Monday, July 25, 2011

Weary Dreary Leary7

There's a heated debate in the comments which serves to illustrate that people can be SO close to having good reading comprehension and yet SO far. I'll be your little helper in red.

Blogger leary7 said...

one of the things that always sticks with me is Danny DeCarlo's early statement that while out at Barker before they were arrested, Ruth Ann Morehouse said to him, "I can't wait to kill my first pig."
The cute Ouisch couldn't wait to emulate Katie and Sadie and Leslie. It is strong testimony that the "death trip" that Charlie preached seriously took hold with many in his family.

It is strong testimony ONLY that the youngest child at the ranch felt left out that she wasn't doing what the "cool" kids were doing. It says NOTHING about Charlie except in your head.
Ruth Ann was one of Danny's favorites so it is doubtful he was making that up.
Maybe the Bug colored up the facts to sell it to the jury, There is NO maybe about it. You lose all credibility when you state maybe. ALL the other attorneys say he made this shit up.but there is NO DOUBT Charlie was preaching an impending race war as well as the thrill and need to kill.There is plenty of doubt. Charlie talked smack. Bullshit. BUG and Watkins created the "theory" of the case.
For 42 YEARS folk have been trying to rewrite the TLB murders as a drug burn or mafia hit or Tex thing. They have been throwing shit against the wall for nearly a half century and none of it has stuck.Again, no, MUCH of it has stuck. And for sure, no one educated in the case believes HS as a motive.
How's about this, Col? What if the motive is simply Charles Manson's assholeness - his anger and resentment and ego and schizoid and megalomania etc etc.But wait? You just told me it was HS. That the BUG was right. Now you want to offer a new theory? Without evidence? Can you not reason logically?
Maybe all those people died because Charlie was one angry evil asshole, and he convinced several drug adled idiots that it was cool to kill. Maybe Charlie is exactly like his idol AdolphHis idol? This was again Bug and Paul creating a boogey man for the ages. and just a pure evil asshole who was adept at getting idiots to do his dirty work.
Sorry, no disrespect, but it just seems like the Col and others spend a whole lot of time trying to apply logic and rationale to a completely irrational act. And a completely irrational person.Charlie was many things. But irrational? Not even close. Man was wicked smart.
Manson did not need a motive to order the killings.But you just said it was a race war? It was just what got him off.

7:50 PM, August 05, 2011

Blogger leary7 said...

my attempt to clarify....
For 48 years several dozen people have dedicated their lives to proving Oswald was not the lone assassin.what do you mean, prove? IT has been established through science that he could not have fired all the shots.
Even though I knew the case well because of my relationship with his daughter, I could never argue Lee's guilt/innocence on better than a 60/40 proposition. Why?
Because without a confession or eyewitness all you had was circumstantial evidence. And there was strong circumstantial evidence BOTH WAYS.
But one problem arguing for Lee's guilt was the lack of motive. Several who knew him testified he liked JFK. So why do it?
Because he was a miserable asshole with an enormous ego. He was seriously pissed off that the world did not recognize his greatness. He was convinced Cronkite should interview him, that the NY Times should publish his life story and so on. He had no friends, a love/hate realtionship with his wife, and hated his mother. But he was convinced of his destiny to be famous while living seperated from his family in a $7 a week boarding house and working a $2.65 an hour job packing books into cartons.
So when he read the leader of the free world was going to be driving right under his work window, maybe he thought...the world will know me now.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.except of course he had motive...and Ruby was there to shut him up
Maybe, likewise, Charlie was convinced the Beatles should know his name and that he should be on the cover of Rolling Stone. Certainly his behavior at the trial was fantastically self-destructive, and self-promotional. He basically convicted himself with his antics. He was convicted of ordering the murders by a Prosecutor with a made up motiveBut maybe that is what he wanted all along - to show the world how little regard he had for it and how everyone should not just know him but fear him.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.
It was the 60's. Everyone wanted to be famous. Oswald and Manson are certainly two of the top ten famous names from that decade

Blogger leary7 said...

really, do people still want to wave the "Charlie is no killer" banner?Yeah, isn't that weird. He never killed anyone so I say he isn't a killer. A loser, yes. A punkass bitch? Yes. But to be called a killer usually you need to, you know, KILL someone.
He shot and believed he had killed Crowe. Several eyewitnesses put him in the car when Shorty got shafted. And by his own admission he went in and tied up the LaBiancas who were subsequently killed and by the letter of law Manson was guilty of their murder as much as if he had weilded the knife.Agreed. Never said he was innocent as charged. Never said he should be released. Just said he was falsely prosecuted and didn't kill anyone. I remain accurate.
Charlie no killer? Come on, order yourself a reality sandwhich. And maybe watch the taped interview of Charlie shouting out "that he wished he had killed 500 or so people, then maybe everyone would take him seriously.Hey, I'll scream out that when I next see JimNy I would like to kick his ass so he never walks again. That don't make me an ass kicker.

7:11 AM, August 06, 2011

Blogger leary7 said...

one last thing, I promise.

