Okay, Col, fight back the hurling.
Tonight there is an INSIDE EDITION.
You should probably watch it.
Thanks to 60skid for the heads up.
I haven't seen it. But based on everything I know and have learned recently about ORCA Tate the only thing I can do is feel sorry for her.
You see, ever since she was a little girl, Orca wanted the attention that her older, prettier sister had. It's only natural I guess. Looking up to big sister the movie star.
But at some point we all need to grow up, move on, find our identity.
Debra never did. She's frozen in time in 1969.
Disowned by her family for her behavior. Disinherited at the very end by her father. Trying to mount a career on the back of her dead sister. Stripping off for Oui Magazine. Showing up for parole hearings that she is not needed at and holding press conferences. Pretending to own her sister's rights when she is NOT the heir for her sister. Demanding Sharon's belongings whether they are hers or not. Everything she does screams ME TOO!!!
I mean how dare Orca run a site called Tate Family Legacy when she wasn't part of the family for decades? When she doesn't even interact with anyone left from the family?
So what's her next brilliant idea? Let's go on a tabloid exploitation show and have someone dress up as MY BRUTALLY MURDERED SISTER in her ACTUAL FUCKING CLOTHES so I can get some face time on television.
Attention seeking. No self awareness. No morals.
Where's my harpoon?
12 comments:
There is also another new show with Sharon in. Starting tomorrow night on the Investigative Discovery Channel "The Final Days of a Icon"
Hi all ! Thanks for the post Col ! And yes, thanks for the heads up on those items 60SKID !
Thank you for your indulgence ahead of time.
WOW ! This case..(just to clarify, I use the term "case" to include everything that pertains to and branches off of Charles Manson, the "Family" and the T-LB murders.)...continues to get as bizarre, sick and twisted as the murders themselves, which were nearly 40 YEARS ago.
First you got the murders.
Then the bizarre trial behavior in and outside of the court room. And that went on for what ? A year or more ?
Then one of the lawyers died ( I dont think Hughes was murdered by the "Family", sorry)
Then you have that Hawthorne incident with that "Free Charlie Mission" by Gypsy, "Tramps and Thieves".
Then Lynette and Sandy turn into
Red and Blue from the Rainbow and start telling the the corporations
to basically shut down or die.
Squeaky felt so strongly about it she felt she had to make her point by pulling a gun on the President Of The United States.
Both women went to prison for their cause.
As you all know, Lynette is still there. I guess still proving her point, I dont know.
btw, were there any other of the women in that rainbow thing ?
Then in the 80's the wackos came out in droves on the tabloid talk shows like Geraldo and others.
Remember Donald Laisure the "millionaire" who was married some 60 or 80 times BEFORE marrying Susan Atkins ?
Then after the divorce, Laisure pops up on a talk show claiming he was stabbed by Atkins on their honeymoon and tried to show the viewers his scar ! Freakin' crazy !
And somewhere in all of that some sicko tries to claim she is the UNBORN child of Sharon Tate ! OH MY GOD ! I won't even go any further on that one.
Then we have parole hearings every couple - few years for these murderers. To me all that falls under "twisted" because NONE of them deserve to get out ever.
If they are free to live life on this earth and Steven Parent is not or Rosemary LaBianca is not then that is twisted and wrong.
I don't think people realize what they are saying when they defend freedom for these killers.
And they may be good people now but it's too late.
They take a life, they pay with theirs in the very least in prison.
If they are truly good people now, they will accept their fate and be good people in prison.
I actually feel sorry for Pat Krenwinkle. I saw recent pictures of her as she is now working in a prison program developing
seeing-eye dogs or something with dogs.
In those pics of Krenwinkle, one is of her crying. It wasnt in front of a parole board or a TV camera. It was real crying, real pain. Pat is human after all.
But it's sad becasue it's too late. Pat Krenwinkle should never be allowed out.
Anyway parole for these convicted murderers is twisted.
Ok, to the "now", claims of bodies at Barker ranch and Debra Tate are all of it..bizarre, sick and twisted.
I am still shaking my head in disbelief that Debra would even open up that trunk for anyone other than family or very close friends, much less TABLOID MEDIA !
But then, as the good Col posted,
to actually let someone DRESS UP as AS THEIR BRUTALLY MURDERED SISTER in her ACTUAL CLOTHES is VERY bizarre and disturbing.
But at least Debra drew the line with the wedding dress. I guess she had her integrity to uphold huh ?(rolls eyes.)
Wow Col, this was great thanks for posting it and thanks to you 60kid!
Very cool looking at all of Sharon's clothes. They look great too considering they've been stored for almost 40 years!
Poor Debra, you do have to feel a little bad for her. Any chance of mending fences with her family is long gone..
It's also sad that she has never laid eyes on Patti's children. So that alone tells us that Debra didn't even attend her sisters funeral...
I had heard several years ago that Debra was going to make a coffee table type picture book of photographs of Sharon. I wonder if she's still going to put one together..
Thanks again Col and 60's, awesome as usual!
Have a great day all! It's a perfect spring day here! YAY!!
=)
Heaven
Thank you Col awesome post
Oh My GOD!
Wasn't Bret on the point of doing some big Debra exposure thing? Wonder what happened to that?
