Jerry Hopkins on the death of Morrison
Subterranean Cinema
Published in 1995 (and now apparently out of print), this is the book
that Patricia Butler recently wrote off as a retread of NOHGOA that
Hopkins threw together.
Well, Im gonna read it in full over the long holiday weekend, but since
the reason I ordered it was to confirm Hopkins' speculations on the
death of Jim Morrison (and their direct contradiction of the
speculations of Patricia Butler in her book), I immediately turned to
the chapter called THE EXILE, concerning Jim's last days in Paris and
his early death. It's no wonder that Ms. Butler "overlooked" this
book during her "research", and its no wonder that she tries to brush
it off as an insignificant rehashing of old stories. This chapter is
rather devastating to her case, and it comes from a personal friend who
she cant call a liar. These words are ALL written by Jerry Hopkins,
Danny Sugerman had nothing to do with them (other than as a witness to
the words of Pamela Courson).
So I took a couple of hours and transcribed some relevant passages
about the death of Jim Morrison, written by Jerry Hopkins. (this is
where youll get Butler copout #27: when all else fails, whine about
copyright violation).
___________________________________________________________________________
excerpts from THE LIZARD KING: THE ESSENTIAL JIM MORRISON
by Jerry Hopkins
CHAPTER VI - THE EXILE
beginning page 161
______________________________________________
What happened following the movie was, for a long time, open to
conjecture -- the subject of wild disagreement and controversy.
I was living in London in 1972, the following year, and I visited Paris
several times in my search for information. The stories I was told
about Jim's death were confusing. The one I heard most often was that
Jim died from an overdose of heroin in a nightclub called the Rock n
Roll Circus. This is a version I heard repeatedly during my
interviews and later was confirmed by sources in the junkie underground
talking to Herve Muller, a French journalist whi picked up some of the
threads of the story after I returned to the US.
Junkies are generally not known for their reliability. Usually they
are anxious to say anything they think the listener wants to hear, in
exchange, they hope, for enough money to score another bag of relief.
None of the sources with whom Herve talked was paid for information
beyond the cost of coffee at some sidewalk cafe. Nor was any
"ulterior" motive apparent, at least to Herve or me. Junkies generally
dont look for publicity and there is little status to be gained amonst
other junkies, or anyone else, to say you shared heroin with Jim
Morrison the night he died of an overdose.
Of course, there's always a chance that some nut made up the whole
story and that it started going around, building up, becoming more
elaborate as it travelled. But the lack of contradiction on the basic
points of the story is impressive.
Nor does it seem that this version of Jim's death was a fabrication
created to counter the "official" version. To the contrary, the
"official" version -- death by heart attack in a bathtub -- seemed
totally unknown in the junkie underground until its members were
interviewed.
Jim was familiar with the junkie underground, or at least aware of it,
not because of Pamela's sporadic use of the drug, but because of the
dives in which he chose to drink. The most notable of these in Paris
at the time was the Circus, where the walls were covered with huge
photographs of rock stars wearing clown costumes. Earlier, this was
the slickest rock club in Paris -- where Led Zeppelin, Richie Havens,
and Johnny Winter had played -- but by Summer 1971, it had slid close
to the bottom. Rock and roll was still the music played, but now most
of the action wasnt on the dance floor, it was in the toilets.
Occasionally the place was raided by police and that would precipite an
exodus that related to the junkies' version of Jim's death.
The Circus was situated at 57 rue de Seine, on the Left Bank near the
river, and it backed up to a much more respectable club, called the
Alcazar. The Alcazar, at 62 rue Mazarine, presented an expensive
dinner-spectacle of French music and scantily clad dancers, catering to
a crowd of middle aged French businessmen. The club was large, seating
close to a thousand patrons on three levels, surrounding a stage about
four times the size of that of the more famous Latin Quarter. For some
of the junkies in the Circus, when police arrived, the escape route was
through the Circus kitchen, which had a back door leading into the
Alcazar's kitchen. It was a simple matter then to slip from the
kitchen through the darkened club and onto the adjoining street without
being noticed.
According to information gathered by Herve Muller, one of the dealers
on the scene in the summer of 1971 was a Chinese called "Le Chinoise".
Supposedly, he had a laboratory for making heroin in Marseille, while
explains why he happened to have such unusually potent heroin to sell,
running to about 30 percent "pure" instead of the customary 5 to 10
percent. The way the story goes, "Le Chinoise" , who was not known to
use heroin himself, sold a quantity to a second-level dealer named
Michel, who in turn sold a smaller quantity to someone called "Le Petit
Bernard", charging him $100. Bernard then sold that packet to Jim for
about $200, warning him of the potency.
"That's okay," Jim reportedly said, "Im used to it." All sources say
Jim seemed to be nervous, upset.
All sources also told Herve Muller that the final transaction took
place in the men's room of the Circus, where Jim snorted the heroin,
then slumped into a comatose state. The junkies present heaved him to
his feet between them, guiding him back into the night club, then
through the adjoining kitchens to the Alcazar, and into a cab on the
street.
At this point, it is generally agreed that Jim was still alive. This
is reasonable. In most heroin overdoses, the victim generally dies
after one or two hours of lethargy, stupor, and coma. The way this
story ends, Jim was returned to his flat and dumped into a bathtub full
of cold water in an attempt to revive him, standard treatment for an
overdose, although there is some question about its practicality.
That was one version of how Jim died. Of course it wasnt the only
one.
In a second, far more innocent story, outlined in a statement given to
Paris police the day Jim died, and thereafter described as The Official
Version of the Death, Pam said she and Jim returned to the flat about
1am and after she washed some dishes and Jim watched some home movies
projected on the apartment wall, they went to bed, falling asleep about
230am while listening to some records.
About an hour later, Pam told police (in a deposition taken several
hours after Jim died), she was awakened by Jim's noisy breathing. She
said she wasnt sure of the time, because there was no clock in the
bedroom. She thought Jim might be suffocating and shook him. He
didnt wake up. She slapped him a few times and then shook him again.