Col Scott...though I have the upmost respect for you, here is why I have always thought your obsession/hatred of the Bug and Helter Skelter was somewhat misplaced.
I simply do not believe that Vincent and HS were responsible for Manson being convicted of murderEven if I grant you this point (which I do not) the fact is by manufacturing motive and making shit up, the REAL reason why 9 people are dead is still obscured this many years later. I don't care about Charlie. I want to understand what happened. And the pathology of the Bug makes that almost impossible. I think Charlie Manson convicted Charlie Manson of murder.
The Bug put forth HS because a number of people, from Sadie to Danny to Al Springer to Watkins and others - told him that Charlie controlled everything and everyone in the Family and had ordered the killings. The Bug packaged the story in the Helter Skelter fairy tale.
But do you know, Col, if anyone ever did a comprehensive follow up with the jury as to why they convicted Charlie?That wasn't the norm back then. There are a couple of interviews I think but nothing comprehensive.
My belief is that it wasn't the Bug and Helter Skelter that convinced the jury, it was Charlie's own antics and outbursts during the trial that convinced them he was a certified sociopath.
And it was his leaping over the defense table and lunging for the judge that convinced the jury that Charlie was capable of violence.
And it was the girl's idiot robot behavior - their singing and head shaving and proclaiming that Charlie was Christ - that convinced the jury that Manson had a Svengali control over them and probably had it on August 8th and
9th as well.
One of the Great Questions that hovers over the TLB story is this...if Charlie had had a quality lawyer and had sat quietly at the defense table clean shaven and wearing a tie, and the girls had likewise behaved, would Manson have been convicted of murder? Or would he, like the obviously guilty OJ and Casey Anthony after him, have gotten off? Imagine Charlie walking around a free man these past 42 years. It could easily have happened.
But I am convinced Charlie wanted something more than his freedom.This is true. He wanted to be famous anyway he could. He wanted the world to know how little he thought of it. And he wanted everyone to know that he was the real deal, and everyone else was just a two-bit supporting actor. Charlie was the Oscar winner in his mind, everyone else was just an extra.I buy this
In short, I believe with all due respect Col, that the Bug and HS are really just a backstory to the TLB case. Charlie wanted the fame, or the infamy, more than he wanted his freedom. His behavior during the trial, and even in the countless interviews he has done since then, testify to that.
If you frame it in the old chicken and egg question....the Bug didn't make Charlie famous, Charlie made the Bug famous. And far more important and reknowned then the Bug should be.They both did everything possible to make themselves famous.

Photo is so people stop fucking asking. Sheesh.


adam said...

Couple of points.
1: This whole Charlie brainwashed people into being killers jive; Leslie had not been at the ranch all that long, was not attracted to Manson and had relativly little to do with him. In short, she was only around because she was a slave to Bobby's cock. Likewise, Linda had been there just a matter of weeks and had only spoke to Manson a couple of times. How long does it take to brainwash somebody? An afternoon apparently...
2:Let's say for argument sake that Charlie's preaching did open up some psychotic urges in the more unstable family members, this does not in the legal sense make him accountable for the murders that followed. Morally yes - legally no.
3: There is still not one shred of tangible evidence that Charlie told any of the convicted "Go kill these people for me". None.
4: Anyone who thinks Manson liked Hitler or Nazies needs to watch "Charles Manson - Superstar" again.
5: In regards to my earlier Dennis Wilson quote; between 1968-69 no one knew Manson better than Dennis, so I would say he would have been a pretty good judge of character.

leary7 said...

Praise the heavens, I have made the Col's shit list.
Hitler and Stalin never personally killed anyone either, Col. So they are not killers?
1. How can you argue that Leslie was not "under the influence" when she adamently asserts that she believed Charlie was Christ. How do you ignore facts like that.
2. Again, Charlie went in and tied up the LaBiancas. REGARDLESS of what was said in terms of instructions, Charlie's actions make him legally culpable in the LaBianca's deaths. There is no argueing that.
3. No evidence that Charlie ordered the killings? Really? Then what was he doing waiting on the porch when they returned and asking each for a report and if they had regrets. Helter Skelter may have been an embellished fairy tale but believing that Charlie had no role in TLB is just plain demented. It is akin to denying the Holocaust.
4. So please explain the swastika on the forehead.
5. So Dennis didn't think Charlie was a killer. Ted Bundy's mother was certain he wasn't either. And I doubt Scott Peterson's wife thought he was. Come on, you want to argue Charlie's innocence on the basis of Dennis Wilson's character judgement. Pretty lame.

Col, it is dinner time and I don't want to play volleyball with you. Suffice it to say, I am not a supporter of HS. what I am is someone who thinks the reason why forty odd years later we still don't have anything concrete that contradicts the testimony of THE VERY PARTICIPANTS of the TLB murders, is that there just may be nothing there. TLB was just a group of angry, drug adled idiots lashing out at the society they had come to hate, and much of that hatred had been taught to them by a two-bit con.
The only way this whole debate will be put to bed is if Charlie himself comes clean on his deathbed. Or maybe he already has to Hendrickson.
WHo knows.

leary7 said...

