OT: Mark Chapman/John Lennon
Blairomatic
In 1981 he got a 20 years to life sentence, for pleading guilty to Lennons
pre-medidated murder.
So the sentencing judge decided that after 20 years, if the parole board
sees fit, Chapman can walk on parole.
He's been denied parole four times now and is due to front the parole board
again in October next year.
Chapman is now 52 and whether he is still a danger to society, or more
specifically Lennon's family, is open to debate. It also seems obvious that
he is being denied parole because of who he killed, for political reasons
the parole board won't risk releasing him.
If he had murdered someone who wasn't famous then he may have been released
by now, probably in 2001 when his 20 year minimum sentence had expired.
What do people think? Should he be released if he is rehabilited? Or should
he stay in prison for his natural life?
Blair
Richard Palmer
Well, had he shot somebody else, maybe an ex-girlfriend, then chances
are he'd have done it because of some kind of argument. If he'd shot a
shop assistant he'd have done it during a robbery. Under those
circumstances, society says they can go free after a set period of
time.
Chapman killed Lennon because he (Chapman) was a nutcase. If he's
still a nutcase then he should stay inside, the same as I'd say about
any nutter regardless of who they shot.
Plus as well, he'd last about thirty seconds outside of the prison
door before somebody killed him, so on balance it's maybe easiest to
keep him where he is.
Richard
suave harv
> What do people think? Should he be released if he is rehabilited? Or
> should
> he stay in prison for his natural life?
He's a political prisoner, like Myra Hindly was. Under current law, he
should be released.
Personally, I believe murderers should be banged up for the rest of their
lives, but that ain't the law is it?
Bill
The law doesn't guarantee his release, just that he is eligible for
it. It's not like he was sentenced to 20 years and they are holding
him past it. I'm sure there are thousands of murderers who get denied
paroled every year, we just only hear about Chapman or Manson or
Sirhan Sirhan.
Probably doesn't help Chapman's cause that he tells the parole board
that even HE thinks he shouldn't get released.
Next parole hearing: October 2008
Bill
Richard Palmer
Yes, but Hindley was different. She was yer average common or garden
murderess, who helped kill some random people (most of whom were
children, although should that make a difference?) and as nasty as she
was she ought to have - theoretically - been given the same rights as
anyone else under the same circumstances. One of the biggest problems
with Hindley was that her case was never out of the media. Every year
without fail there was a new story, or a rehash of the old story, and
the press would go and knock on the doors of the victims' parents and
ask them how they felt about another year going by, and then they'd be
paraded in front of a TV camera sobbing and threatening to kill her if
she was ever released, and so what chance did she ever have of living
a normal life if she was sent out?
Then you have Mark Chapman. He decided that he was a character from a
book, and allowed the voices in his head to send him on a mission to
kill a famous musician. To me, it doesn't matter if he ended up
killing John Lennon, or the bloke who cleaned the streets outside his
house, those are the actions of a mental case. Do I want a mental case
running about free? No I don't. So if there's any chance that he might
still be as mad as a hatter, then leave him where he is.
That, incidentally, was the difference between Ian Brady, and Myra
Hindley. Hindley was an evil bitch, but no more evil than many other
murderers who become rehabilitated after years in prison, and Brady
was and is a psychotic piece of dirt who has shown no remorse in over
40 years.
I have to say that over time my sympathy with people like Myra Hindley
has become less and less, to the point where once I would have argued
that she ought to have been released (because she was as you say
nothing more than a political prisoner), and towards the end of her
life I simply thought fuck it, why should I waste my compassion on
anyone who was capable of doing what she did? Let her rot.
And I think on balance that's the healthy way to look at it.
Richard
get their hopes up, then mow them down
if this isn't a waste of posting time i don't know what is...
(sighs.. he must be home alone again.)
get their hopes up, then mow them down
he won't get released.. if he and the feds know what's good for the
dipshit.
he'll be dead no time flat and all that celeb that he has built up
will be over.... just buried 6ft. under.
infiniteman
> book, and allowed the voices in his head to send him on a mission to
> kill a famous musician. To me, it doesn't matter if he ended up
> killing John Lennon, or the bloke who cleaned the streets outside his
> house, those are the actions of a mental case. Do I want a mental case
> running about free? No I don't. So if there's any chance that he might
> still be as mad as a hatter, then leave him where he is.
I don't buy the part about Chapman hearing voices in his head telling
him to kill a famous musician. There was an article on Chapman several
years ago in which it was alleged he had a list of possible
celebrities he'd like to kill. John's name was on that list as was
Paul McCartney's and Johnny Carson's. If the story is true, Chapman's
act wasn't that of someone who was nuts but someone whose act was
premeditated. John was chosen because Chapman determined he was the
most accessible of the celebrities. If John had the kind security
around him that had been around Elvis, he might still have been with
us today.
Regardless of whether he's a mental case or sane, I also don't want to
see him released anrd running free. As George Harrison put it several
years ago when Chapman first came up for parole, he should be paroled
only on the moment when John is back from the dead. Otherwise, keep
him locked up and let him rot, isolated but protected from other
prisoners who had vowed to end his life if the chance was afforded
them.
Richard Palmer
<catg...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't buy the part about Chapman hearing voices in his head telling
>him to kill a famous musician. There was an article on Chapman several
>years ago in which it was alleged he had a list of possible
>celebrities he'd like to kill. John's name was on that list as was
>Paul McCartney's and Johnny Carson's. If the story is true, Chapman's
>act wasn't that of someone who was nuts but someone whose act was
>premeditated. John was chosen because Chapman determined he was the
>most accessible of the celebrities. If John had the kind security
>around him that had been around Elvis, he might still have been with
>us today.
It was premeditated, but that's only because he planned it after he
heard the voices. It doesn't really matter whether he woke up one
morning and thought "Oh, I know what would break the monotony...kill
John Lennon", or whether he took a few weeks to work out the finer
points. If he was doing it because God told him to, then that's not a
sane man.
>Regardless of whether he's a mental case or sane, I also don't want to
>see him released anrd running free. As George Harrison put it several
>years ago when Chapman first came up for parole, he should be paroled
>only on the moment when John is back from the dead. Otherwise, keep
>him locked up and let him rot, isolated but protected from other
>prisoners who had vowed to end his life if the chance was afforded
>them.
But the point is, if he is sane then he has to be treated in exactly
the same way as any other murderer. Personally I don't care if he dies
in prison, because as I said earlier it's hard to feel sympathy for a
murderer - there's too many much more deserving cases knocking around
- but you have to be consistent in these matters.
Richard
Jazzman
December 8, 2007
I miss you, John. 27 years later, I still wish I could turn back the
clock to the Summer of 1980. I remember everything - sharing our
morning coffee, walking in the park together on a beautiful day, and
seeing your hand stretched to mine - holding it, reassuring me that I
shouldn't worry about anything because our life was good.
I had no idea that life was about to teach me the toughest lesson of
all. I learned the intense pain of losing a loved one suddenly,
without warning, and without having the time for a final hug and the
chance to say, "I love you," for the last time. The pain and shock of
that sudden loss is with me every moment of every day. When I touched
John's side of our bed on the night of December 8th, 1980, I realized
that it was still warm. That moment has haunted me for the past 27
years - and will stay with me forever.
Even harder for me is watching what was taken away from our beautiful
boy, Sean.
He lives in silent anger over not having his Dad, whom he loved so
much, around to share his life with. I know we are not alone. Our pain
is one shared by many other families who are suffering as the victims
of senseless violence. This pain has to stop.
Let's not waste the lives of those we have lost. Let's, together, make
the world a place of love and joy and not a place of fear and anger.
This day of John's passing has become more and more important for so
many people around the world as the day to remember his message of
Peace and Love and to do what each of us can to work on healing this
planet we cherish.
Let's: Think Peace, Act Peace, and Spread Peace. John worked for it
all his life.
He said, "there's no problem, only solutions." Remember, we are all
together.
We can do it, we must. I love you!
Yoko Ono Lennon
Blairomatic
"Jazzman" <astra...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:e58f9bf9-92ca-46d2...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.imaginepeace.com
> " I miss you, John. 27 years later, I still wish I could turn back the
> clock to the Summer of 1980".
That's my view, authorities should always ask the victims families whether
murderers should be released, and when, or if, the families say no then the
parole board should abide by that. It's a simplistic view of things but
really it's the most important isn't it?
Ono-Lennon argues against Chapmans release every time it comes up for review
and who can blame her? If he got released I know I wouldn't sleep well at
night if I was in her circumstances.
Blair
Blairomatic
"infiniteman" <catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cd04d41c-ccd7-4b85...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If John had the kind security
> around him that had been around Elvis, he might still have been with
> us today.
Yes maybe not, but that really wasn't what John Lennon was all about was it?
And anyway, with all Elvis' armed security, it still didn't save him either.
> Regardless of whether he's a mental case or sane, I also don't want to
> see him released and running free. As George Harrison put it several
> years ago when Chapman first came up for parole, he should be paroled
> only on the moment when John is back from the dead. Otherwise, keep
> him locked up and let him rot, isolated but protected from other
> prisoners who had vowed to end his life if the chance was afforded
> them.
I agree, he should stay in prison. His crime was appalling, to state the
obvious.
Blair
Blairomatic
news:g53ol3l0jrakfbuig...@4ax.com...