Frank
Debra is heading into Baby Jane territory here, and this appearance reinforces all of the negative things that have been said about her here and elsewhere. If Sharon had been hit by a car instead of murdered at the hands of a gang of psychedelic delinquents, would they even put this kind of crap on TV? The answer is no, so that makes this a crass and exploitative exercise. Sayeth Tex: "What is the agenda? Is it to write books for personal gain? Is it to hype the Manson murders in the press before parole hearings? Or, is it so families of possible victims can find closure? I previously argued that outside of this community, Debra wasn't doing too poorly. That could change if Debra makes a public display of using her connection to her sister and these murders for personal aggrandizement. If her goal is using her family connection to one of the more famous victims to ensure the continued incarceration of all of those currently serving time for these murders, she shouldn't do things like this. Double plus ungood is engaging in this kind of frivolity while promoting public support for an expensive and controversial forensic exercise.
I'm not sure of the law here, penal or moral, but what Debra is doing is inciting hatred amongst members of the public in order to persuade (coerce?) them to sign up to a petition to keep all these people in jail. See here, where Debra sees fit to tell the public what to do.
I'm not saying the 'killers' shouldn't be kept in jail, but inciting the whole world and his dog to sign petitions to keep potential parolees (however slim their chances may be) banged up doesn't seem right to me. Especially when the version of events that Debra presents is partisan, to put it mildly. It's dangerously close to kangaroo court justice of the kind that led to all that strange fruit strung up on Mississippi trees.
I'm pretty convinced (and I'm no LVH apologist either) that her continued 'interest' in in Leslie's case in particular is perverse and possibly wrong. Leslie was not involved in Sharon's death. Yes, as a member of the public Debra has the right to take an interest, but I'm not sure she has the right to set up a website with the aim of gathering signatures for that purpose. Though in the land of the free you can never be certain.
Frank
Good points all Frank, my fellow Teufel Hunden.
I think she should be able to show up at victims impact statements, and I think the right to petition the government makes it difficult to say she should not be able to engage in these types of activities.
How different is what she is doing than any other petition drive?
Well, the difference may be that she is advocating the permanent imprisonment of some individuals who do not have a sentence of life with no chance for parole. This means she needs to be careful about how she goes about advocating her cause.
Debra Tate is doing this because the television station is paying her money... funds for her website, her travel expenses, her postage, and her appearance at parole hearings. And yes, the expensive forensic proceedures. It's just another form of whoring. Which is not a criticism on my part, as I don't really see anything wrong with prostitution. Media whoring isn't really that much different than any other variety, it just uses fewer cartons of strawberry douche.
I may not sound like it, but I cut Debra Tate tremendous amounts of slack. However, theatrical protest didn't work outside the courtroom in 1970, and it's not really gonna serve her purpose here, either. And we're still gonna fight her, and we're still gonna win.
Brian: (Be prepared to get offended, apologies in advance).
You said: "Then we have parole hearings every couple-few years for these murderers. To me all that falls under "twisted" because NONE of them deserve to get out ever. If they are free to live life on this earth and Steven Parent is not or Rosemary LaBianca is not then that is twisted and wrong. I don't think people realize what they are saying when they defend freedom for these killers."
You had to know that I was gonna jump right on your case for this statement, correct?
If what you say is true, then every soldier returning from Iraq deserves imprisonment for 40 years for murder, as they were either directly involved in killing a human being, or were accessories before or after the fact, or involved in conspiracy to commit. They did so at the behest of their cult leader, George Bush. Do you think no women, children, elders, unborn babies, or innocent bystanders are killed when someone raddles a storefront with bullets, or drops a bomb on a tent village, or throws a grenade into a crowded meeting room? Dead is dead, killed is killed. Their relatives mourn them, just as you mourn the death of the H-T-LB-S victims. Both are collateral damage in a holy war. You can put any "spin" on it that you like, say that one cause is more righteous and just than the other. I'll bet the widows, orphans and relatives won't agree that some movie starlet's life was more valuable than their own loved ones' lives.
Taking this analogy one step further... If our soldiers are free to live life on this earth, and some elderly Bedouin lady is not, some 5-year-old Muslim child is not, then THAT is twisted and wrong. I don't think folks realize what they are saying when they defend THIS action, which is not about freedom, but about commerce. And before anyone gets up on their moral high horse and starts bellowing patriotic slogans, please recall that several of my loved ones are considered to be killers... just some of them got paid for it and received commendations, and some of them got condemned for it and are imprisoned.
Ace, Ohhh yeah, I kind of figured you may take exception to my view of the convicted murderers.
And no aplogy in advance needed as I am not offended in the least. You make a great point and argument against mine.
I'm not sure if comparing "criminal" murder to war is the same thing or not. I know you think it is basically the same thing but I don't know.
Tex and company HAD a choice.
A soldier in war does not. They MUST obey orders or face consequences from the government.
And I can't say I disagree with you on a war not being any more righteous. but I don't think you can hold the soldiers responsible in the same regard as you can a Tex Watson for example.
Great post tho Ace !
Thanks !
I have heard Charles make this argument many a time...I get the point...However, we are not talking about another "enemy" who is also engaged in war on the frontlines (as we seem to be referencing here)who have also killed. Seriously,WE are speaking of people who were in there own homes...and I know the come back is that Charlie NEVER killed anyone...but..OK..lets discuss the 2nd night...Lets say, he had no idea..and the "kids" just "lost it"..Help me understand night 2
Post a Comment