Finally, he opened his eyes. He told Pam that he wasnt feeling well
and after pacing in the bedroom for a minute or two, told Pam that he
wanted to take a warm bath.
Once in the tub, Pam told police, Jim said he felt nauseous. Pam
brought an orange cooking pot from the kitchen and Jim vomited. Pam
cleaned the pot in the nearby sink and Jim threw up a second time,
expelling a large quantity of blood. Again Pam cleaned the pot and a
third time Jim vomited, now a few blood clots. She told police that
Jim insisted "its over"; he was feeling better and he didnt want her to
call a doctor. Pam quoted Jim as saying he would finish his bath and
he urged Pam to return to bed. She said colour had returned to his
face and she felt "reassured", so she did as he suggested, falling
asleep.
Pam said she "awoke with a start" some time later and saw that she was
in bed alone. She got up and went to the bedroom, where she found Jim
still in the bath. His eyes were closed and he was smiling, she said,
his head tilted back on the edge of the tub, turned to one side. Pam
said she thought he was joking and, according to Diane Gardiner, she
stood there talking to him for some time. She told him it was a dumb
joke. She said she knew what he was doing; he was trying to scare her.
Slowly, Pam did become scared. She noticed there was some blood
under one nostril. She shook him
She told police she thought she could awaken him. She tried to get him
out of the tub and couldnt. That was when, panicked because she
couldnt speak French and telephone for help, she called Alain Ronay at
Agnes Varda's house. Years later, Varda said that the call came about
8am, an hour at which she never answered the telephone. But Ronay
picked up the receiver and heard Pam say, "I cant wake him up. I
think he's dying." Ronay went to Varda's room, woke her, and she
called for an ambulance immediately. Ronay wrote out the Morrison
address as Varda dialed the emergency number for the fire brigade.
Ronay hurriedly told her not to reveal Jim's celebrity and when the
telephone conversation was completed, they drove to the Morrison
apartment.
In interviews she and Ronay gave to Paris-Match magazine in 1991, both
he and Varda say that when they arrived, they saw firemen on the
street. Ronay asked, "Is he okay?" and was told to ask his questions
upstairs. Ronay and Varda went up to the second floor apartment.
There is a contradiction in the Ronay and Varda stories at this point.
Varda remembers clearly that when they arrived, Jim was still in the
tub, surrounded by members of the fire brigade. On the other hand,
Ronay says that Jim was already on the bed and that he never saw the
body. Varda's accurate description of the death scene in the bathroom
gives credence to her story over Ronay's.
___________________________________________________________
While the doctor made his examination, the telephone rang. It was
Pamela's friend, the Count. Pam took the phone into another room and
told her friend that Jim was dead. The Count was with the British pop
star Marianne Faithfull at the time of the call, a fact that, later,
would explain how the story of Jim's death began to leak out.
Apparently, Pam never told anyone what she and the Count said and the
Count died a few years later of a heroin overdose.
After hanging up the phone, Pam returned to Ronay and Varda, taking
Ronay's arm. "Tell me, quickly, how he died." Pam told him. Ronay
and Varda agreed that they had to keep it quiet.
_____________________________________________________________
NOTE: This next excerpt comes partially into Hopkins explanation of
"why No One Here Gets Out Alive ended so ambiguously":
_______________________________________________________________
The years passed and while I remained convinced that Jim was dead, I
still didnt know what happened. At the same time, I came to believe
that I might have neglected, or at least underestimated and
misunderstood, Pamela's role in Jim's life, and I began to consider
writing a second, smaller book, or perhaps a screenplay, focusing on
their romance.
I re-interviewed some of my earlier subjects, among them Diane
Gardiner. After Jim was buried and when Pam returned to the US, Pam
moved into Diane's cottage in Sausalito, California. Diane, who was
then working as a publicist for the Jefferson Airplane, had been one of
Pam's closest confidantes in Los Angeles and I figured that if anyone
knew what happened, or at least knew what Pam said happened, it was
Diane.
Diane apologized for not telling me more in interviews she gave me when
I was researching No One Here Gets Out Alive. She said she promised
Pamela not to reveal anything about Jim's death and at the time, Pam
was still alive, so Diane said she felt bound to her pledge. Now --
ten years after Jim's death -- Diane told me that when Pam returned to
Europe, "she was a real case, just devastated". Diane said that for
several months Pam walked around talking to herself, rambling and
making no sense, and when she did make sense, she blamed herself for
Jim's death.
"Ive never seen anyone feeling so guilty," Diane told me. "She had
tried to devote her whole life to one person. That was it. That was
her life. Her whole life was him. And to have that kicked out from
under you ... "
As Diane and Pam spent more time together, fragments of the story came
together, forming a believable scenario, explaining the source of Pam's
guilt.
Apparently Jim and Pam had stopped at one or more sidewalk cafes on the
way home from the movie, where Jim consumed several drinks. (This
explains the arrival home at 1am, quite late for returning from a movie
theatre.) At home, Jim mixed another drink as Pam lined up some white
powder on a table top.
At this point, Diane is a bit vague. Jim had known about Pam's heroin
use, bust most agree that apparently he didnt know how frequently she
used it. Diane told me that Pam seemed able to use it on a daily
basis for a while, then merely stop, suffering rarely from withdrawal.
And, Diane said, to her knowledge, Pam never used heroin with Jim or
in his presence, at least until now. Jim disapproved of heroin.
This was confirmed by everyone I talked to. Danny Sugerman, the 14
year old high school student who hung out at the Doors' office and ten
years later helped me get No One Here Gets Out Alive published, said
Jim actually lectured him about "the evils and horrors of heroin".
So, Diane told me, when Jim saw Pam bent over a line of white powder,
it is possible he thought it was cocaine. Jim liked cocaine. There is
no reason to think he would have done anything but smile and join Pam
on the couch and inhale the next line of powder.