> Well, had he shot somebody else, maybe an ex-girlfriend, then chances
> are he'd have done it because of some kind of argument. If he'd shot a
> shop assistant he'd have done it during a robbery. Under those
> circumstances, society says they can go free after a set period of
> time.
>
> Chapman killed Lennon because he (Chapman) was a nutcase. If he's
> still a nutcase then he should stay inside, the same as I'd say about
> any nutter regardless of who they shot.
>
> Plus as well, he'd last about thirty seconds outside of the prison
> door before somebody killed him, so on balance it's maybe easiest to
> keep him where he is.
But they let John Hinckley out (who shot Reagan), and (for those with faded
memories) famously stalked Jimmy Carter as well, all because of wanting to
impress Jodie Foster.
No there's a tweaked individual if there ever was one, yet he is now out and
about.
He is from a wealthy family, which may have had something to do with his
release. Also, obviously, he didn't murder anyone, but that shouldn't really
matter as, by all attempts and purposes, that's only because he didn't get
close enough.
Blair
Blairomatic
news:Poidnc-vW9G2k8Ha...@bt.com...
> Personally, I believe murderers should be banged up for the rest of their
> lives, but that ain't the law is it?
No but ideally it should be, but we all know it isn't.
Not sure how things are going in the UK and other countries, but here in
Australian there has been a real spike in violence lately, real brutal
crimes, almost every day.
For example, just the other week quite near where I live...
...has anyone ever gone over to a neighbours house and asked them to "please
turn the music down as it's a weeknight and I'm up for work at 6am?" This
poor fellow was greeted with a shotgun blast.
The one that was playing the music did the fatal shooting, not the pissed
off guy asking him to turn it down!
The whole thing was just irrational to the core.
Blair
Bill
Hinkley is not free and out and about. He's allowed supervised visits
to his parents house. And he was found not guilty by reasons of
insanity, so it's a different set of rules when it comes to his
incarceration.
Bill
Blairomatic
news:8bOdnQNsZo9SDcHa...@comcast.com...
> Hinkley is not free and out and about. He's allowed supervised visits to
> his parents house. And he was found not guilty by reasons of insanity, so
> it's a different set of rules when it comes to his incarceration.
Being allowed weekend sleepovers at your parents house would definitely be
considered 'released, and out and about' to someone who has been locked up
for 25 years!
Just imagine sitting in front of the tv with a well stocked fridge and a
ballgame on.
Such a massive difference to Hinkley's life inside, where he never would
have got the well stocked fridge.
But yes, the 'insanity' plea. That is a wholly different legal ballgame as
you point out.
However people who are found guilty of murder, like Chapman, are also given
supervised outside privileges. I strongly believe Hinkley got his because of
his family's connections to the wealthy elite.
As Reagan himself said from his hospital bed "I hear his family's in...(what
ever business they ran...oil?)..."
Blair
Scott
"Blairomatic" <blair...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjgqa3$k2i$1...@aioe.org...
I do agree that his murdering a famous person is the reason he's being
denied. But that was his choice to do it.
Scott
H
> "Blairomatic" <blairoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
he will never be released. Everyone shouldn't even bother talking
about it. He has as much chance of getting released as Charles Manson.
It's not gonna happen.
Richard Palmer
The thing about a justice system is that it should be consistent. You
go in front of a jury of your peers, and they decide your fate, and an
impartial judge gives you a sentence based on a set of rules. I know,
it doesn't always seem like it's working, but that is the idea. So you
can't then say "well, the victim should have the final word", because
they're not exactly going to have an unbiased opinion are they?
Somebody broke into my new shed just after I got married, and stole my
lawnmower. If I'd been given a say in the matter the police would have
been pulled from every other case they were on, and the culprit
brought to justice, taken out, and sliced open with a carving knife.
A course of action which, on reflection, would possibly have been a
tad too extreme.
Richard
Kevin
>after I got married, and stole my
>lawnmower. If I'd been given a say in the
>matter the police would have been pulled
>from every other case they were on, and
>the culprit brought to justice, taken out,
>and sliced open with a carving knife.
>A course of action which, on reflection,
>would possibly have been a tad too
>extreme.
>Richard
Perhaps not.
In one of my books on murder, they tell of a man from London who would
kidnap women, staple green shag carpet to their naked bodies, then start
up a stolen lawn mower and mow them down.
You might have stopped a killer and got your name in the newspaper...
Kevin
Blairomatic
news:20246-475...@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
> >Somebody broke into my new shed just
>>after I got married, and stole my
>>lawnmower.
> kidnap women, staple green shag carpet to their naked bodies, then start
> up a stolen lawn mower and mow them down.
>
> You might have stopped a killer and got your name in the newspaper...
Then again perhaps not.
It was probably just some poor sod who had been given an ultimatum by his
Mrs, "mow the lawn today or you're out".
Blair
Kevin
>had been given an ultimatum by his Mrs,
>"mow the lawn today or you're out".
>Blair
Do you think Richard is capable of stealing his own lawnmower?
I've been trying to find something on him since I got here, this might
be the one.
Kevin
Blairomatic
You might finally be onto something.
I can see it now, Richard being given an ultimatum, then stealing his own
lawnmower, hiding it down the street at a mates place, before coming in
swearing, screaming blue murder to his new wife that "some bastards stolen
the bloody lawnmower!"
All in an effort to get out of mowing the lawn.
He says he's still married, all these years later, so his wife probably
bought it hook, line and sinker. Either that or she felt sorry for him,
going to all that effort and all.
Blair
Blairomatic
news:fjgqa3$k2i$1...@aioe.org...
> In 1981 he got a 20 years to life sentence, for pleading guilty to Lennons
> pre-medidated murder.
Here' McCartney's controversial reaction to Lennons death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZh_BqJqKns
Many people thought he came across uncaring or indeed, very cold.
Others, perhaps more perceptive, realised he was in shock and just wanted
the reporters out of his face.
Blair
infiniteman
> heard the voices. It doesn't really matter whether he woke up one
> morning and thought "Oh, I know what would break the monotony...kill
> John Lennon", or whether he took a few weeks to work out the finer
> points. If he was doing it because God told him to, then that's not a
> sane man.
Premeditated but he never plead guilty by reason of insanity in court.
He accepted responsibility for what he had done and accepted that
responsibility at his parole hearing in October 2000. At that parole
hearing, he acknowledged he heard voices but said he only heard a
single voice inside his head telling him to "just do it." He knew what
he was doing, acknowledged to the parole board that he could've
stopped himself from doing what he did but didn't. The problem in his
head was he saw himself as a nobody whose head was messed up by drugs,
for which he blamed John and the Beatles for promoting the usage of
drugs to those of his generation, and his frame of mind at the time
when he shot John was he didn't want John spreading the message of use
drugs. His frame of mind also at the time was he didn't see John as a
real person but as a celebrity whose face was on the covers of the
cardboard boxes that held the LPs. And he saw shooting John as a vain
method to make himself from a nobody into a somebody, someone who
would be immortalized in history books, forever tied to Lennon's
death.
Yes, he does sound like he was insane and author Jack Jones, who wrote
a book on Chapman, says Chapman is a sociopath. But, Chapman has never
been diagnosed as being a sociopath or insane -- he refused to be
treated or diagnosed in prison for any mental illnesses. And today,
claims he is sane because of his faith in Jesus and belief in God.
> But the point is, if he is sane then he has to be treated in exactly
> the same way as any other murderer. Personally I don't care if he dies
> in prison, because as I said earlier it's hard to feel sympathy for a
> murderer - there's too many much more deserving cases knocking around
> - but you have to be consistent in these matters.
Your point is well taken. Another interesting tidbit from Chapman's
2000 parole hearing is he told the parole board he wasn't asking to be
released, that he recognized that someone might kill him for what he
had done if and when he was released, and that he was prepared to
accept that fate should it happen. He spoke of wishing he could undo
what he had done but knows it can't be undone and (again) took
responsibility for his actions. He was asked about the possibility
that he could be a threat to others, especially any of the celebrities
who were on that list. He replied no, saying that his faith in Jesus
and God had vanquished his inner demons and he no longer had any wish
or desire to harm another human being.
Sane or insane sociopath? I don't know from reading the transcript; he
doesn't come across in the same way that Charles Manson comes across
in the few interviews of him that are out there. He seemed quite sane
during that review. He also seemed to accept the possible fate of
spending the rest of his life in prison but he also felt it wasn't
right that he had taken John's life and that his life hadn't been
taken in return. A subliminal wish for death? That might come across
to some as someone who is insane. I don't think there's any chance he
will be released in October 2008 or anytime after that, out of fear
for his safety or for the safety of others, but you never know what
will happen.
infiniteman
>
New York and to not be accosted by the people because of his
celebrity. He didn't mind the occasional request for an autograph or
talking briefly with the fans but he felt the fans were of no threat
to him and that as a result, he was able to come and go as he pleased.
> And anyway, with all Elvis' armed security, it still didn't save him either.
Different set of circumstances. John's death was preventable. I
don't know if the same could be said about Elvis's death. I don't know
what the routine was of the people who were around Graceland at the
time of his death, whether one of them might have been instructed to
check on Elvis from time to time. Given his drug usage, such an order
would've been very prudent. If Elvis was a heart attack victim or a
drug overdose, someone checking on him every now and then might have
discovered he was in distress and could've summoned medical help that
might have prevented his death.