The pathology of the Bug makes understanding the real reason behind the TLB murders impossible.
Really Col.?
Sorry, but I just think you give the Bug way to much credit and power.
I simply argue it is the pathology of Charlie himself that makes TLB so confusing.
There is simply no debate that Charlie was intimately involved in the Crowe shooting, the Hinman killing, the LaBianca murders and Shorty's demise. If you can convince yourself that Charlie was watching Get Smart on the night of August 8th and had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened on Cielo Drive, then I salute your powers of delusion.
Clearly I do not see the Bug as the evil genius you do. I see him as akin to an advertising executive that was given a package of testimony and used the HS frame to paint a picture for the jury. Yeah, I know other lawyers thought it nonsense, and if you read my post without your anger, you will see that I believe most of the jury probably believed HS was nonsense as well. But they believed Charlie was a sociopath, that he was capable of violence, and that he controlled his followers. They believed that because of Charlie and his actions, not because of Vince and his theories.
that was my point. nothing more.
dinner is getting cold.

leary7 said...

sorry, one last thing.
You say much of it has stuck, Col.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly has stuck in terms of alternatives to HS? The drug burn? The mafia hit? Tex doing the killings on his own without any input from Manson?
I am not being a wiseass. Just please tell me what has stuck with either the legal community or the general public that I don't know about.
And do you really want to champion Charles Manson as a rationale thinker? Seriously? I don't argue his intelligence, but many an intelligent person is also an irrational and delusion thinker. Sorry, no offense, but in most circles, 99.99% of them, propping Charlie up as a rationale thinker would seriously, and probably fatally, undermine your credibility. That's just a fact, Jack.

leary7 said...

weary and dreary???
That's the best you got, Col?
I would take umbrage but your prediliction/need to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is well known. Like others, I simply find it sad and childish.

adam said...

My rebuttal.
1: Leslie believed Manson was Jesus Christ. So what? Leslie was a drugged out fuckwit like many at the ranch who believed a failed pimp, thief and rock star was the second coming of our saviour. Since when did Jesus tell his followers to kill people?
2: I agree with you totally. If Manson tied up the LaBiancas then he was legally guilty of accessory to murder and deserved to go to jail for a long time. So zero need to charge him with brainwashing and ordering people to kill for him.
3: Um, he was dancing in the moonlight, butt nekid with Nancy after fucking her brains out.
4: Please look up the Swastika on Google.
5: No but I would argue that Dennis knew much of what was going on in the family and so would be a reliable source on such matters.

ColScott said...

It's from a song. Manchester England. From Hair.
And you aren't on my shit list. You don't know a whole lot but you ad I are fine.

TomG said...

While I know that I am in conspiracy alley, let me offer these thoughts....

We had a belief in the 70's that you never, ever let adults, parents, grown ups, police, ever know what was really happening.

Why? Because they will mix up real facts with their cemented world views and get so far from the truth that it was hopeless to rescue.

Helter Skelter? Show Blackie how to do it? Come on.....the hole in the desert?

Some mixed up kids swept away in a revolutionary time, on a drug fueled weekend killed some pretty affluent people, who they didn't particularly like. Maybe it was personal. Maybe it was for the point of it.

You have pretty middle class white girls in the newspapers every day, these stories build and build.

Look at Casey Anthony.

But these crimes happen, as you slept last night, while you sleep tonight.

So it isn't the big mystery that you all make it out to be.People are crazy. That's my last remark.

leary7 said...

that's my conclusion too Tom - angry idiots lashing out.

Adam, I'll play one more time.
1. You can't argue on one hand that Leslie wasn't there long enough to be brainwashed and then acknowledge on the other that she believed Charlie to be Christ. That is non-sensical. Can't have it both ways. By the way, JC didn't go down on other guys either as CM did, so all those idiots believing Charlie as Christ is just testimony to how truly out of their gords they were.
2. The Bug was given ample testimony that CM controlled the killers even though he wasn't present for any of the murders. He had to sell the brainwash in order to have his best shot at a Manson conviction. Thankfully, for him, the girls antics proved it in spades.
3. Bangin Brenda on 8/8? really, I never heard that. Even with his new flame Stephanie right there? But as you say, even if he and Brenda bumped uglies what does that have to do with the price of beans? If you can really convince yourself that Charlie had nothing to do with Cielo Drive then more power to ya. But at least be aware you are in a minute, infantisimle minority.
4. I've read several places that Charlie made statements as to Hitler being a groovy guy and how he straightened out the kharma of the Jews. Did you not read those? Are you denying Charlie made them?
5. Do you really want to argue that Dennis spent more time with Charlie than Paul Watkins and knew him better? I don't see that. And Dennis had "inside info", do you argue he took it to his grave with him or shared it with others? Odds are he shared it, so why wouldn't it have leaked or come out in the last forty odd years. It just seems like more grasping at straws to use Dennis's quote are evidence that Charlie was no killer.

I do respect the passion of your beliefs, as I do those of the Col and AC and Thelma and others who I disagree with. But you can't just completely disregard facts or the testimony of those involved. Al Springer, for example, had no ax to grind or reason to lie. In fact, but coming forth he put his wife and kids at risk. You can't just dismiss the testimony of people like that because it doesn't suit your needs.
That's all I am saying.

leary7 said...