On the other hand, he could have sensed, or realized, that it was
heroin. Diane told me that, according to Pam, the talk about Jim's
depression was real. The past year or so, many projects had been
started or discussed -- a screenplay with Michael McClure, a poetry
album with John Haeny, a stage show with Fred Myrow, a book about the
Miami trial, an opera, on and on. None has been completed. Most
were stillborn. In addition, Jim was overweight, alcoholic, and
impotent (a side effect of his alcoholism).
The constant drinking only aggravated the depression. Jim had written
a few lines in one of his notebooks that said, "Leave the informed
sense in our wake / you be the Christ on this package tour / Money
beats soul / Last words, last words, out." Later, two of Jim's
biographers would use these lines to support a theory that his death
was likely a suicide.
Diane doesnt dismiss that theory, at least not entirely. She told me
that when Jim saw the powder lined up so neatly on the table top, he
may have known it wasnt cocaine, but heroin, and knew what dangers lay
in its use, especially in combination with alcohol. (When two central
nervous systems depressants, in this case alcohol and heroin, come
together synergistically, they create a knockout punch: one plus one
equals six!)
Danny Sugerman told me a slightly different version of the same story.
I now know that when Danny edited No One Here Gets Out Alive in the
late 70s, he knew that Jim had died of an overdose, but he never told
me. But later Danny told me that he and Pamela had shared both heroin
and sex after Pam left Diane Gardiner's home and returned to Los
Angeles. Danny said that when Pam talked about Jim's death to Danny,
she also pledged him not to tell "Hopkins", who was then trying to
interview her. Danny was the one who merged the book's two last
chapters into one, which gave him an opportunity to tell the truth.
But he remained loyal to Pamela rather than tell what he knew, even
though Pam was dead.
I reinterviewed Danny about the same time I talked to Diane Gardiner,
in 1981. No One Here Gets Out Alive was, by then, a huge success and
Jim had been dead for more than ten years, so Danny talked more
candidly. (Although he has never yet admitted to me that he had
withheld the true story of Jim's death while working on the
manuscript.) In our recorded conversation, he told me he had asked
Pam about Paris and heroin. At first she told him that Jim would
never use heroin. At the time of this conversation, Danny said, both
he and Pam were stoned on heroin. "If he were alive today," she said,
"he'd kill both of us, Danny".
Danny told me, "That didnt answer my question. You couldnt confront
Pam on this," he said, "It was the most painful moment of her life."
I asked Danny, "She never said anything about heroin being a part of
his death?"
Danny said, "I seem to remember her saying something. In a real
stupor, when youre nodding out, you dont know who you're talking to,
you dont even know if youre talking, and I feel not unqualified to tell
this story, but I feel now awfully secure in its reportage, because I
was awful high, too. But I do remember a conversation regarding her
guilt and her getting really down on herself ... something to the
effect: she was busted, Jim found it (the heroin)."
"What's this!" Jim said. (As Danny recalled the conversation.)
"Its coke!"
Jim dumped a quantity on the table, deftly pushing it into long, thick
lines, probably with the edge of a paper matchbook or a credit card.
He inhaled the first line.
Pam said, "Jim, dont do too much. Jim, dont do too much!"
Danny again: "rather than say, 'Jim, it's smack.' Because she had
been hiding it from him, and she knew damned well he did not do that.
And he did not want her to do it. He saw what heroin did to other
friends like Tim Hardin. (Another singer-songwriter who died of a
heroin overdose). He knew the hazards of it.
"So I remember a guilt feeling, and an implication ... that Jim had
discovered her stash and Pam said, "Oh, Jim, its just coke", which he
really wasnt into, at that point anyway, and Jim said, "Lets do some".
He put it out and snorted it like it was coke."
Danny insisted that he didnt know the true story, because this was only
one of many that Pamela told, and the one she told most consistently
was the "official" version, of a heart attack in the bathtub. It is,
however, the story he believes.
It is the story that was told by Alain Ronay and Agnes Varda to Paris
Match in 1991, twenty years after Jim's death, that makes this story
most real.
Pam took Ronay's arm in the apartment as the doctor was examining Jim's
body. Pam said she and Jim had been snorting heroin for two days.
Pam said they snorted heroin the night before and again that afternoon,
after Jim had taken his walk with Ronay and before he went out to
dinner alone. When they returned home from the movie and the bistro,
the heroin came out again. In this version, Pam did not mention
washing dishes, or saying Jim watching home movies. Now Pam said Jim
started playing the Doors' recordings, including the first album, which
contained the song, "The End" . She said Jim got out of bed and
snorted some more heroin, so, she added, Jim actually had consumed more
than she did. She said that one of the Doors' records was playing
when they nodded off to sleep.
Ronay quoted Varda as asking, "Who had the heroin? Was it you?"
Pamela said, "Of course ..."
Pam said she woke up to Jim's heavy breathing. This matched the story
she told to police. She said that when Jim failed to awake when she
shook him, she screamed, and began slapping him "very, very hard".
Finally, he opened his eyes, but he didnt seem to know where he was.
She said she helped him to walk to the bathroom and assisted him into
the tub.
Agnes asked her who had run the water in the tub. Pam said she
couldnt remember.
Pam told Ronay she returned to the bedroom, fell asleep, waking some
time later. When she found Jim missing from their bed, she went to
the bathroom and saw him in the tub with blood running from his nose.
He started vomiting, she said, so she ran to the kitchen, returning
with an orange cooking pot. Three times Jim vomited and each time Pam
said she cleaned the pot, returning to bed once more when assured by
Jim that he was feeling better.
Varda patted Pam's hand and told her that Jim died at least an hour and
a half before the firemen arrived; there was nothing she could do.
Pam said, "Jim looked so calm. He smiled." She was in shock.
Pam suddenly produced a piece of paper that she said was a marriage
application she and Jim had taken out in 1967 in Colorado, but never
acted on. She asked her friends if they thought the Paris police
would accept it as proof that she and Jim were married.