If John had retained the services of three or four security people
to watch out for him, it's likely Chapman wouldn't have gone through
with his crime. His attack on John to kill him was spurred on by the
fact that John was too accessible, too vulnerable. Chapman was only
fifteen feet away (by his reckoning) when he shot and killed John. Had
their been some kind of security around, there might have been some
concern raised over a fan hanging around the Dakota building for
twelve or thirteen hours. And they might have confronted him and
scared him off. John's accessibility came at too high a cost: his
life! And it didn't have to happen.
j_fet...@hotmail.com
>
I know this will definitly stir up some controversy, but in reality
manson didnt kill anybody, he wasnt at the crime scene at all,. he was
just intelligent enough to convince people and brain wash them into
doing something that they might not normally do. that and all the dope
they were on. he definitly should stay locked up, as he is one weird
mother , but hes also an extremely intelligent man and thinker and is
a very gifted artist.
Bill
Manson was at the LaBianca house and was the one who tied them up before
the others went in. And while he didn't actually kill anyone, he was
found guilty of conspiracy to commit the murders. Because of joint
responsibility, he was found guilty of the murders as well.
He's intelligent as any good con man is and and far as his musical
talents, the songs I've heard showed him to be quite lacking.
Bill
Blairomatic
> j_fet...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> . He has as much chance of getting released as Charles Manson.
>>> It's not gonna happen.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>> I know this will definitly stir up some controversy, but in reality
>> manson didnt kill anybody, he wasnt at the crime scene at all,. he was
>> just intelligent enough to convince people and brain wash them into
>> they were on. he definitly should stay locked up, as he is one weird
>> mother , but hes also an extremely intelligent man and thinker and is
>> a very gifted artist.
He operated no different from any other gang or organized crime boss, he
just sent in his wide-eyed goons to do his dirty work.
By not actually being present at Cielo Dr when it all went down had nothing
to do with any perceived 'lessened culpability' or even, dare I say,
'innocence'.
> Manson was at the LaBianca house and was the one who tied them up before
> the others went in. And while he didn't actually kill anyone, he was
> found guilty of conspiracy to commit the murders. Because of joint
> responsibility, he was found guilty of the murders as well.
>
> He's intelligent as any good con man is and and far as his musical
> talents, the songs I've heard showed him to be quite lacking.
The lack of musical talent, which is pretty obvious, was one of the reasons
that sent him off into his hateful abyss.
He became bitter that his 'talent' was rejected and unappreciated (to put it
mildly). He thought it was his birthright to walk into a studio a cut a
record, without doing all the hard graft that other artists, like our boy,
had to do beforehand.
Fetterman, please don't tell us that you are one of those iconic (Manson)
t-shirt wearers?!
Blair
Blairomatic
> Different set of circumstances. John's death was preventable. I
> don't know if the same could be said about Elvis's death. I don't know
> what the routine was of the people who were around Graceland at the
> time of his death, whether one of them might have been instructed to
> check on Elvis from time to time. Given his drug usage, such an order
> would've been very prudent. If Elvis was a heart attack victim or a
> drug overdose, someone checking on him every now and then might have
> discovered he was in distress and could've summoned medical help that
> might have prevented his death.
I was implying more in the long term. All Elvis' 'minders' couldn't do a
damn thing to prevent his self destruction, in fact controversially, some
even think they encouraged it, simply by cutting Elvis off from reality.
> If John had retained the services of three or four security people
> to watch out for him, it's likely Chapman wouldn't have gone through
> with his crime. His attack on John to kill him was spurred on by the
> fact that John was too accessible, too vulnerable. Chapman was only
> fifteen feet away (by his reckoning) when he shot and killed John. Had
> their been some kind of security around, there might have been some
> concern raised over a fan hanging around the Dakota building for
> twelve or thirteen hours. And they might have confronted him and
> scared him off. John's accessibility came at too high a cost: his
> life! And it didn't have to happen.
This is all so debatable. Of course technically Lennon would have been less
at risk from Chapman if he'd had a few goons surrounding him.
But with handguns that is still no guarantee. The element of surprise is
always with the attacker, a split second movement is all it takes.
An interesting point though is this, how many people hung around Lennons
building when he was living there? Was it normal for fans to congregate and
wait literally hours outside for a glimpse of him? If so then Chapman
wouldn't have aroused any undue attention. Unless of course he was coming
across as a bit of a nut.
Blair
j_fet...@hotmail.com
> "Bill" <batcave1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:-ZednW9944K-QsDa...@comcast.com...
LOL Blair! Absolutely not! As i said the guy is a weird mother to put
it mildly. His songs did make quite a bit of money when guns and roses
recorded them and they were released but all the royalties went to a
suit filed by the family of the victims. he never saw a penny of it.
and yes i can understand your points about not actually being there
and him acting as the so called crime boss. but also in reality, the
other members didnt have to listen to him and had their own minds to
know what was right and wrong. what made them do it? was it the drugs?
perhaps, or even the possibility that charlie himself was intelligent
enough to actually make them think his way of thinking was the right
way. who knows? I know if somebody even like charlie himself tried to
convince me that his way of thinking was the right way, id be like
"dude you're really fucked up" iwouldnt matter if i was on dope or
not, id still know right from wrong when it came to something like
that.
Blairomatic
<j_fet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c95b37c1-ad61-4c79...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> I know if somebody even like charlie himself tried to
> "dude you're really fucked up" It wouldn't matter if i was on dope or
> not, id still know right from wrong when it came to something like
> that.
Pleased to hear it!
But in Manson's case he'd probably kill you for saying that, especially out
on that isolated dude ranch, where no-one would hear you scream!
Blair
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
> I just read that Mark Chapman, John Lennons killer, is up for parole again.
>
> pre-medidated murder.
>
> fit, Chapman can walk on parole.
>
> He's been denied parole four times now and is due to front the parole board
> again in October next year.
>
> Chapman is now 52 and whether he is still a danger to society, or more
> specifically Lennon's family, is open to debate. It also seems obvious that
> he is being denied parole because of who he killed, for political reasons the
> parole board won't risk releasing him.
>
> If he had murdered someone who wasn't famous then he may have been released
> by now, probably in 2001 when his 20 year minimum sentence had expired.
>
> What do people think? Should he be released if he is rehabilited? Or should
> he stay in prison for his natural life?
>
> Blair
Many people would have said send him up the river to the "Death House"
at Sing Sing and stick him in Old Sparky and fry him. Many in America
would want to reward Chapman.
What know you of American law Blair and the criteria to be eligable for
parole ? When he goes before the panel Yoko Ono Lennon and her son are
represented by a fine attorney who protest on account that their lives
are in danger by this man.
I personaly believe that when someone plans to kill another person then
they should stay in for life. What would your opinion be if Chapman
had shot Elvis dead or even one of your own family ? God forbid it.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
>> What do people think? Should he be released if he is rehabilited? Or should
>> he stay in prison for his natural life?
>
> be released.
> Personally, I believe murderers should be banged up for the rest of their
> lives, but that ain't the law is it?
Myra Hindly was a sadistic bastard who aided Brady in the torture and
murder of little children. In their case there was grounds to give
them the rope.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
That always reminds me of my grandfather who once said "we never
dropped enough A-bombs on Japan."
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
The "Cat O Nine Tails" and "the birch" would have been fair punishment.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
No Blair I am unable to "see it" as my imagination does not run as free
as yours.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
If you work out all the young youths who became addicted to drugs on
account of the likes of Lennon and Jagger then maybe things evened
themselves out in the long run.
Lennon would have done himself a favor if he kept out of politics and
stopped trying to play God. He was far too anti establishment and had
pissed off a lot of people in America which he would have got away with
in Britain.
He was a guest in America and he had no business whatsoever to
critisize the actions of American governmental policy whis as a Briton
was none of his or his wife's business.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
Look here Blair there are different types of security.
Those who can afford it today pay for proffesionals who do not drink or
lark about. They are usually former soldiers from elite regiments,
Para's, Royal Marines, Foreign Legion, or SAS or SBS or SEALS.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
> "suave harv" <shuty...@foodnotpints.com> wrote in message
> news:Poidnc-vW9G2k8Ha...@bt.com...
>> Personally, I believe murderers should be banged up for the rest of their
>> lives, but that ain't the law is it?
>
>
> Not sure how things are going in the UK and other countries, but here in
> Australian there has been a real spike in violence lately, real brutal
> crimes, almost every day.
>
> For example, just the other week quite near where I live...
>
> ...has anyone ever gone over to a neighbours house and asked them to "please
> turn the music down as it's a weeknight and I'm up for work at 6am?" This
> poor fellow was greeted with a shotgun blast.
>
> The one that was playing the music did the fatal shooting, not the pissed off
> guy asking him to turn it down!
>
> The whole thing was just irrational to the core.
>
> Blair
The music is loud where you live Blair. Please will you go across the
road and threaten to give them a hiding if they don't turn it down.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni on law. <baldoniXXV
Quite right he was the instigator behind it all. He must have put fear
into those people to be able to tie them up while the others waited
outside.
He is as much if not more guilty than those who did the killing. It is
likely that Manson had killed before anyway.
--
Count Baldoni
infiniteman
> damn thing to prevent his self destruction, in fact controversially, some
> even think they encouraged it, simply by cutting Elvis off from reality.
Long term, maybe so but my focus was on what happened that last day of
Elvis's life. What were the daily routines of those who were working
for Elvis at the time? Wasn't it said that Rick Stanley was supposed
to have kept close to Elvis that day (and was nowhere to be found),
just in case Elvis woke up and needed anything or possibly needed help
of some kind? Maybe it was the fact that Rick Stanley wasn't where he
was supposed to have been that gave Vernon reason to think his son's
death might not have been through natural or accidental means, which
was why he requested an autopsy.