Col, I am glad I am not on your shit list, and that "weary and dreary" is a song title does make it more sensical.
As to your assertion that I don't know anything, I have admitted several times, to my arch-nemisis Saint C in fact, that I don't know 1/50th as much about the Manson case as he and you and others do. But I hope that is what you were referring to as I did graduate summa cum laude from U of Texas and have my PHD. I do know some things.

I know I have taken up allot of space here but I just want to make one last point. As I have said, I do respect the passion of your beliefs, but you and I will most likely never be on the same page. And that is okay with me.
One example as to how we just flat out see things differently...
Your dismissal of Ruth Ann's comment of how she "couldn't wait to kill her first pig" as an incidental and isolated thing. It meant nothing, you say, especially as it relates to Charlie.
I respectfully and completely disagree with that view. Why?
Political Piggy was written in blood at Hinmans by...was it Sadie or Mary?
'Pig' was written in Sharon's blood on her door by Sadie.
'Death to Pigs' was written in Leno's blood on his wall by Katie.
Can you ignore the pattern here?
Clearly a hatred of "pigs" and a belief in being justified in killing them had permeated a good portion of the Family. Where did they get this group think? Was it from a Paul Watkins song? Was it from a Bobby B poem? Was it from a Scramblehead observation?
Come on, there is a mountain of testimony it came from one place and one place only - sermons by Charlie.
You think Ouisch was the only one eager to join her sisters in offing a pig? I have no doubt whatsoever that Cappy and Gypsy and Sandy and Brenda and several others were right there too. And they were there for one reason and one reason only - their devotion to Manson and their belief in his teachings. To argue otherwise is just plain blind.
So no, I don't believe Ruth Ann's comment was incidental and irrelevant as you say. I believe it speaks directly to the core of why the murders happened.
Charlie hated and resented established society (pigs) and he believed it was totally justified to kill pigs. And he was able to convince a dozen or so of his drugged out idiot followers of the same - Ruth Ann clearly being one example. But certainly not the only one.
The use of the common term pig, written in blood three times, and spoken by Ruth Ann and countless others, cannot be dismissed. It speaks to the core of the case - why these seemingly unconnected and senseless murders happened.
That's just the way I see it.

leary7 said...

sorry, but allow me to clarify that I was joking when I said Saint C was my arch nemisis. We had problems but I don't hold grudges. And the truth is I have found St.'s posts of late to be highly intelligent and provocative. He's got game.

leary7 said...

I gotta stop.
But the Col and his red pen just irritate me on.
First off, Col, I have never said I supported the Bug's Helter Skelter. I have said that maybe (I should have used probably) the Bug colored the facts. But you want to argue the absolute and dismiss anyone who doesn't join you as ignorant.
But the fact remains that the Bug and Paul, if you will, did not conjur up Helter Skelter out of thin air. The Bug had ample testimony from people like Greg Jakkobson and Al Springer and Kitty and several others that Charlie was obsessed with the notion of an impending race war and also was hell bent on convincing his followers that they were justified in "killing pigs".
No offense, Col, but your consuming hatred of the Bug and his theory just make you seem a tad irrational at times.
As I have stated several times already, I honestly think the jury convicted Charlie of murder in spite of the Bug and his non-sensical 'motive', not because of it. Thus I just don't give the Bug or HS the importance and weight that you do.

You really don't want to argue the JFK thing with me. Despite your assertion, it HAS NOT been scientifically proven that Lee couldn't have gotten the three shots off in the time frame alloted. In fact, recent tests have shown quite convincingly that it was possible.
As to the fourth shot that the '78 Committee concluded had happened based on the acoustic evvidence of the motorcycle microphone, that to has been widely dismissed as they had the motorcycle in the wrong position at the key moment.
And you assert that Lee did have a motive and that was why Ruby shut him up. But you don't say what Lee's motive was. Why not?
I still believe, and truthfully hope, that there is a strong possibility that Lee was what he said he was, a patsy.
But the simple truth is there is just as much strong circumstantial evidence that Lee took those shots as there is that he did not. To argue with more than say a 70/30 certainty just marks someone as a biased zealot.
I feel the same way about TLB. Nobody but Charlie, not even the participants, seem to know for certain why the murders took place. Will Charlie ever come clean? I doubt it. He likes to fuck with people's heads to much to do that. The asshole.

Anonymous said...

Catching up on the last few posts...

I love my boys from back in the day,

and nowadays with Facebook, I-phone etc etc... it is easier than ever to stay in touch- even though most of them have families and responsibilities, and I spend most of my time chasing Mrs Circumstance around the country in search of beaches and music- Not sure if any of the old Manson clan keep in touch- but I would bet a few of them do ( as Matt said- and he would probably know)

I love Bomb Pops

Push ups are better and Neapolitan Ice cream sandwiches are my favorite- but certainly for sheer frozen delight combined with Patriotic colors- nothing matches a Bomb Pop

I dont want to be anyone's Arch nemesis or nemesis of any kind...