As the day brightened, the fiction grew. Alan Ronay said he didnt
want Jim's death and burial to become the circus that had attended the
recent deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. As Pam and Ronay and
Varda -- and soon, Robin Wertle -- devised a plan for handling Jim's
burial, the "official" version of the death took its final form.
___________________________________________________________________
(Danny Sugerman told me that while helping Pam pack, Siddons found
heroin in the apartment, but Danny also quoted Pam as saying that
regarding Jim's death, Siddons knew only what he was told. In all my
conversations with Siddons, he confirmed this. Apparently, he was
told nothing about the role heroin played in Jim's death.)
_______________________________________________________________
In the years that followed, Pam fought for acceptance as Jim's heir and
wife. Initially, it seemed quite simple. Jim had had his lawyer, Max
Fink, draft a simple, two page will in 1969, naming Pamela S. Courson
as his sole heir and, with Fink, his co executor. (In the event that
Pam died first, Jim's estate was to be shared equally by his brother
and sister.)
In November 1971, four months after Jim died, in an effort to bolster
her claim, and to be granted an allowance and an advance from the
estate -- which was then still in probate -- Pam filed a "declaration
in support of widow's allowance", claiming "at all times since
September 30, 1967, I have considered that I was married to James D.
Morrison, and that I was in fact his wife at the time of his death and
am now his widow." It was in 1967, as "Light My Fire" was finally
dropping off the charts, that Pam said she and Jim spent a night in
Colorado Springs. Earlier, she had Jim ask Max Fink which states had
the loosest laws recognizing common law marriage.
In her court statement, Pam said, "Jim reported to me that he learned
from an attorney that to create a marriage in the state of Colorado it
was sufficient if two people stayed together, had marital relations and
agreed to thereby be husband and wife, if in fact they thereafter
conducted and held themselves out as each other's spouse. We spent the
night at a hotel, had sexual relations and agreed that we would forever
after be husband and wife. We very briefly honeymooned in Colorado
and then continued our (the Doors) tour."
Pam's statement went on to say that during their relationship, all her
living expenses were paid from Jim's earnings. All credit card charges
were paid, she said, her medical, dental, clothing, and entertainment
expenses were paid, and she and Jim were given $2500 in cash each month
for incidentals. Now, she said, she was penniless.
In December 1971, the three surviving Doors filed papers of their own
in court, making claims against the Morrison estate, most of it for a
loan they said Jim had taken to help pay some of his legal costs.
Although the sum asked, less than $36000, was small, considering the
size of the estate, it was sufficient to bottle things up in court for
two years. Then in April 1974, the Doors came back with another
lawsuit, now requesting repayment of a $250000 loan allegedly made by
the Doors Corporation to Jim as an advance against his share of future
royalties. At the same time, Max Fink, who continued to represent the
other Doors, submitted a bill for approximately $75000 for work done on
the Phoenix and Miami trials. Next the Miami law firm filed suit for
unpaid services.
Eventually, a compromise was reached. Pam relented, agreeing to pay
everyone. Max Fink said he authorized a loan to Pam in the interim,
much of which was spent on a mink coat and a yellow Volkswagen Beetle.
Then, as the final accounting of the estate was being made, Pam died.
If she had lived, she would have received about $500000 right away,
plus a quarter of everything the Doors would make in the future, a sum
that subsequently proved to be worth millions.
________________________________________________________________
What really happened in Paris on July 3, 1971?
I am certain that Jim died of an overdose of heroin, complicated by the
alcohol level in his bloodstream. What generally happens when these
two "drugs" come together and deliver their synergistic hammer-blow, is
described as a "massive pulmonary edema", a kind of mega heart attack,
where the victim, poisoned by the combination, slumbs, froth spilling
from his mouth and nostrils.
Of course, no one will ever know. The only person present at the time
of Jim's death was Pamela, who may not even have known herself what
happened, and if she did, she took the full story to her grave.
Obviously, she had something to do with Jim's death, may even have
unwittingly caused it, at least in her own mind, by having the heroin
in the apartment and sharing it with him.
I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to
their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her
parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no
connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other
words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to
stick to the "official" version. (Which he did.) Did Pam's parents
know what happened, and share their daughter's grief and guilt? Had
they become partners in the conspiracy to cover up the true cause of
Jim's death?
When I was researching No One Here Gets Out Alive, I met Pam once, over
lunch. I left the restaurant feeling I had just spent a couple of
hours with the most beautiful, fragile, vulnerable, and manipulative
woman I had ever met, but I had learned very little about Jim, or her,
or their relationship. And I was told nothing about Jim's death.
I asked her why she had agreed to meet me. She said Jim had liked me,
and I had written positive stories about him and the Doors. She also
wanted to know why I was writing the book. I told her that I was more
affected by Jim's death than I thought our relationship warranted and I
wanted to find out why. She said nothing, merely nodded.
At the time of the meeting, two years after Jim's death, I had no idea
what Pam was doing for a living. She avoided answering such questions
by saying only that she was trying to keep Jim's memory alive and
untarnished. For example, she told me she had won a fight to keep
"Light My Fire" from being sold for a television commercial. All her
other comments were superficial and unrevealing. She seemed nervous,
but in control of the situation, as if she were caught in a scene she
wanted to end, and was handling it, nonetheless.
Years later, Danny Sugerman, and others, told me her life was a mess.
Danny said he had spent some time with her, frequently sharing his own
heroin with her, sometimes gave her part of the $75 a week that he was
getting from Ray Manzarek (as Manzarek's publicist). Danny said he
thought Pamela was seriously disturbed, said she sometimes sat near the
telephone, waiting for Jim to call. Danny quoted her as saying, "My
old man hasn't called! He promised me he'd call!" Implying that Jim
was alive, all evidence -- and her own tortured stories -- to the
contrary.
When Pam died, on 25 April 1974, at age 27 -- Jim's age when he died --
she was working as a prostitite, something she often said that Jim had
predicted was her destiny. A man who had worked as Jim's occasional
limousine driver was her live-in boyfriend and it was clear, from the
autopsy, that an overdose of heroin was the cause of death.