> > � If John had retained the services of three or four security people....
> This is all so debatable. Of course technically Lennon would have been less
> at risk from Chapman if he'd had a few goons surrounding him.
>
> But with handguns that is still no guarantee. The element of surprise is
> always with the attacker, a split second movement is all it takes.
>
Debatable, yes, but still, had there been enough security around the
Dakota whenever John and Yoko entered or exited the building or the
limo, my guess is such security would've kept the fans away at a
respectable distance. Much more than 15 feet. I think they would've
had the fans gather in one location, the better to keep an eye on all
of them. Chapman, I think, would've lost his nerve as if he was seen
by security pulling a gun from his coat. Sure, he could've gotten a
shot off but at a distance further than what he was at, he could've
missed or possibly hit someone else. And by that time, what security
there was, could've surrounded John and Yoko with their own weapons
drawn. Chapman could've decided to keep shooting, trying to hit John
before he was possibly taken down or he could've dropped his gun,
raised his hands and surrendered.
What if? Naturally, but John's death at the hands of a so called fan
and the death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer at the hands of a deranged
fan, proved why Elvis was correct in keeping people around him for
protection. Most of the fans mean no harm towards a celebrity but the
celebrity never knows when they might run into their Mark David
Chapman. John's death also provided security firms a selling point for
potential celebrity clients: the need for crowd control.
> An interesting point though is this, how many people hung around Lennons
> building when he was living there? Was it normal for fans to congregate and
> wait literally hours outside for a glimpse of him? If so then Chapman
> wouldn't have aroused any undue attention. Unless of course he was coming
> across as a bit of a nut.
I can't remember if they said fans normally gathered around the Dakota
entrance, waiting for hours to get a glimpse of John. Chapman, by his
own admission, had been hanging around the Dakota for twelve to
thirteen hours when he shot John and if memory serves, there were very
few others or maybe none at all, save for John and Yoko, the doorman
and Chapman. I have to wonder why the individuals who worked as the
doormen for the building weren't suspicious to some degree of someone
hanging around that long? Chapman said at his parole hearing, he asked
John to autograph his copy of "Double Fantasy" around noon at the
Dakota, and stayed there for hours, waiting for John to return.
Someone should've been suspicious but maybe there were fans who hung
around for hours but never gave reason to be taken as a potential
threat.
infiniteman
> account of the likes of Lennon and Jagger then maybe things evened
> themselves out in the long run.
>
people get themselves addicted to drugs, that wouldn't have been any
excuse for the people who did so. People are responsible for their own
actions but many are unable to accept responsibility for their
actions. For the record, after beating his own addiction, John did
speak out in the US against people experimenting with drugs.
As for the statement that maybe things evened themselves out in the
long run, there's no excuse, no reason that can ever be justified for
the taking of another person's life in that manner. The way John may
have lived his life does not excuse you from your actions. You and you
alone, are responsible for what you did and whether you like it or
not, you own the mistakes of your life. You still had it within you to
go a different path but YOU chose the road YOU wanted.
> Lennon would have done himself a favor if he kept out of politics and
> stopped trying to play God. �He was far too anti establishment and had
> pissed off a lot of people in America which he would have got away with
> in Britain.
Lennon never tried to play God. As for politics, speaking out against
the Vietnam war, well, he commanded a lot of attention as a former
Beatle and a rocker, but he was no different than most of the other
rock and roll artists who were speaking out against the war at the
time. John's politics irritated those within the Nixon administration
but that corrupt administration was fighting several losing battles,
one of which was losing public support for the Vietnam war. Other than
the Nixon administration and a few right wing batty fanatics on the
fringe, John's political views bothered very few others. Because of
the crap Nixon and his cronies pulled during Watergate and the fallout
from it, the majority of people who had in the past supported him were
distancing themselves as much as possible.
> He was a guest in America and he had no business whatsoever to
> critisize the actions of American governmental policy whis as a Briton
> was none of his or his wife's business.
Some people here in this country would agree with you but here again,
the truth is different to that belief. There are no exceptions listed
in our constitution prohibiting anyone from speaking out about
something that bothers them. If someone is bothered by what someone
else has to say, whether that person is a citizen or came from another
country, they just need to remember three very simple words: get over
it! So, John was free to say what was on his mind. As for Yoko, well,
she was already an American citizen when John was speaking out, so
what the Nixon administration was trying to do to her husband was her
business!
Blairomatic
> Wasn't it said that Rick Stanley was supposed
> to have kept close to Elvis that day (and was nowhere to be found),
> just in case Elvis woke up and needed anything or possibly needed help
> of some kind?
He was off getting stoned, as we know, which in his defence isn't so
unremarkable.
Fancy putting a wayward teenager in charge of Elvis' nightly portion of
'lethal' pills.
> Maybe it was the fact that Rick Stanley wasn't where he
> was supposed to have been that gave Vernon reason to think his son's
> death might not have been through natural or accidental means, which
> was why he requested an autopsy.
Sealed for 50 years, so in 20 years time the autopsy is available for public
viewing by ghouls like me? Is that how it works?
>Debatable, yes...
Very debatable. But on the whole it is differcult to counter what you have
to say. Easy and widespread access to firearms creates this situation where
everybody is living in relative fear.
Blair
infiniteman
> > to have kept close to Elvis that day (and was nowhere to be found),
> > just in case Elvis woke up and needed anything or possibly needed help
> > of some kind?
>
> He was off getting stoned, as we know, which in his defence isn't so
> unremarkable.
>
> Fancy putting a wayward teenager in charge of Elvis' nightly portion of
> 'lethal' pills.
No kidding but he was no teenager; think he's about the same age as me
and I was 22 when Elvis died.
> > Maybe it was the fact that Rick Stanley wasn't where he
> > was supposed to have been that gave Vernon reason to think his son's
> > death might not have been through natural or accidental means, which
> > was why he requested an autopsy.
>
> Sealed for 50 years, so in 20 years time the autopsy is available for public
> viewing by ghouls like me? Is that how it works?
According to Geraldo, Thompson and Cole, they have already told
everyone how Elvis died. That should be good enough for everyone. But,
I do have to wonder what those of us who are still around 20 years
from now may think if the cause of death wasn't what we thought it
was? Would those of us who believed he died from an overdose still
believe that even if the autopsy report says heart attack? Same from
those of us who believed he died from a heart attack, will some still
hold to that belief despite an overdose being the official cause?
Blairomatic
>> Fancy putting a wayward teenager in charge of Elvis' nightly portion of
>> 'lethal' pills.
>
> No kidding but he was no teenager; think he's about the same age as me
> and I was 22 when Elvis died.
I meant to put teenager in inverted comma's, he had the mentality of a
teenager as far as I know.
> According to Geraldo, Thompson and Cole, they have already told
> everyone how Elvis died. That should be good enough for everyone. But,
> I do have to wonder what those of us who are still around 20 years
> from now may think if the cause of death wasn't what we thought it
> was? Would those of us who believed he died from an overdose still
> believe that even if the autopsy report says heart attack? Same from
> those of us who believed he died from a heart attack, will some still
> hold to that belief despite an overdose being the official cause?
They surely wouldn't seal it for 50 years if all it stated was that Elvis
died of a heart attack by natural causes. They told us this when he died.
I think there is something juicy in there. My 50 year wait is well past the
half-way mark now.
Blair
infiniteman
> >> Fancy putting a wayward teenager in charge of Elvis' nightly portion of
> >> 'lethal' pills.
>
> > No kidding but he was no teenager; think he's about the same age as me
> > and I was 22 when Elvis died.
>
> I meant to put teenager in inverted comma's, he had the mentality of a
> teenager as far as I know.
And he was still older than his mother!
> > According to Geraldo, Thompson and Cole, they have already told
> > everyone how Elvis died. That should be good enough for everyone. But,
> > I do have to wonder what those of us who are still around 20 years
> > from now may think if the cause of death wasn't what we thought it
> > was? Would those of us who believed he died from an overdose still
> > believe that even if the autopsy report says heart attack? Same from
> > those of us who believed he died from a heart attack, will some still
> > hold to that belief despite an overdose being the official cause?
>
> They surely wouldn't seal it for 50 years if all it stated was that Elvis
> died of a heart attack by natural causes. They told us this when he died.
Eh, the truth may be less than what everyone thinks, with regard to
the autopsy results being sealed. Since Vernon ordered the autopsy and
not the state, my guess is it may be Tennessee state law required that
the sealing of the autopsy, making it as unavailable as a public
record for 50 years was something that was done in each and every case
in which an autopsy was requested by the family but not requested by
the state. Since Elvis's death was ruled death from natural causes, it
wouldn't have mattered if Elvis was who he was or just a nobody, death
from natural causes may have simply meant nothing was found to justify
the state's further interest in the case, the public's interest and
especially, the press's insatiable interest notwithstanding.
In Elvis's case, many people, especially those in the press couldn't
believe that he just died from natural causes. There had to be
something else. So, they latched onto the stories of his prescription
drug use and abuse and built a case for that being the cause of death
and further, that there was something sinister afoot in sealing the
results of what was found in his blood from their prying eyes.