I dont care who is really who, or who pretends to be who, or who knows who....

I just want to talk about this case when I come here, and throw my two cents in to whatever the Col feels we should be talking about at the moment...

At this moment it is Leary lol

Leary- your a bright guy, and well spoken. Thanks for the nice words...

congratulations as well...

I have never made it to the headline on this blog :)

brownrice said...

Leary said:
Clearly a hatred of "pigs" and a belief in being justified in killing them had permeated a good portion of the Family. Where did they get this group think? Was it from a Paul Watkins song? Was it from a Bobby B poem? Was it from a Scramblehead observation?
Come on, there is a mountain of testimony it came from one place and one place only - sermons by Charlie.
"Offing the pigs" was a very common-place youth sentiment in 1969.

1968 saw the assassinations of RFK & MLK, the Chicago Police riots and the election of Nixon. These events left an awfully sour taste in the mouths of almost anyone hoping for a peaceful social change. By '69, a huge segment of the "youth revolution" was at least paying lip service to the concept of an "armed struggle"... it was kinda fashionable at the time.

The jefferson Airplane were singing "Up against the wall, motherfucker" and John Sinclair (leader of the MC5 and jailed for 10 years for 2 joints) shouted "You're a pig and a punk and you're gonna die" at his trial judge... and let's not forget dear old Beatle George suggesting that all the piggies needed was a "damn good whacking".

"There was music in the cafes at night and revolution was in the air" to quote Bobby Dylan. I'd go so far as to say that "all the cool kids" were "talking 'bout a revolution" back then... not just the Family.

A.C. Fisher-Aldag said...

Ha, I just posted similar sentiment, on the previous blog entry.

Let's us not forget "by any means necessary" as well.

And "No compromise".

Common slogans from them ol' days.

leary7 said...

brownrice has always been one of my favorite posters so it makes sense he would raise a good point.
hating "pigs" was a sixties sentiment....but still, the fact that a dozen or more of the Family openly talked about killing pigs, and a couple actually did and wrote the word in blood, just can't be dismissed as coincidental. and how many of those rebellious sixties kids carved WAR in the belly of a dead guy? Where did Katie get her rage from? Or Ouisch? Or Cappy being willing to off her own grandmother?
That there was 'groupthink' rage seems undeniable to me, regardless of the sixties context. Where it came from is the question. Sorry, but I still think it is a rhetorical question.

Anonymous said...

Kick out the Jams Mother F-----

Rob Tyner
Wayne Kramer
Sonic Smith


MC5- now there is a band I have not heard mentioned in a very long time- 100 points for a MC5 reference...

John Sinclair - what ever happened to the Guitar Army?

wonder if they would let me be a white panther???

I dont look very militant


A.C. Fisher-Aldag said...

And some of them blew up draft offices, and shot at police officers, and indulged in riots, and killed other young people for drugs, and killed during robberies, and did other heinous acts without being influenced by an individual's speech.

Anonymous said...

I dont want to do any of those things- just smoke dope and listen to MC5.....

leary7 said...

but how many, AC, carved up a nine month pregnant woman?
as I have said other places, I admire your loyalty. but denying that there was a unique groupthink rage within the Family, and that your friend was the chef who stirred the pot, requires a whole helluva lot of selective perception.

Anonymous said...

Colonel said, on Liz's blog - "There are many questions for Snake but it appears she does not really wish to answer them- the letter is superficial beyond compare".

Dianne's goal was to have the photos regarding her "surgical mesh group" removed. Dianne begins and ends her email, with that request. She hits that point coming and going, which makes that point abundantly clear.
Dianne is smart enough to know, that she'd get more with honey, than with vinegar. She played those cards well.
If Dianne contacted Liz in a huff, telling Liz to "take those damn photos down", she would have gotten nowhere. Those photos would still be on Liz's blog. Kudos to Dianne for "working" Liz very effectively, to meet her goal. I'm glad Dianne is doing well.

If Dianne didn't have photos on Liz's blog already, she never would have contacted Liz. Does anyone else, have the brains to see that?

Liz is "one of the few good one's in blogland"? I puked in my own mouth a little bit.

adam said...

Maybe Dianne's just a genuinely nice person?

Anonymous said...

Dianne IS a genuinely nice person. There's no doubt about that. She demonstrates her personality and intellect nicely in the letter. I'm simply stating, that Dianne contacted Liz with a purpose. That purpose was to get those photos removed, which effected her campaign regarding surgical mesh.

Anonymous said...

Contact Liz and ask her briskly to remove all the family photos from her site, for any reason of your choice. Just say they offend you. See how far you get. See my point now? Dianne offered Liz a few replacement photos and kissed her ass a bit, to achieve a purpose. It doesn't mean Dianne's not genuinely nice, but she used her head as well. Get it now?

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see Dianne contact Liz in a month, asking Liz to remove all photos of her. Just a quick letter from Dianne, stating she'd had a change of heart. It would be interesting to see how cordial, and accomodating Liz would be on THAT day. If she was so upstanding, she wouldn't be posting personal photos of people without permission in the first place. Dianne's letter clearly demonstrates that Liz never got permission to post those photos to begin with. Yeah, I'd say Dianne is OVERLY nice under the circumstances to say the least.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how easily people are titillated by poor behavior.