Pam once asked Max Fink to draw up her will, but he refused, so she
died intestate, which meant her quarter share of all future Doors
earnings went to her next of kin, her parents, Columbus (Corky)
Courson, and his wife Pearl (Penny). Almost immediately Jim's
parents, Admiral George Morrison and his wife Clara, entered the fray,
demanding their "fair share" as stated in the California probate code.
On 10 January 1975, the two sets of parents signed an agreement
dividing equally the proceeds from Jim's quarter share of all Doors
revenue, but it was 1979 before all the loose ends were tied up and the
parents started receiving any money.
Since then, Jim's share of the Doors' earning have been worth several
hundreds of thousands of dollars, at the peak more than a million
dollars a year. Today the Coursons have homes in Santa Barbara and
Palm Springs and the Morrisons own substantial property in Orange and
San Diego counties. I think Jim would be amused that his posthumous
fortune is being shared by a retired high school principal and a
retired Navy admiral, authority figures for whom he had no time or
respect when he was alive.
You cant get away with irony like that in fiction.
_________________________________________________________________________
Amen, Mr Hopkins. Amen.
__
Subterranean Cinema
_____
I am certain that Jim died of an overdose of heroin, complicated by the
alcohol level in his bloodstream. What generally happens when these
two "drugs" come together and deliver their synergistic hammer-blow, is
described as a "massive pulmonary edema", a kind of mega heart attack,
where the victim, poisoned by the combination, slumbs, froth spilling
from his mouth and nostrils.
_____
I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to
their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her
parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no
connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other
words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to
stick to the "official" version. (Which he did.) Did Pam's parents
know what happened, and share their daughter's grief and guilt? Had
they become partners in the conspiracy to cover up the true cause of
Jim's death.
_____
Subterranean Cinema
>> a second, far more innocent story, outlined in a statement given to Paris police the day Jim died, and thereafter described as The Official Version of the Death
Aka the Butler version.
>> I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to stick to the "official" version.
Aka the Butler version.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> This morning, I received my copy of The Lizard King, by Jerry Hopkins.
> Published in 1995 (and now apparently out of print), this is the book
> that Patricia Butler recently wrote off as a retread of NOHGOA that
> Hopkins threw together.
The book is not out of print, which was pointed out to you before. I
also didn't "write it off" as anything. The book is, in fact, a
compendium of info in NOHGOA with a couple of interviews thrown in.
Jerry did, in fact, put the book together in less than three months.
> Well, Im gonna read it in full over the long holiday weekend, but since
> the reason I ordered it was to confirm Hopkins' speculations on the
> death of Jim Morrison (and their direct contradiction of the
> speculations of Patricia Butler in her book), I immediately turned to
> the chapter called THE EXILE, concerning Jim's last days in Paris and
> his early death. It's no wonder that Ms. Butler "overlooked" this
> book during her "research",
Excuse me? How did I "overlook" a book when I heard all about its
production while it was being put together and I received a copy from
the author before the book was actually in stores? Can you explain
this? (No, he can't, so he'll pretend he didn't see this.)
and its no wonder that she tries to brush
> it off as an insignificant rehashing of old stories.
Those are your words, not mine.
This chapter is
> rather devastating to her case, and it comes from a personal friend who
> she cant call a liar. These words are ALL written by Jerry Hopkins,
> Danny Sugerman had nothing to do with them (other than as a witness to
> the words of Pamela Courson).
The information did not come from Jerry. Jerry put together info he
received from others. That's what non-fiction writers do.
> So I took a couple of hours and transcribed some relevant passages
> about the death of Jim Morrison, written by Jerry Hopkins. (this is
> where youll get Butler copout #27: when all else fails, whine about
> copyright violation).
It's not a "copout," it's a fact, This is illegal. You're basically
fucking over Jerry Hopkins, your new best friend, when you post his
copyright protected work on the internet without his permission.
Patricia
> Jerry Hopkins wrote:
>
> >> a second, far more innocent story, outlined in a statement given to Paris police the day Jim died, and thereafter described as The Official Version of the Death
>
> Aka the Butler version.
Don, you're so full of shit. You've never read my book and have no
idea what my "version" is. You've read a single chapter of one of
Jerry's books and you're touting it as the gospel. FYI, Jerry never
saw any of the police or rescue squad reports about Jim's death. His
conclusions at the time were based on his information at the time,
which was not complete. Get a grip, you moron.
> >> I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to stick to the "official" version.
>
> Aka the Butler version.
Once again, you're talking through your ass. For a change.
By the way, since we're quoting Jerry Hopkins -- who you now claim
speaks all truth, all the time -- here's another good quote for you:
"That said, let me add that Patricia has worked six years on this book,
and because she's turned up so much new material, my ego insists that
the extra time she spent on research is why. I spent two years
researching and writing No One Here Gets Out Alive; it was finding a
publisher that took forever. Patricia, on the other hand, continued to
hold a number of full-time jobs while plugging away on this project
nights and weekends. She slowly developed relationships on the phone
and got her sources to tell stories they never told me, and then,
adding insult to injury, uncovered some secrets Danny and I never
knew."
This is all according to your friend Jerry, Don. The same guy who
said, "Patricia Butler's exploration of that love story -- and her
surprising retelling of the Morrison history -- should be the final
word on the matter."
Suck on that, baby.
Swampfetus
"Subterranean Cinema" <sub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117236249....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to
> their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her
> parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no
> connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other
> words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to
> stick to the "official" version. (Which he did.) Did Pam's parents
> know what happened, and share their daughter's grief and guilt? Had
> they become partners in the conspiracy to cover up the true cause of
> Jim's death.
> I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to
> their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her
> parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no
> connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other
> words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to
> stick to the "official" version. (Which he did.) Did Pam's parents
> know what happened, and share their daughter's grief and guilt? Had
> they become partners in the conspiracy to cover up the true cause of
> Jim's death.