I can't believe that if the doctors found something out of the
ordinary to suggest that Elvis hadn't died a natural death, that any
of the doctors involved in the autopsy wouldn't have hesitated to have
gone over Dr. Francisco's head and contacted the district attorney's
office or the Memphis police department or the Shelby county sheriff
and relayed what they knew. Whatever Dr. Francisco said, it was
because of the press wanting to know the cause of Elvis's death. Had
Elvis's heart stopped because of an overdose, he couldn't have said so
at the time since the toxicology reports wouldn't have been available
when he gave the press conference.
But, another perspective on Dr. Franciso's press conference: since
what was found during the autopsy wasn't subject to the public's right
to know, do you or anyone think that for one minute the press wouldn't
have gone out to Graceland and hounded Vernon, Lisa and Elvis's
grandmother in their hour of sorrow? Elvis's death was a big story and
the more unscrupulous individuals from the news media wouldn't have
let the grief and sorrow of Elvis's family stand in the way of getting
the scoop on what killed him.
What Dr. Francisco did with the press conference, in my opinion, was
keep the wolves of the press away from the doors of Graceland. As it
was, Dr. Francisco qualified his statement by saying it could be weeks
before the exact cause of death was known, so there was a little room
for him to clarify any of his early remarks. It still comes down to
the fact that the cause of death remained natural causes and the state
had nothing to suggest differently, such as an overdose, that might
have warranted further questioning of the death.
> I think there is something juicy in there. My 50 year wait is well past the
> half-way mark now.
Here's what I think is in there: the goods Geraldo expected to find
when he opened Al Capone's vault in his highly promoted television
special. Geraldo's reputation as a reporter was permanently shot for
that fiasco. There will also be a note from Elvis from the spirit
world to a by then long departed Geraldo, "That's what you get for
saying I died from drugs, a**hole! By the way, who's roasting more:
you or the Colonel?"
Ok, ok, bad joke but I couldn't resist! I don't think anything juicy
will be found in the autopsy report. Heart attack vs. drug overdose
should finally be settled in 2027 but people could go on for another
50 or 100 years (or longer) debating the issue with repeated calls for
exhuming Elvis's remains for another autopsy. Then again, it may
barely raise a ripple with the public or the press,
Kevin
>My 50 year wait is well past the half-way
>mark now.
>Blair
Just think, you might be the only one on here that's still alive by
then. Will you make it a point to stop by each grave and tell us how
Elvis really died? There might be some kind of book deal or tabloid
story in it for you.
If I don't make it, I'll be buried at Dayton Memorial Park aka Woodland
Cemetery, eternal home of Orville And Wilbur Wright and Agnes Moorehead.
If I wasn't so scared of dying, I'd ask somebody on here to give odds on
who will still be among the living when those autopsy reports are
released. I'd say mine would be at least 1,000 to 1...and I know that
you and a few others on here would probably take that bet. Well, I just
scared myself silly with those thoughts. I'll be putting a new bulb in
my Jesus portrait and playing Elvis Gospel tonight.
Here's another thought, the Elvis tribute concert will probably have
everybody on the big screen by 2027...or sooner. Poor Elvis fans will be
spending $100 or more just to watch clips of TTWII, On Tour and Aloha on
a big screen hanging over an empty stage.
And here's some more stats in 2027:
Marty will be 64 twice over...
The Wiggles will have arthritis...
Graceland will still smell like a stinky sock on a musty antique
chair...
Elvis will be found dead in a Hawaiian nursing home at the age of 92
with a copy of his autopsy report clenched in his hand...
Kevin
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Well that is a very contentious issue but is something that is written
into the Constitution. There are a lot of Americans out there who feel
a hell of a lot safer by having the right to keep firearms.
Without a firearm in years gone by, a man or woman depended on a
firearm like we would rely on our left arm.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
The longer you live then the sooner you will die.
Most of the young people have never heard of Elvis and this will
continue until there are just a few Elvis fans left.
--
Count Baldoni
Blairomatic
> Here's another thought, the Elvis tribute concert will probably have
> everybody on the big screen by 2027...or sooner. Poor Elvis fans will be
> spending $100 or more just to watch clips of TTWII, On Tour and Aloha on
> a big screen hanging over an empty stage.
You're back Kevin! That is bloody beautiful! The most ludicrously funny
thing I've heard for ages. I'm in hysterics son!
And Infiniteman, nice post prior. A really good read.
Blair
Luuk
"Blairomatic" <blair...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:fjon03$4n7$1...@aioe.org...
Years ago I asked the people who raved about the Elvis video show if they
would go in ten years time when everybody would be from video. If only I had
known you were so easily excited about such a remark.......
Marty
pertaining to Elvis has been made public and copies of the same have been
sold just like other memorabilia, maybe Vernon didn't want his autopsy
results being treated the same way. Other wise everyday, you might see it
being offered on ebay or sold across the street from Graceland. How sick
would that be!
Marty
"infiniteman" <catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:daa74137-9927-4886...@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> Simething you are all missing. Just as everything, every document, etc.
> pertaining to Elvis has been made public and copies of the same have been
> sold just like other memorabilia, maybe Vernon didn't want his autopsy
> results being treated the same way. Other wise everyday, you might see it
> being offered on ebay or sold across the street from Graceland. How sick
> would that be!
>
> Marty
>
>
not sell anything regarding me to collectors let alone an autopsy
report.
Do not find me pedantic but can you edit your posts a little better
Marty, it is damned hard to follow the thread at times.
--
Count Baldoni
infiniteman
> pertaining to Elvis has been made public and copies of the same have been
> sold just like other memorabilia, maybe Vernon didn't want his autopsy
> results being treated the same way. �Other wise everyday, you might see it
> being offered on ebay or sold across the street from Graceland. �How sick
> would that be!
>
Good point, Marty, and I wished I had thought of that for my post. The
curiousity as to what killed Elvis has driven the public's/press's
"our right to know" train since that day in August 1977. The
newsmedia's idea that the doctors found something other than what was
reported and the idea that Vernon was keeping that information from
the public made them (and ultimately, us) believe he had something to
hide.
Almost any document that had Elvis's name on it, whether it was his
driver's license or his will could be found for sale in various
newspapers and magazines just a few short weeks after his death. That
was ghoulish and offensive exploitation, capitalizing on Elvis's death
and it was something I thought Parker could've been behind, although
I'm guessing that on Elvis's will, anyone could've gone to the Shelby
county courthouse or the public records office for the state of
Tennessee and requested a copy. I don't know how the people who sold
Elvis memorabilia managed to get a copy of his driver's license.
Perhaps Parker on that one?
I've no doubt some or all of the sellers would've loved to have gotten
their hands on the autopsy results, with dreams of selling the results
to the highest bidder with backup copies made to keep the money coming
in. Vernon keeping the autopsy results private may not have set well
with the public or with the press but out of respect for his son, it
was the decent thing to do.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>> Simething you are all missing. ïÿ½Just as everything, every document, etc.
>> pertaining to Elvis has been made public and copies of the same have been
>> sold just like other memorabilia, maybe Vernon didn't want his autopsy
>> being offered on ebay or sold across the street from Graceland. ïÿ½How sick
>> would that be!
>>
>
> Good point, Marty, and I wished I had thought of that for my post. The
> curiousity as to what killed Elvis has driven the public's/press's
> "our right to know" train since that day in August 1977. The
> newsmedia's idea that the doctors found something other than what was
> reported and the idea that Vernon was keeping that information from
> the public made them (and ultimately, us) believe he had something to
> hide.
>
> Almost any document that had Elvis's name on it, whether it was his
> driver's license or his will could be found for sale in various
> newspapers and magazines just a few short weeks after his death. That
> was ghoulish and offensive exploitation, capitalizing on Elvis's death
> and it was something I thought Parker could've been behind, although
> I'm guessing that on Elvis's will, anyone could've gone to the Shelby
> county courthouse or the public records office for the state of
> Tennessee and requested a copy. I don't know how the people who sold
> Elvis memorabilia managed to get a copy of his driver's license.
> Perhaps Parker on that one?
Why has Parker been singled out when we know that Vernon fired MM
members who were dishonest ? These same men who had been lavished in
expensive gifts then collaborated to write books on Elvis's private
life for pieces of silver, just like Judas Iscariot. These men did not
go to Elvis's funeral and Marty says he was filled with grief. Not to
grief stricken to write a kiss and tell book about Elvis's personal
business and his drug abuse which he would not have wanted people
knowing.
Were those close circle of guy's shocked when Elvis died ? I find this
very hard to believe if they were as close as they say they were. They
must have seen all this shit catching up with him. Look at the state
of his body and the shape of him for heavens sake.
It is all too convenient to blame Tom Parker for something that Elvis
did to himself. If Elvis had not spunked his money up on crassy toys
he could have employed a good proffesional to negotiate his contract
and make sure he was paid for what he was due. But he never bothered
and he just got off his face on drugs and let things tick over slowly
going over until his number was finaly up,
Without Parker and his contacts then we may not revere Elvis Presley in
the manner in which we do.
>
> I've no doubt some or all of the sellers would've loved to have gotten
> their hands on the autopsy results, with dreams of selling the results
> to the highest bidder with backup copies made to keep the money coming
> in. Vernon keeping the autopsy results private may not have set well
> with the public or with the press but out of respect for his son, it
> was the decent thing to do.
--
Count Baldoni
Blairomatic
> I don't know how the people who sold
> Elvis memorabilia managed to get a copy of his driver's license.
> Perhaps Parker on that one?