Suze said...

Would Us Magazine take down pictures of Brangelina, Jennifer Aniston or Kate Hudson just because YOU object, or because they did not have the subject's permission? Your argument holds no water. Public figures likenesses may be reproduced without the subjects permission as long as they aren't being used for profit. Who peed in your cornflakes?

FrankM said...

Suze, pee in the cornflakes is not necessarily a reason for the comment.

I don't think Dianne Lake is a public figure in the way the people you mention are.

And there is a difference between you and me asking for a person's photo to be taken down and the person themself asking.


Suze said...

Former Fam may not be an A-list Hollywood types, but once the national attention turned to the L.A. Hall of Justice they became public figures, like it or not. Once you are on the national stage it may (or may not) follow you for a lifetime.

And it seems to me that D.L. made a reasonable request to trade photos and Liz agreed. I didn't see any demands in that email to completely remove her likeness. If there was, Liz would have been within her legal rights to decline.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Suze. We are in agreement. You acknowledge that Liz would never remove photos, as a courtesy to anyone, just for the asking. You also acknowledge that someone in Dianne's position, has no legal recourse. The best Dianne can do, is kiss Liz's ass, and cross her fingers. Thanks for proving my point!

Anonymous said...

Beyond that Suze- You put words in my mouth. I NEVER said Liz did anything ILLEGAL. I accused her of acting in bad taste. I said "poor behavior", to be exact. OK, I'll say it more accurately for the slower minds, SLEAZY behavior. Unfortunately, being sleazy and exploiting people by using their family photos for a cheap thrill, is quite legal. Again, we're in agreement. Thanks!

Suze said...

I also acknowledge that Us Magazine would never remove photos, as a courtesy to anyone, just for the asking. I also acknowledge that someone in Jennifer Anniston's position, has no legal recourse. The best Jen can do, is kiss Us Magazine's ass, and cross her fingers.

Suze said...

You're yelling. Someone peed in your cornflakes.

Suze said...

When did I say you said Liz did something illegal?

If she's acting in bad taste, don't visit her site. I'm certain too that you never looked at the other photos there - because that would have been in bad taste.

And I never said Liz would never remove photos, I don't know her and I don't know what she'd do. I said (to be exact) "Liz would have been within her legal rights to decline".

Anonymous said...

I'm not yelling, I'm highlighting the "key" words for the less mentally capable. Think of it as my personal courtesy to you.

It seems you have a doctorate in tabloid magazine law, with a concentration in defending in-ethical behavior and morons. Where exactly does one earn such a degree? Bullshit U?

You're talking in circles now. Go back and read my posts 12 times, and maybe things will mesh for you. We can only hope. As the Colonel has stated so eloquently to others before you- "Everything you say going forward, will be tainted by the fact that you are retarded".

Anonymous said...

"Get along little doggie". lol

Suze said...

Much like your mentor, when you are met point by point you resort to mindless insults. Let both of us stand on our words.

Anonymous said...

Suze- I'm perfect with that. My argument is rock solid. Any intelligent reader with an unbiased perspective, will clearly recognize all my words as true. I've made my points. Talking to you further, will serve absolutely no purpose. I agree with you there. I'd end-up repeating myself again and again, to no result. That's why I suggested, "go back and read my posts". It will save me time and effort.

The problem is that Liz is evidently your friend. You can't step back far enough to see the whole picture. I would've been nicer, but the cornflakes remark was unnecessary and irrelevant as Frank said.

Anonymous said...

none of my business, and I admit I have some fondness for Liz...

D- head- I see the point your making, and it is not without some merit...

but it is also possible that maybe she made a deal with Diane to get an elusive reaction directly from one of the Family Members she has been featuring- to make her site unique..

and it is true that very few sites I read ever get contacted directly from any of them..

but it is also true that the letter is fluff and she did accomplish the goal of "picking and choosing" which pictures of herself are shown...

I admit- myself- I am still sort of awestruck that one of them actually responded to any of this..

and to be truthful- I was so fascinated with the words themselves- I did not initially give much thought to the actual meaning or content of them ...

maybe Liz did- and maybe it was still worth it to her???

She did get to post something on her blog which is very out of the ordinary....

leary7 said...

good for you Suze, for standing up for your beliefs.
The other guy has his beliefs and makes some valid, or at least discussable, points but once again the insults seem to be flowing in just one direction.
Asking if someone peed in your cornflakes isn't really an insult in my book, it is just a funny way to inquire why you seem so angry.
As I have said elsewhere, the Col and others need to learn that insulting someone is not a form of refutation.
From what I hear, Liz sleeps well at night. She is comfortable with how she does business and runs her blog. If you aren't, then, as Suze says, just don't go there - America, free speech and all that.
Why people feel the need to insult and vilify those who think differently than they do has always baffled me. Do you really want a world where everyone thinks the same and has the same opinion?

leary7 said...

by the way Suze, you are a dead ringer for an ex of mine. go to youtube and type in 'June Porter and Bryant Gumbal'. you guys could be twins, at least in my eyes.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
candy and nuts said...