It certainly seems like it, doesn't it?
Here's something else to ponder: If the Coursons specified in the contract
that Stone wasn't to connect Pam to Jim's death, why would they allow her to
be portrayed as a heroin user before Jim died if (according to Butler) it
wasn't true? If they didn't believe she used heroin prior to moving to Jim's
death, don't you think they would have nixed that too? Maybe they allowed it
because they weren't in denial after all.
Swampfetus
"Swampfetus" <arkans...@regulators.net> wrote in message
news:yfOdnfWIrNM...@comcast.com...
...Jim's death, that is.
Subterranean Cinema
Swampfetus
Just to be clear, he said "I am certain," right? That's Jerry's statement,
not Danny's, correct?
Subterranean Cinema
Indeed, it is a published statement of the personal and professional
belief of Jerry Hopkins, one that he stated in 1995.
>> I am certain that Jim died of an overdose of heroin, complicated by the
alcohol level in his bloodstream. What generally happens when these
two "drugs" come together and deliver their synergistic hammer-blow, is
described as a "massive pulmonary edema", a kind of mega heart attack,
where the victim, poisoned by the combination, slumbs, froth spilling
from his mouth and nostrils.
He's pretty clear about his personal opinion of the "estate" too:
Patricia
> that Stone wasn't to connect Pam to Jim's death, why would they allow her to
> be portrayed as a heroin user before Jim died if (according to Butler) it
> wasn't true? If they didn't believe she used heroin prior to moving to Jim's
> death, don't you think they would have nixed that too? Maybe they allowed it
> because they weren't in denial after all.
Here's what people keep forgetting: Oliver Stone didn't need to get the
Coursons' permission to portray their daughter any way he liked. Pam
is dead. You can't libel/slander the dead. He could have portrayed
Pam as a lesbian pedophile who tortured small animals and shot codiene
into her eyeballs if it pleased him to do so, and her parents wouldn't
have had anything to say about it. Same with Jim and his parents.
Oliver Stone made some *promises* -- non-contractual -- with the
Coursons in order to gain access not only to their stories, but to
their stuff. Since on one had really expressed much of an interest in
Pam before, the Coursons didn't know any better and they believed
everything Stone promised them. So they cooperated fully, they freely
related their stories of Pam and Jim, they let Meg Ryan come and go
through Pam's stuff, they loaned Stone lots of Pam's personal things,
including family photos. In return, Stone promised that he wouldn't
portray Pam pretty much exactly the way he ended up portraying her in
the movie. To add insult to injury, Stone never returned the things of
Pam's the Coursons had trustingly loaned him. That's why when I came
along not long after the movie came out and said I was writing a book
about Jim and Pam, promising that I wasn't interested in doing a
hatchet job, they closed up like clams. I kept saying (via their
lawyer), "really, trust me!" and they kept saying (via their laywer),
fuck you, we'll sue, which is pretty much the line they took straight
through. And why? Because Oliver Stone didn't think twice about
fucking them up the ass for an interview and some photos.
So if you guys are going to witter on about this stuff, at least get
your facts straight. I understand that Don's got a hard on (probably
his first) because he thinks Jerry is backing him up, and he's already
proven he (unlike Jerry) is physically incapable of accepting new
information and reforming conclusions based on acquired information,
but I still held out a sliver of hope for you, Dave. Though for the
life of me at this moment I can't think why.
sweetchild
direct fact that Jim and Corky had a " very close" relationship??
Goes to show that there are many theories and who knows which are really
correct??
The only problem I have is when someone comes up with a theory that is half
credible and trashes others theories... and others opinions...
It is amusing et sadly ironic how the 2 authority figures ultimately won out
in that area ..kind of reminds me of that Mellencamp song.....
Peggy
~~~~~~~~~~
"Subterranean Cinema" <sub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117244003....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Subterranean Cinema
recess and Im not calling you names (Ive called you enough in the past,
any new ones would be redundant). I mean, if I really wanted to get
down and dirty with you in a "personal" way, then I could reveal what
has been told to me about the cause of your "depression" in the 80s
(the one that allegedly led to you finding a French franc and going to
Paris). I know about a truly traumatic event that youve alleged in
the past happened, and the very shocking revelation afterwards that
sent you into a downward emotional spiral. Youve talked openly alot
more than you know in your travels, dear, and not just on this
newsgroup.
The subject Im referring to has NEVER been discussed on this newsgroup
or any other, as far as I can tell (it allegedly comes from a personal
conversation with you), and if its factual, then it certainly has a
strong bearing on your obsessions both with Barry Manilow AND with
Pamela Courson (and hence the veracity of both books). If its true,
its also a very personal matter ... its actually a little MORE info
about you than I wanted to know, but what can I say, the email was sent
to me and I read it and it says alot about your irrational anger at the
world. Im sure you know what Im talking about. So again, knock off
the personal insults and stop being such an obnoxious FUCK to everyone
that you post to, and Ill leave it at that. Otherwise, Ill tell the
story of your 80s crash and burn, as its been told to me by someone who
would know. Then you can check it for accuracy.
Other than that, Ill let Mr Hopkins words speak for themselves. Im
sick of trading insults with you, Butler. It's a three day weekend.
Just drop it now and stop with the locker room insults, or Ill delve
into your psychology more closely than you ever thought possible.
Dont say you werent notified in advance. Fuck off or Ill fuck you off.
Patricia
> Sweetie, why dont you stop now with the second-grade insults. This isnt
> recess and Im not calling you names (Ive called you enough in the past,
> any new ones would be redundant). I mean, if I really wanted to get
> down and dirty with you in a "personal" way, then I could reveal what
> has been told to me about the cause of your "depression" in the 80s
> (the one that allegedly led to you finding a French franc and going to
> Paris). I know about a truly traumatic event that youve alleged in
> the past happened, and the very shocking revelation afterwards that
> sent you into a downward emotional spiral. Youve talked openly alot
> more than you know in your travels, dear, and not just on this
> newsgroup.