Is this down to someone having access to Elvis' wallet? As I believe that is
where he kept it, no?
So, if true, how does that work? Elvis dies, and someone at Graceland raids
his wallet within hours or days?
Someone please tell me this isn't so.
Blair
Luuk
Perhaps someone close to Elvis, like the Memphis Mafketels, copied it in
advance "just in case".
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Certain people will tell you anything you want to hear and you will
believe them.
Shock horror how could this happen with all the saints under one roof.
Any group of men that style themselves on evil fucking rats like the
Mafia and glorify the mob have to be a tad suspect you stupid fucking
moron !
--
Count Baldoni
infiniteman
> members who were dishonest ? �These same men who had been lavished in
> expensive gifts then collaborated to write books on Elvis's private
> life for pieces of silver, just like Judas Iscariot. �These men did not
> go to Elvis's funeral and Marty says he was filled with grief. �Not to
> grief stricken to write a kiss and tell book about Elvis's personal
> business and his drug abuse which he would not have wanted people
> knowing.
Why Parker? Why would a 'man,' who managed a successfully multimillion
dollar talented performer, recklessly endanger his client's life by
keeping him on the road? Elvis was a sick man, sick in part because of
the drugs he was taking and also sick because his health was not that
great. Parker had kept Elvis on the road more than that of any other
performer in any musical genre and when Elvis's health started
failing, Parker should've done the sensible thing and taken his client
off the road and let him try to get well. But, all Parker could think
about was keeping Elvis on the road, playing to the same cities and
towns he had played the year before and the year before that. Parker
was a weasel who only cared about the money and however much more he
could gouge from Elvis for his "management services." Management,
Parker style wasn't management. It was incompetence and he wanted to
be rewarded with a healthier commission for everything he did for
Elvis.
"We know that Vernon fired MM who were 'dishonest?'" Oh yeah? Who?
Where did you get this information from? "We" know nothing of what you
claim as fact. "We" know Sonny and Red West and Dave Hebler were fired
and "we" know of the reasons that have been publicized and what they
believe the truth was. It wasn't because Sonny and Red and Dave were
dishonest, pal. If you've read their book, you know it wasn't for the
reasons that you claim. As for Marty, he was never fired by Elvis, he
left Elvis's payroll the year before Elvis died. Again, if you've read
his book and read "Revelations...," you know there is no substance to
the idea that he was fired for dishonesty nor is there anything you
can offer as proof to show he was fired. The idea that the MM guys
were fired by Vernon for their dishonesty is one I haven't heard or
read before and I'd like to know where this information can be found.
> Were those close circle of guy's shocked when Elvis died ? �I find this
> very hard to believe if they were as close as they say they were. �They
> must have seen all this shit catching up with him. �Look at the state
> of his body and the shape of him for heavens sake.
Why is it hard to believe? People believe their terminal, ailing
family members are going to get well and are shocked when that person
dies. Elvis's friends, even those whose relationships with him were
strained, were no different. Disbelief as to the death of a person is
a very natural human reaction. You don't want to believe it. You
acknowledge in your last two sentences above that they must have seen
all the shit catching up with and the shape he was in: they saw the
root causes and tried in vain to help Elvis break free but Elvis's
resentment of their interference and his refusal to acknowledge he had
a problem was a costly one. I believe Elvis died from a heart attack
and believe he was ill but I also believe the drugs he was taking,
whether for real or imagined ailments, took their toll on his body and
ultimately caused his heart failure.
> It is all too convenient to blame Tom Parker for something that Elvis
> did to himself. �If Elvis had not spunked his money up on crassy toys
> he could have employed a good proffesional to negotiate his contract
> and make sure he was paid for what he was due. �But he never bothered
> and he just got off his face on drugs and let things tick over slowly
> going over until his number was finaly up,
Uh huh. Here's the deal. I don't blame Sonny, Red, Dave, Marty, Joe,
Charlie or any of the men who were part of the MM for Elvis's death.
They couldn't have committed Elvis to a hospital and have him weaned
off the drugs. They were Elvis's brothers spiritually but they weren't
his family members by blood. The only persons who could've had Elvis
committed (against his will) to the hospital for drug dependency was
his father Vernon as his immediate next of kin or Priscilla, when she
was married to him or Elvis himself. Laws dealing with hospital
admissions in the US at the time mandated that the immediate next of
kin had to be the one having a relative admitted to the hospital and
the one to sign the consent forms.
And though he wasn't anything to Elvis, spiritually or family, I blame
Parker for keeping Elvis on the road, even as his health declined. All
Parker cared about was money, getting as much as he could from Elvis
as was possible. He knew Elvis was in bad shape health wise, knew
about the drugs and shouldn't have been on the road at all. If the
S.O.B. had cared, truly cared about Elvis, he would've taken him off
the road and spoken with Vernon about getting help for Elvis. You can
offer any excuse for Parker but I see none for a man who would allow
an ailing Elvis to put on a number of embarrassing shows (in which he
slurred his words, forgot lyrics to songs, got sick on stage a couple
of times, etc.) but wouldn't cancel the show because money mattered
more to Parker than did the state of Elvis's health.
> Without Parker and his contacts then we may not revere Elvis Presley in
> the manner in which we do.
Parker did some good things for Elvis, I'll concede that. But, most of
it was in the early days of Elvis's career and when Elvis's career
started to slide in the 60s, as far as Parker was concern, the plan
was working but if the plan was failing, you don't change the plan,
you charge your client more for your "services." Now, that was damn
smart thinking on Parker's part. Some of Elvis's movies were
embarassments, not because they stunk as movies (which some did) but
because they sunk at the box office. But, hey, y'know what? The plan
was working beautifully, it was the fault of the loyal fans for not
seeing the plan through. And it was Elvis's fault because he didn't
like the movies he was doing and his dislike must've showed on the
screen, so Elvis will just have to pay the poor ol' Colonel more for
his valuable time; instead of a quarter of Elvis's earnings as his
commission, now Elvis will have to pay a third of what he earns to the
Colonel for "cheap services delivered."
And, how we leave out the amazing '73 buyout of Elvis's catalogue by
RCA, arranged and orchestrated by Col. Parker? He must've saw the
writing on the wall for Elvis's career as he sold RCA all of the songs
Elvis had recorded for them, up through March 31, 1973, an estimated
700 songs, for a little over $10 million by the time the smoke
settled. Poor ol' Colonel, he had to make do with 60% of the buyout
money with Elvis receiving the remaining 40%. But, of course, there
was poor ol' Colonel's one third commission -- now, with Elvis's back
catalogue sold to RCA, meaning no further money coming from those
recordings, all the poor ol' Colonel could look forward to as far as
income from Elvis was Elvis's future releases. But, that could mean a
lot less money, so to keep this beautiful plan of his working, he
required Elvis give up half of what he earned. Awfully decent man,
don't you think? Robbing Elvis blind through his skills as a manager?
And of course, Elvis wouldn't object too much as he was too drugged up
too much of the time to make a fuss.
Do I hate Parker? No, but I despise him for the things he did to
Elvis, the way he constantly and consistently undermined and cheapened
the talent of his client, all for the love of money. Elvis may well
have been with us today if he had dumped his parasitic, pathetic
excuse of a manager. The manager represents the artist for what the
artist wants to do. The manager doesn't call the artistic shots,
interferes with the artistic process -- if management wants a
percentage of the publishing, that kind of haggling doesn't need to
take place in the studio as the artist is at work. If an artist is
making movies that he (or she) finds unchallenging and uninteresting
and wants to do something different in the way of making movies or
wants out altogether, the management doesn't keep signing his client
on for more mindless movies. And management doesn't sell his client's
back catalogue to the record company for a small sum of money and take
most of the money afterwards -- he has the books audited to see if he
and his client are owed money. But, it was good, it was okay with you
that Parker did the things he did for Elvis as manager. Never mind
that he could've done better for Elvis in so many ways but his conceit
and arrogance wouldn't allow him to accept the blame for the things
that went wrong.
Kevin
>Elvis' wallet? As I believe that is where he
>kept it, no?
>So, if true, how does that work? Elvis
>dies, and someone at Graceland raids his
>wallet within hours or days?
>Someone please tell me this isn't so.
>Blair
While I was channel surfing the other night, I stopped on a show where a
hospital patient had just died and the nurse was stealing money from his
wallet. While she was doing this, the dead man sat up in the bed and
asked her what the hell she was doing. It scared her so bad that she
fell over with a heart attack. Heck, it scared me and I didn't take a
dime.
If only Elvis could have risen up from that bathroom floor and said,
"I'm tellin' daddy to fire you if you don't put my wallet back down"....
Kevin
infiniteman
> where he kept it, no?
>
was time to renew the license. I can't speak for the state of
Tennessee but in my state, when your license came up for renewal,
before 9/11, you kept your old license and did whatever you wanted to
do with it. After 9/11, the state I live in now requires the old
licenses to be turned in to be destroyed, so as to prevent identity
theft.
> So, if true, how does that work? Elvis dies, and someone at Graceland raids
> his wallet within hours or days?
>
> Someone please tell me this isn't so.
Here again, it's possible someone at Graceland could've gone through
Elvis's wallet, looking for money or anything which could make them
some money, like a driver's license. Don't forget the photo of Elvis
in his coffin that was published in the National Enquirer was
allegedly taken by one of his relatives.