I have thought the same things as "dickhead" has mentioned-Dianne in a nice way requested her grandchilds photo be removed as well as some othre people she knows in real life-I am as curious as the next person to see how the old "family" looks NOW-but alot of these pictures for with people in birthing rooms in hospitals with new grandchildren etc etc I think goes a bit too far and this is prolly a great reason WHY these people DONT Contact anyone and refuse emails requests for interviews and close up facebook accounts etc . They know well who they are ( or were back then)and even blocking out a kids pic you still see the other adults with them. I think Dianne asked in a dignified way to stop posting childrens pictures and friends-and no personal insult to Evilliz or her blog I like LIz alot and have defended her many times and also have expressed my opinion to her regarding kids picture long ago when she first started her blog-Peace

candy and nuts said...

I have thought the same things as "dickhead" has mentioned-Dianne in a nice way requested her grandchilds photo be removed as well as some othre people she knows in real life-I am as curious as the next person to see how the old "family" looks NOW-but alot of these pictures for with people in birthing rooms in hospitals with new grandchildren etc etc I think goes a bit too far and this is prolly a great reason WHY these people DONT Contact anyone and refuse emails requests for interviews and close up facebook accounts etc . They know well who they are ( or were back then)and even blocking out a kids pic you still see the other adults with them. I think Dianne asked in a dignified way to stop posting childrens pictures and friends-and no personal insult to Evilliz or her blog I like LIz alot and have defended her many times and also have expressed my opinion to her regarding kids picture long ago when she first started her blog-Peace

Anonymous said...

Thank you Candy, very well stated.

Any behavior is acceptable, as long as it provides an exciting and interesting thread for you? If others are exploited, that's not a consideration? These are not "Time" and "Life" magazine photos, these are personal photos of people's family events. Again, any behavior is acceptable, as long as it provides an exciting and interesting thread for you?

Because someone sleeps well at night, that makes their behavior acceptable? There are murderers and thieves who sleep well at night. What type of logic is that? That's a foolish yardstick for measuring morality.

Leary said-
"just don't go there".
If you see a woman being raped on the sidewalk, does it stop because you look away?

Anonymous said...

There IS a possibility that one or two folks, whose photos are displayed on Liz's blog, aren't overly offended. It IS possible a couple of them, really don't care. Dianne may be one of them. There's no way anyone could know for certain, how each person feels individually. I will concede that much. But surely, the vast majority of those folks, did not take those personal family photos with Liz's blog in mind. That goes without saying.

"Karma" is discussed often in these circles. If there really is such a thing--- that house of cards, or "house of pictures" will fall eventually. Liz is going to run into the wrong person at some point, and the joke's going to be on her, because some people don't laugh this stuff off. I'm glad I won't be around, or responsible when that day comes. My prediction, is that Liz will be left standing alone on that day, and the rest of you will act like you never knew her.

"Karma"--- we'll just have to see, because unfortunately, it's not "instant" as John Lennon sang.

My conscience is clear.

Anonymous said...

Dickhead's writing style, defensiveness and misogyny are all trademarks of JimNY/Hippie Scholar/MonkeyBoy. I think this is him.

Anonymous said...

You accuse everyone of being Jim. It's a defense mechanism. It's easy for you to admit only one person dislikes you. Open your eyes, and realise several people dislike you.

Anonymous said...

There's a whole army of folks on Youtube, Facebook, Cat's blog, LS blog and likely here, who think you suck. JimNY is just the only one who has been bold enough to state it openly. Get it now? Now I'm stating it.

Anonymous said...


it is not my intention to exploit anyone..

When you put it like that I feel like a dueche bag lol

I am not taking any sides- and I understand where you are coming from.

I have said a few times- If a choice was left to me- I would not publish photos personally if the choice were left to me...

I do enjoy seeing them though, and certain members of the family went very far out of there way to get attention- so in some instances I dont feel overly hypocritical about that ( but maybe a little0

when you put on a show like that- and go to those extremes with your behavior knowing cameras are on you, like some of them did- it isn't really as easy for you to decide when people should stop being interested and leave you alone....

but not all of them are in that category, and not all of them deserve it...

Diane for one- certainly gets a pass for most of her involvment in my book... she was young, and without much parental guidance- and as far as I know- wasn't directly involved in any violence... ( Shorty?)

So if this one wanted a chance to start over with some privacy- I would not be one to ruin that...

I just wanted to throw out there another possibility as tho how the whole thing may have went down

Liz may be good or bad- she may have it coming- I dont really know. But she just never seemed stupid or gullible to me- that's all I was saying....

leary7 said...

sorry dickhead, but do you really want to equate what Liz does with someone being raped? Seems a stretch to me.
And comparing her sleep to the sleep of murderers and thieves is likewise really silly. What Liz does is not illegal. You may think it unethical or sleazy, and that is certainly your right. But the old Howard Stern arguement of "just turn the dial" still applies. Nobody is being robbed or murdered or raped.
The ONLY debate here is what constitutes good taste vs bad taste.
The website Barstool Sports just put up a photo of Tom Brady's two year old son frollicking naked on the beach in Costa Rica. There are now legions of proper Bostonians who want the editor of the site arrested for child porn. It certainly was in bad taste, but the lawyers are saying no legal grounds for prosecution.
The internet is a slippery slope when it comes to ethics.

melee1969 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
melee1969 said...