I think you'd better tell all of us, Don, because I don't have the
first clue what the fuck you're talking about. So don't be shy.
You've hinted at something, now spell it out. I can't wait to hear
what you've concocted now.
> The subject Im referring to has NEVER been discussed on this newsgroup
> or any other, as far as I can tell (it allegedly comes from a personal
> conversation with you), and if its factual, then it certainly has a
> strong bearing on your obsessions both with Barry Manilow AND with
> Pamela Courson (and hence the veracity of both books). If its true,
> its also a very personal matter ... its actually a little MORE info
> about you than I wanted to know, but what can I say, the email was sent
> to me and I read it and it says alot about your irrational anger at the
> world. Im sure you know what Im talking about.
Once again, I don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Do
you?
So again, knock off
> the personal insults and stop being such an obnoxious FUCK to everyone
> that you post to, and Ill leave it at that. Otherwise, Ill tell the
> story of your 80s crash and burn, as its been told to me by someone who
> would know. Then you can check it for accuracy.
Tell away, dear. There was no "80s crash and burn," so I'd love to
hear this fiction you think you're using against me. Should be
entertaining.
> Other than that, Ill let Mr Hopkins words speak for themselves. Im
> sick of trading insults with you, Butler. It's a three day weekend.
> Just drop it now and stop with the locker room insults, or Ill delve
> into your psychology more closely than you ever thought possible.
> Dont say you werent notified in advance. Fuck off or Ill fuck you off.
So you suppose you know my life better than I do? Don, dear, I have no
idea what fairy tale someone told you (though I'm not at all surprised
you'd buy just about anything that fed into your own fantasies), but
I'd certainly love to hear it all, in detail, complete with sources.
I've been very well acquainted with my life going on 44 years now, and
I'm afraid the 80s didn't contain anything even remotely as exciting as
you're hinting at. So let's hear it.
Subterranean Cinema
But if it is true in any way, it explains alot about your anger.
Something is obviously wrong with your circuitry, and this could
explain it. And whatever sadness happened in your past to turn you
from a gentle Mormon girl into a foulmouthed Linda Blair wacko, its no
excuse for you to be the overbearing freak that you are today.
So according to the person who contacted me by email (someone you
know), you told a story back in the early 90s (during your "research"
days) about having a fiancee that you were very devoted to, who died.
You allegedly stated that you went to his funeral, and found out that
he had three other "fiancees" who looked alot like you. (You were a
Mormon living in Utah, so this actually isnt that hard to believe.)
If true, then one has to wonder if he was the same Momo "boyfriend"
that took you to see Manilow in 1983 (the connection with your later
book, which IS relevant to your Doors book). Anyway, this event
allegedly sent you into a deep depression, which eventually ended up
with you discovering a French franc (with two different versions of how
you discovered it, one by a cat dropping it on your nose, another by
you finding it on the street as you walked sadly along), then you
taking a trip to Paris and "crying your eyes out" for an entire day
before stumbling out and discovering Pamela Courson and that rock star
boyfriend of hers. Basically, this is said to be the part of the story
that you left out when you told it on the newsgroup years ago, the
"prequel" if you will.
So it may or may not be true, Im just reporting it from a second hand
source who contacted me (your favorite method of journalism). I sure
wouldnt trust your word at this point either way. But you will get
the last word in here again, Duke, so dont sweat it. And in your
favor, the person who told me this stated that you probably WERE in
Paris that day, though the source (who was also there for the 20th
anniversary) didnt see you there personally and met you during your
"research" years. But someone else apparently did claim that they met
you there, so I guess we can call that proof to back up your story.
See, credit where it is due.
Happy weekend, honey, try to get some sunshine on ya. ;)
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> OK, if you insist. Im not saying its true, Im not saying its false.
> But if it is true in any way, it explains alot about your anger.
> Something is obviously wrong with your circuitry, and this could
> explain it. And whatever sadness happened in your past to turn you
> from a gentle Mormon girl into a foulmouthed Linda Blair wacko, its no
> excuse for you to be the overbearing freak that you are today.
Yes, we know how concerned you are with facts, accuracy, and my overall
wellbeing.
> So according to the person who contacted me by email (someone you
> know),
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't good enough. If you're going to tell
tales supposedly about my life, I have every right to know the source
of the information. Who?
you told a story back in the early 90s (during your "research"
> days) about having a fiancee that you were very devoted to, who died.
> You allegedly stated that you went to his funeral, and found out that
> he had three other "fiancees" who looked alot like you. (You were a
> Mormon living in Utah, so this actually isnt that hard to believe.)
> If true, then one has to wonder if he was the same Momo "boyfriend"
> that took you to see Manilow in 1983 (the connection with your later
> book, which IS relevant to your Doors book). Anyway, this event
> allegedly sent you into a deep depression, which eventually ended up
> with you discovering a French franc (with two different versions of how
> you discovered it, one by a cat dropping it on your nose, another by
> you finding it on the street as you walked sadly along), then you
> taking a trip to Paris and "crying your eyes out" for an entire day
> before stumbling out and discovering Pamela Courson and that rock star
> boyfriend of hers. Basically, this is said to be the part of the story
> that you left out when you told it on the newsgroup years ago, the
> "prequel" if you will.
Yes, I assumed you'd come up with something along these lines. Where
shall I begin? With the fact that you've condensed 10 years worth of
events into a single story, mashing together people and incidents that
happened years apart and had nothing to do with one another? Right.
I went to BYU when I graduated high school. That was 1979. My
boyfriend at the time flew to Utah and took me to see Barry Manilow,
who was playing in Provo, as a treat for my 21st birthday; that was
1982. A different boyfriend entirely did die in when I was 24 and
living in Michigan, in 1985. While that was very sad and did help me
later when I wrote about Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same
age, my big "depression" that you referred to couldn't have been too
crippling since I started dating someone new within a few months and
moved to Chicago to live with him that same year. This was SEVEN YEARS
before I ever heard of Jim or Pam Morrison, before I went to Paris
(where your friend was apparently standing at customs at both airports
monitoring incoming flights and taking names).