My suspicion that Parker had something to do with it is that he made a
deal with a company called Factors Etc., to flood the market with
Elvis memoriabilia in the wake of his death. He persuaded Vernon that
it was in the interest of Elvis, his family and his estate to make an
exclusive deal with the company to keep other companies from being
able to rip off Elvis's estate with products on which the estate
wouldn't receive any income.
Factors Etc. released a lot of products including what seemed like a
billion t-shits, all inscribed with Elvis's name, year of birth/death
and the slogan, "The Legend Lives On." The estate had the right to
disapprove any item the estate found to be in bad taste. My guess is
Parker might have had a copy of Elvis's driver license and figured it
might be good as a moneymaker and perhaps had Factors Etc. manufacture
a few to be tested in the marketplace to see how they would do. They
must not have done too well as it was one of the few Elvis items that
didn't have a long shelf life. The Elvis item that has had the longest
shelf life is the Elvis one dollar bill, which is an actual US dollar
with a photo of Elvis pasted or taped over Washington's portrait.
Imagine paying six or seven dollars for a one dollar bill.
Kevin
>Elvis may well have been with us today if
>he had dumped his parasitic, pathetic
>excuse of a manager.
Whenever a fan blames Elvis' death on
somebody else, I get a mental picture of
the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
endless spoons of peanut butter down his
throat.
Kevin
infiniteman
> believe them.
Quite right. How many people do you think believe the claim that
Vernon fired members of the MM for their dishonesty? One reason why I
dislike the attack on Elvis's friends is because in your attack of
them, you're indirectly attacking Elvis for the people he chose to be
his friends. Like it or not, they were there to witness Elvis's good
times and bad times, the events that would lead to his death. They
tried to help, tried to stop what was happening and what was coming.
Maybe what they did wasn't the right way to go about doing it but have
you ever stopped to consider the ones who could've done something
about it, did nothing themselves? Let's put it another way: what do
you think you could've done differently if you had walked in their
shoes, which would've resulted in Elvis possibly still being with us
today?
> Any group of men that style themselves on evil fucking rats like the
> Mafia and glorify the mob have to be a tad suspect you stupid fucking
> moron !
They never tagged themselves with that name, that I recall. The press
did.
Marty
Infinteman,
Why do you bother to go back and forth with this nitwit?
Most of us have him filtered and when you answer him we read his nonsense
because we usually like your posts.
Marty
>
infiniteman
> somebody else, I get a mental picture of
> the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
> while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
> endless spoons of peanut butter down his
> throat.
Funny one, Kevin, I like your wit. As a fan, I know Elvis was mainly
to blame for his end but it's not right to excuse those who were in a
position to have done something that could've prevented that end from
occurring. It's like you rob a bank with a friend waiting to drive the
get away car; the friend is an accomplice to the act even though you
were the one in the bank with the gun. He's as guilty as you and goes
to jail for his role in the crime, doesn't pass go and doesn't collect
$200.
Parker knew what kind of shape Elvis was in but did nothing because if
Elvis wasn't on the road, he wasn't making any quick money. He
couldn't wait on RCA to send him Elvis's artist royalties for all
those post pre-April Fool's Day 1973 recordings (a different way to
look at the buyout).
With Vernon, I don't know if he tried to get Elvis to change his ways.
One would think that he would've had more clout with Elvis than anyone
else and maybe he did try. But, if Elvis wouldn't listen to his
father, he wouldn't listen to his friends or to his doctors, would he
have listened to the fans?
Blairomatic
>> Whenever a fan blames Elvis' death on
>> somebody else, I get a mental picture of
>> the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
>> while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
>> endless spoons of peanut butter down his
>> throat.
>
> Funny one, Kevin, I like your wit.
But on a serious note, Kevin would realise that Elvis increased that
destructive behaviour as a result of being bored and unchallenged. Most
people acknowledge this as a cause of Elvis' demise...and maybe Kevins also!
> With Vernon, I don't know if he tried to get Elvis to change his ways.
> One would think that he would've had more clout with Elvis than anyone
But Vernon wasn't very sophisticated in business, nor did he have the
ability to make Elvis see the light in regard to the Colonel, as Gladys
Presley would have done.
> But, if Elvis wouldn't listen to his
> father, he wouldn't listen to his friends or to his doctors, would he
> have listened to the fans?
If we stopped buying his stuff, he would have, Elvis loved that lifestyle
you know, where the money flowed in and then flowed out just as fast.
Blair
H
> "infiniteman" <catgo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Just Taking Elvis off the road wasn't the answer. When he was off the
road he was still doing drugs. So you either have a choice of him
sitting at Graceland doing drugs and not making money. or go on the
road, do drugs, get paid and do what he loved to do which was perform.
Let's remember that Elvis was refusing to get any help. I am talking
about in the mid seventies. Not the early seventies.
I don't think The Colonel was purposely trying to hurt Elvis. The
Colonel probably didn't know what the hell do with the drug situation
either.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>> Why has Parker been singled out when we know that Vernon fired MM
>> expensive gifts then collaborated to write books on Elvis's private
>> go to Elvis's funeral and Marty says he was filled with grief. ïÿ½Not to
>> very hard to believe if they were as close as they say they were. ïÿ½They
>> must have seen all this shit catching up with him. ïÿ½Look at the state
>> of his body and the shape of him for heavens sake.
>
> Why is it hard to believe? People believe their terminal, ailing
> family members are going to get well and are shocked when that person
> dies. Elvis's friends, even those whose relationships with him were
> strained, were no different. Disbelief as to the death of a person is
> a very natural human reaction. You don't want to believe it. You
> acknowledge in your last two sentences above that they must have seen
> all the shit catching up with and the shape he was in: they saw the
> root causes and tried in vain to help Elvis break free but Elvis's
> resentment of their interference and his refusal to acknowledge he had
> a problem was a costly one. I believe Elvis died from a heart attack
> and believe he was ill but I also believe the drugs he was taking,
> whether for real or imagined ailments, took their toll on his body and
> ultimately caused his heart failure.
He was on his way out due to the abuse he gave his own body, namely by
the drugs he shoveled into his throat.
>
>> It is all too convenient to blame Tom Parker for something that Elvis
>> did to himself. ïÿ½If Elvis had not spunked his money up on crassy toys
>> he could have employed a good proffesional to negotiate his contract
>> and make sure he was paid for what he was due. ïÿ½But he never bothered
>> and he just got off his face on drugs and let things tick over slowly
>> going over until his number was finaly up,
>
> Uh huh. Here's the deal. I don't blame Sonny, Red, Dave, Marty, Joe,
> Charlie or any of the men who were part of the MM for Elvis's death.
> They couldn't have committed Elvis to a hospital and have him weaned
> off the drugs. They were Elvis's brothers spiritually but they weren't
> his family members by blood.
Brothers my arse.
Elvis was responsible for his own death due to his drug addiction
They were hired lackeys to hang out with an insecure Elvis.
The only persons who could've had Elvis
> committed (against his will) to the hospital for drug dependency was
> his father Vernon as his immediate next of kin or Priscilla, when she
> was married to him or Elvis himself. Laws dealing with hospital
> admissions in the US at the time mandated that the immediate next of
> kin had to be the one having a relative admitted to the hospital and
> the one to sign the consent forms.
I am not saying could have stopped him. If someone is determined to
destroy themselves then that is what they will do. What I am saying is
it should have been no surprise when he died. It is like the fools in
England who said "they could not believe it" when the 104 year old
Queen Mother died. When an addict will not stop then he/she will die.
>
> And though he wasn't anything to Elvis, spiritually or family, I blame
> Parker for keeping Elvis on the road, even as his health declined. All
> Parker cared about was money, getting as much as he could from Elvis
> as was possible.
Elvis was throwing the money away as soon as it came in good job Parker
got him the work. If he had looked after his body instead of going on
a 20 year drug and food binge he would have been OK.
He knew Elvis was in bad shape health wise, knew
> about the drugs and shouldn't have been on the road at all. If the
> S.O.B. had cared, truly cared about Elvis, he would've taken him off
> the road and spoken with Vernon about getting help for Elvis. You can
> offer any excuse for Parker but I see none for a man who would allow
> an ailing Elvis to put on a number of embarrassing shows (in which he
> slurred his words, forgot lyrics to songs, got sick on stage a couple
> of times, etc.) but wouldn't cancel the show because money mattered
> more to Parker than did the state of Elvis's health.
By the age of 42 a man should know how to stand up for himself. He
could have said "fuck the contract and the money" but he did not.
I am not trying to offer excuses for Parker I am posing a question.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Try to keep in mind that Elvis was a 42 year old man and at that age it
should not really have anything to do with his father. He was not
mentally challenged was he !
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>> Certain people will tell you anything you want to hear and you will
>> believe them.
>
> Quite right. How many people do you think believe the claim that
> Vernon fired members of the MM for their dishonesty? One reason why I
> dislike the attack on Elvis's friends is because in your attack of
> them, you're indirectly attacking Elvis for the people he chose to be
> his friends. Like it or not, they were there to witness Elvis's good
> times and bad times, the events that would lead to his death. They
> tried to help, tried to stop what was happening and what was coming.
> Maybe what they did wasn't the right way to go about doing it but have
> you ever stopped to consider the ones who could've done something
> about it, did nothing themselves? Let's put it another way: what do
> you think you could've done differently if you had walked in their
> shoes, which would've resulted in Elvis possibly still being with us
> today?