Leary7, Barstool Sports did put up a nude photo of Tom Brady's two year old son, zooming in on his genitals.

But it's not the picture, but the wording underneath it, describing the genitals of a 2 year old boy, that might just get this guy fired.

It is indeed a slippery slope. I don't think that evil liz did anything illegal, but I do feel it's immoral.

Who are we to judge these people? Diane Lake didn't kill anybody, or even hurt anybody that I know of. But she will always have that stigma of the Family.

I for one, think that she and others like her that made a mistake years ago, just be left alone.

If a blog administrator wants to ask permission for pictures, then that's okay. But evidently, evil liz isn't doing that, as evidenced by Diane's request to remove certain pictures.

What constitutes good taste and bad taste? Why don't you define that for us?

leary7 said...

way beyond my capabilities.
and thanks for the info on barstool - I knew nothing about the caption or zoom. That does seem to cross a line.
it is one of the toughest calls there is, Melee. I want to support free speech, but you're right, some of the stuff just seems way beyond not just bad taste but basic fairness.
I guess my perspective is colored a bit because I have gotten to know Liz a bit and don't think she has a mean bone in her body. And she has great empathy for most of the Manson participants.
I hate to fall back on a cliche, but taste, like art, is subjective. As long as Liz is within the law, all one can do is accuse her of bad taste. I just wish folk would do it with more civility and less insults.

melee1969 said...

Leary7, pertaining to the picture of the 2 year old, the law is very concise on what constitutes child pornography.

If there is a picture of a nude child on the internet, that doesn't consitute porn, BUT, if it is presented in a lacivious manner, or is worded to generate a sexual response, then it is definitely child pornography.

The question here is, which is it? That will be decided by the courts.

As to evil liz, I'm not inferring that she's mean. All I'm saying is that maybe she should be a little more empathetic toward the people that she's snatching photos from to entertain her people on a blog.

There's entertainment, and then there's violating a person's privacy.

I believe another person on a previous thread stated that the Manson Family should be considered "public figures", as they were photographed quite a bit when they were young.

I disagree. They were mixed up kids who thought it was cool then.

They've grown up now. And the point I'm trying to make, black or white, happy or sad, right or wrong, is that they most likely don't want their current peers to know their past.

And that's understandable. Can't you see that??

leary7 said...

hey Melee, of course I can see that. I was engaged to and lived with Oswald's daughter for two years. I saw it firsthand. In spades.
The emotional answer is of course everyone deserves their privacy. And in a perfect world they would get it. But there is nothing in our constitution about emotional fairness.
There is, however, a whole lot about free speech and free enterprise. I don't always agree with it, but that is the world we live in.
If a magazine thinks a profile of Ted Bundy's daughter would sell some copies, then God bless her but the magazine is going to go for it. Is it fair? Probably not. It just is what it is, the world we live in.
One can howl at the moon all night, it ain't gonna change the reality of dawn.

melee1969 said...

Leary7, if you lived with Lee H. Oswald's daughter, then you must have seen her pain. Did you like that? Or did you think it was wrong.

Let me explain one thing to you.

The Media does go after people for one reason: to make money.

That is the only source of income for these people. They pay their mortgage, feed their families, clothe their children, maybe pay college tuition with this money. Do they exploit people. Yes.

Evil liz on the other hand doesn't make money from this, as far as I know. It's just a blog.

So the reason is: just the thrill of entertaining her audience?

Two very different scenarios as far as I can see.

We can talk about legal or illegal...or we can talk about right or wrong.

If you were engaged to LHO's daughter, and saw her pain, then surely you know the pain of Diane Lake.

Would you defend Liz now?

leary7 said...

as weird and idiotic as this may seem, Melee, I really don't feel like I am defending Liz so much as just acknowledging that if Liz wasn't doing what she does odds are somebody else would be.
How many copies of Helter Skelter were sold? And again, odds are a good per centage of those who read it would be curious how the characters involved turned out, even the lesser ones. Somebody posted over there that they can't wait to see an update photo of Cottage Jo or Madiline Cottage, I forget and frankly can't remember who she is from the book. But people have their favorites.
Where do you draw the line? Some would say, including, I suspect, most lawyers, that if you spent any serious time at Spahn you made yourself part of an infamous story and are thus fair game. Is that fair? As I have said, probably not. But it is reality.

Anonymous said...

Leary7, You must have just finished reading the BUGs new book about the JFK shooting. If I knew nothing about the BUG, after seeing HIS theory on JFK, I would think he was either trying to make money or was just plain stupid! You have to be a complete idiot devoid of any common sense capabilities to think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assaisan, or better yet even knew about what was going to happen. Oswald didn't yell out those famous words" I am a Patsy" for nothing.