

This got me thinking, what does Mark Turner stand for? He seems to be pro-Bug. And pro-Debra. But even that is unclear. He's against the killers, but then so is everyone. But he's pro-Davis. And Catherine the cop-shooter. And Dennis the Family Man.

The thing is, the site is SO well done and so useful he must be fairly obsessed with the case. Like we are. He's also obsessed with censorship on his board.

So the Col decided to write up one of those email interviews and send it to Turner. You will see below that the questions are clear and non-antagonistic. If he replies, I will print them here as is.

I hope he replies. Those of you that know him, please alert him to this post.

"Hi Mark. I really like your site but I can't figure out what you are all about. Here are some questions that I would like answers for. I will run all answers unedited for the blog readers. Thanks in advance."

1- Do you think Charlie Manson, who you named your site after should be released? Why or why not?

2- How did you feel about the information gathering techniques used by the late Bill Nelson?

3- Which of the Family in prison would you be okay with being released and moving to your block?

4- How do you feel about Debra Tate keeping her father's body from a proper burial?

5- Do you own a brick from the Cielo Drive House?

6- If Vincent BUGliosi perjured himself during a Capital Offense case the punishment is the death penalty. Do you think he deserves it?

7- If Bruce Davis has found Jesus and you like Jesus is it the same Jesus or maybe two clones?

8- Did you ever have a martini with Patti Tate while she was alive? What kind?

9- Do you think Linda Kasabian should have a statue erected of herself in Chatsworth California?

10- If you are talking about the documentary Manson having midnight screenings on Halloween Eve, how do you feel about people holding up a short, stupid non-killer as a boogeyman?

11- If Dennis Rice was doomed to purgatory for allowing his small babies to be molested at the Ranch, how much time out does he get for converting to Christianity?

12- What weight is Gypsy pushing at the moment and is she still in Federal protection?

13- Which of the Manson girls made that exquisite vest you feature on your site?

14- In a free internet society what is gained by squelching dissent at one site when it can and does just move elsewhere? Phrased differently, "Is it not easier for a control freak to control dissent when it stays in one's home?"

15- In the Bible, we are told that he without sin should cast the first stone. How many rocks do you feel worthy of tossing at Leslie and Bobby?

16- If Clem wanted to paint your house mauve, would you let him?

17- Which of the many tomes in the Case Lore do you refer to the most?

18- What is your favorite Charlie Manson song?

19- Jessica or Lindsay?

20- Finally, how do you reconcile all these ministries you support with the reality of nine gruesome, senseless killings?

Sunday, September 10, 2006

More Doris Tate, This Time on CNN Part Two

here is the rest-
that guy is a tool
More Doris Tate, This Time on CNN Part ONE

I don't know where all this Doris came from but screw it, here's some more.

And by the way, Charles Manson was not a serial killer.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

The Birdcage

Somebody with a PERFECT ebay score is selling birdcage from Cielo Drive. It looks like nice cage if you want to cage a free flying winged creature. He's not asking a premium for it. In fact, according to his story it was actually garbage thirty five years ago. He's even offering no postage if you buy it in LA and come and get it. In all likelihood, his story is true.

Why the hell you'd want it except as a birdcage is beyond me.

That said, one of the Tate Candid Biddies, probably Paige (lol) emailed the poor seller and this exchange took place.

Q: If you're going to peddle a fake item with Sharon Tate's name attached to it, maybe you should get your facts straight. This auction will be reported to Debra Tate, Sharon's sister. She has VETO rights over any auction involving her dead sisters name.

A: I appreciate your comments and fear of offending anyone was a definite concern of mine. That's why I did not use Sharon Tate or any other victim's name in the title of the auction. I certainly believe this item to be from the Cielo Dr. house or I would not be listing it. From my feedback you can tell that I am very legitimate with my eBay transactions. If there are errors in the facts I'd appreciate you pointing them out (I know I had the guest house occupant wrong and have deleted that). I know very little about the murders personally. I am selling this for my elderly friend who told me the story at a million miles an hour and I could very well have made a mistake. Objects have history and my goal was to honestly tell the very sensitive history of this piece in a factual way that would not upset anyone, especially people like the families of victims. Again, thank you for writing. I'm going to post your comments and this response on the listing to unscore the sensitivity of this subject matter.

The response was more intelligent that the question. Anyway, Terray906, don't listen to this stupid biddy. DEBRA TATE WAS DISINHERITED by her father. Any right of publicity (which would have to do with Sharon's image and likeness anyway) would belong with Patti Tate's children NOT with the lying, vengeful, father stealing Debra. DEBRA TATE HAS NO RIGHTS TO SHARON TATE. At all. If she contacts you or ebay claiming that she does, please let us know so we can contact the proper authorities.

There is ZERO violation being done here by you.