You ask this question about Elvis still being with us today. If Elvis
did not want to listen then that was his problem. As sure as day turn
into night he was going to die. I have a friend in that position who
is going to go exactly the same way.
Having spent 8 years in the forces it would be impossible for me to
place myself in the situation those men were in. I could not have
accepted those gifts either. On the other hand I grew up in a house 4
times the size of Graceland so there would be no chance that I would be
in "awe" of the place.
All I am suggesting is that Parker was not all that bad and was
portrayed as a villain. Elvis was without doubt in my eyes responsible
for his own demise. It is all over now anyway and all are equal in
death.
"We are all naked before God"
>
>
>
>
>> Any group of men that style themselves on evil fucking rats like the
>> Mafia and glorify the mob have to be a tad suspect you stupid fucking
>> moron !
>
> They never tagged themselves with that name, that I recall. The press
> did.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
You just can not stand it that people have other views which are
different to yours.
--
Count Baldoni
Richard Palmer
<catg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Whenever a fan blames Elvis' death on
>> somebody else, I get a mental picture of
>> the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
>> while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
>> endless spoons of peanut butter down his
>> throat.
>
>Funny one, Kevin, I like your wit.
It's not wit. It's one of Kevin's fantasies.
Richard
Kevin
>>>somebody else, I get a mental picture of
>>>the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
>>>while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
>>>endless spoons of peanut butter down his
>>>throat.
>>Funny one, Kevin, I like your wit.
>t's not wit. It's one of Kevin's fantasies.
>Richard
Do they have dandelions in England?
Kevin
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Not much grows in England that is of any use anymore. Successive
Governments have turned the place into one big septic tank.
The country has been ruined and the bulldogs are led by poodles !
--
Count Baldoni
Richard Palmer
Have them? I am one.
Richard
Bill
So YOU'RE the one the Stones wrote that song about.
Bill
Richard Palmer
wrote:
I tell no lies, and I'll make you wise, plus, I'm getting to be bald
enough on top so it looks like somebody blew my hair away.
Richard
Marty
"H" <d_...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0db5c34b-265a-43da...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Horseshit! Parker could have sat Elvis down and told him he was not booking
him anywhere until Elvis went to someplace like Mayo Clinic and got himself
well. Not only from the pills but all of Elvis' ailments, whatever they
were. The pills or food didn't make him bloated, it was something else and
he needed to take about six months to a year off and just spend as much time
as needed at Mayo.
Back then there were not any Betty Ford Clinics but Mayo was one of the best
all around medical facilities in the world.
He would also have to tell Elvis that if he tried to get work with another
manager he would sue him for everything he's got and then top it off he'd
ruin his career. That would have a a great chance of Elvis getting himself
well.
Just relying on Dr. Nick or any Memphis facility would not work, he tried
that but they could not control him.
The nonsense that we could have done anything is just nonsense. Some of us
did talk with him about his pills to no avail. He told us to stop trying to
tell him how to live his life and that he knew what he was doing and he was
in control of his pills. Typical addict remark. The fans who make those
comments about us, don't want to blame Elvis because they think he was
perfect and a victim. That's horseshit too. They say that shit because
they think it makes them sound good.
I have said this before, the only two people who could legally commit him to
a facility was Vernon and Priscilla when she was married to him, neither one
tried.
Marty
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> "H" <d_...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:0db5c34b-265a-43da...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 14, 12:56 am, "Blairomatic" <blairoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "infiniteman" <catgo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Horseshit! Parker could have sat Elvis down and told him he was not booking
> him anywhere until Elvis went to someplace like Mayo Clinic and got himself
> well. Not only from the pills but all of Elvis' ailments, whatever they
> were. The pills or food didn't make him bloated, it was something else and
> he needed to take about six months to a year off and just spend as much time
> as needed at Mayo.
Horseshit indeed lol
What made him bloated then ?
Did he get up and swallow New Hampshire one morning ?
I agree with the rest of your post though.
--
Count Baldoni
infiniteman
>
> Why do you bother to go back and forth with this nitwit?
>
> Most of us have him filtered and when you answer him we read his nonsense
> because we usually like your posts.
>
> Marty
My apologies, Marty. Those of us who are still posting through google
can't filter him out. But, he's posted some comments under this
particular topic, comments which I thought shouldn't go unchallenged.
His comments suggesting Lennon's murder evened things out for Lennon
having turned kids on to drugs (if that was what he meant -- I read it
that way) struck me as being insensitive and callously cold. His
comment in his defense of Parker, as to Vernon having fired members of
the MM for their dishonesty was itself dishonest. I'm still wanting to
know where he came across that one as I've never heard that one
before. But, I've said what I wanted to say and having looked at his
replies, he's just repeating himself and I see no need to keep
repeating myself.
Marty
He does that to annoy. It's his way of getting people to keep answering
him, thus giving him the attention he craves.
He makes all that shit up because he knows it will annoy people.
Marty
infiniteman
> >> Whenever a fan blames Elvis' death on
> >> somebody else, I get a mental picture of
> >> the accused tying Elvis to his barber chair
> >> while cramming pills, burnt bacon and
> >> endless spoons of peanut butter down his
> >> throat.
>
> >Funny one, Kevin, I like your wit.
>
> It's not wit. It's one of Kevin's fantasies.
That's a good one, Richard...LOL!
infiniteman
> He does that to annoy. �It's his way of getting people to keep answering
> him, thus giving him the attention he craves.
>
> He makes all that shit up because he knows it will annoy people.
Since you have him filltered and can't see what he's written, I'm
seeing what you mean.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Lennon was a particularly callous and vindictive man himself.
Things always get evened out and Lennon got his.
Learn to accept it without all the analyses.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
But I did not make it up Marty as you well know.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>> He does that to annoy. ïÿ½It's his way of getting people to keep answering
You can't see what a slimy bastard Lacker is. The best thing that ever
happened was when Vernon fired him and the other rogues.
People who run their mouths off about others in books are the worse
kind of scum. The thing is it is all to common and these people will
stoop to nothing.
Vile inhuman filth.
--
Count Baldoni
Kevin
>>>>Kevin
>>>Have them? I am one.
>>>Richard
>>So YOU'RE the one the Stones wrote that
>>song about.
>>Bill
>I tell no lies, and I'll make you wise, plus,
>I'm getting to be bald enough on top so it
>looks like somebody blew my hair away.
>Richard
Well, it's taken a few years but Dennis Rodgers' assumption that you
looked like Alfred Hitchcock has finally come true. Though I doubt he
predicted that you'd have yellow ears...
Kevin
Richard Palmer
I'm reasonably tall - just over six foot - so most of the time people
are looking up at me slightly, and my bald spot isn't noticeable. I
don't even see it myself when I'm looking in a mirror.
But there's one place at the local shopping mall where they have what
I assume are security mirrors overhead, and as you come up to them you
can see yourself from above. Then you walk on a few feet, and there's
overhead CCTV cameras and a monitor screen.
It's a fucking nightmare.
Richard
Kevin
>mall where they have what I assume are
>security mirrors overhead, and as you
>come up to them you can see yourself
>from above. Then you walk on a few feet,
>and there's overhead CCTV cameras and
>a monitor screen.
>It's a fucking nightmare.
>Richard
When I was at the big n' tall trying on a new pair of stretch pants, I
kept a lookout for those cameras in the dressing room. I spent so much
time looking up at the ceiling, I hadn't realized that the door was
still hanging wide open. I had my pants halfway down before I noticed
it. It's amazing how fast a person can move in a situation like that. My
pants were pulled up to my neck and the door was slammed shut in about 2
seconds.
There was nobody in the store except a female clerk who was talking on
the phone, and a guy who was busy putting socks on the rack. But I still
opened the door back up and peaked out to see if anybody might have seen
me. When I paid for my merchandise, I looked in their eyes to see if
there was any sign of my underwear in them, but I really couldn't tell.
I just had to assume that they had seen me, so I hurried out the door
after I paid them and never looked back.
I spent the rest of the day imagining all of the bad things that could
have happened during that whole mess. One scenario had me losing track
of my pants and having to walk out with one of those round racks of
clothes. My mind just goes off on something like that...
Kevin
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Don't use the bathroom at Chuck Berry's place !
--
Count Baldoni
H
> "H" <d...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Colonel probably could have tried to do that. I don't think Elvis
would have done it for no other reason than it would reveal his
problems to the public. But in hindsight everything is easier. I don't
think The Colonel wanted him to be fucked up or sick. There were
attempts to lesson his schedule. His vegas appearances were shortened
from 4 weeks to 2 weeks. He had four straight months off in 1973. He
had 5 straight months off from late 1974 until the first months of
1975. I don't think anyone could have convinced him to get help unless
it was forced like what you said about being committed.
Marty
You're wrong. If he was faced with not working anymore because of a threat
Parker made he would have gone somewhere and got well.
An excuse could have been made for being in Mayo other than drying out. he
had other ills and they could have said that's what he was there for and
also because he was getting a thorough general checkup which is something he
hadn't had in awhile. Yes, he was off those months but he was not
threatened by not being booked anymore. he knew he'd be back on tour and in
Vegas.
In that stage of his life, his career meant a great deal to him. He
wouldn't risk losing it.
Marty
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Why not just tell the fucking truth instead of all this lying
horseshit. If it was said he was drying out do you think it would have
made him unpopular ?
You just gave away a good insight into how you think Marty !
Or maybe he just did not have the guts or the will power to dry out,
not even for his daughter !
--
Count Baldoni