Was that really all you had? Wow. This isn't even news. All of this
has been discussed in public forums before. How disappointed you must
be.
>
> So it may or may not be true, Im just reporting it from a second hand
> source who contacted me (your favorite method of journalism).
No, Don, my sources all have names that are fully disclosed. Yours are
all conveniently anonymous. Big difference.
I sure
> wouldnt trust your word at this point either way. But you will get
> the last word in here again, Duke, so dont sweat it. And in your
> favor, the person who told me this stated that you probably WERE in
> Paris that day, though the source (who was also there for the 20th
> anniversary) didnt see you there personally and met you during your
> "research" years.
I see. There were approximately 5000 people stuffed into a few blocks,
but your anonymous friend didn't see me there? For one thing, how
would this person know whether they saw me or not, as I wasn't exactly
a known face? And did your anonymous friend see all the people in
Paris that week? Personally scan and identify each of the 5000 faces
during the riot? Right.
But someone else apparently did claim that they met
> you there, so I guess we can call that proof to back up your story.
> See, credit where it is due.
Of course I also offered to post photos taken at the time along with
the magazine article I wrote about it, but you conveniently ignored
that, didn't you.
> Happy weekend, honey, try to get some sunshine on ya. ;)
Let's hear it, Don. Who's this person who supposedly knows me who told
you such a bunch of bullshit? You stated before that you would
disclose the person's name so I could verify. So do it. (Don't worry
-- Janet and Salli won't beat you up, at least not any more than you're
usually whipped by women who use you like this. Shades of mommy? LOL!)
Subterranean Cinema
Im sorry, dear, but its simply going to HAVE to be good enough. You
asked about the tale I was told about you, and I told it to you. From
your answers, it appears that the tale has at least some basis in
reality, since you wouldnt be demanding to know my "source" if the
story theyd told me wasnt true. The only thing you skipped over
verifying was the part about going to the funeral and finding out he
had multiple fiancees besides you. That, of course, is the
embarrassing part too.
>> Let's hear it, Don. Who's this person who supposedly knows me who told you such a bunch of bullshit? You stated before that you would disclose the person's name so I could verify. So do it.
Umm, excuse me, Pat, but you are hallucinating again. Ive stated no
such thing. Ive said that the person is someone you are acquainted
with from your research days. The fact that you are more or less
verifying their claims about telling this story proves that they are a
valid source. How many people did you tell it to? Who were they?
That would be a good place to start, then trace from there.
Janet, Salli ... lol, keep fishing, darling.
"Asked and answered".
Subterranean Cinema
>> My boyfriend at the time flew to Utah and took me to see Barry Manilow, who was playing in Provo, as a treat for my 21st birthday; that was 1982.
Youve previously stated it was in OREM in 1983, dear. Lets see, I
remember those days, that was shortly after that Rolling Stone cover
story on Jim ... ohh, but you probably didnt see many Rolling Stone
magazines back in BYU, did ya? ;)
lol ...
Subterranean Cinema
Or maybe not ...
Swampfetus
This really explains a lot. Now I have a better idea of why she has such a
pissy attitude towards the rest of the world, even her so-called "friends,"
like Jerry Hopkins, a hack who wrote NOHGOA & The Lizard King for money &
knows next to nothing about The Doors compared to her. Good work, Alex.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, but that simply isn't good enough. If you're going to tell tales supposedly about my life, I have every right to know the source of the information. Who?
>
> Im sorry, dear, but its simply going to HAVE to be good enough. You
> asked about the tale I was told about you, and I told it to you. From
> your answers, it appears that the tale has at least some basis in
> reality, since you wouldnt be demanding to know my "source" if the
> story theyd told me wasnt true.
Excuse me? How do you figure that? I'd be far more likely to demand
the source of something being said about me that's not true. Besides,
I know your source. Those two sad twats have been flogging variations
of that same bullshit story for years. You've jst added your own
embellishments, being a bit of a sad twat yourself.
The only thing you skipped over
> verifying was the part about going to the funeral and finding out he
> had multiple fiancees besides you. That, of course, is the
> embarrassing part too.
Yes, I'm sure if it were true it could be embarrassing. Since it's not
true, it just seems rather silly.
> >> Let's hear it, Don. Who's this person who supposedly knows me who told you such a bunch of bullshit? You stated before that you would disclose the person's name so I could verify. So do it.
>
> Umm, excuse me, Pat, but you are hallucinating again. Ive stated no
> such thing. Ive said that the person is someone you are acquainted
> with from your research days. The fact that you are more or less
> verifying their claims about telling this story proves that they are a
> valid source.
You mean when I "verified their claims" by listing all the ways in
which they were bullshit? Verifying it like that? And the sad twat's
name is Salli, and her sad friend's name is Janet, and you three make a
lovely trio of sad twats between you.
How many people did you tell it to? Who were they?
> That would be a good place to start, then trace from there.
>
> Janet, Salli ... lol, keep fishing, darling.
>
> "Asked and answered".
Funny how you can't answer any questions put to you, Don, and you
pretend you can't see any posts that directly refute anything you say,
and when you're challenged you claim you'll only talk about the Doors
and nothing else. Yet here you are telling (false) tales about my
personal life. Why is that? (Oh, that's right -- Don't got pointed
question blindness [PQB], a chronic condition apparently.)
Patricia
Manilow was playing at BYU, which is in Provo, which is next to Orem.
No, I wouldn't have seen Rolling Stone nor noticed it if I had. Why is
this of such interest to you? Again, are you more cheesed off that I'm
college educated or that someone actually cared enough about me to do
something nice for me? Either way, the jealousy continues to drip off
you like flop sweat.
Patricia
Swampfetus wrote:
>
> This really explains a lot. Now I have a better idea of why she has such a
> pissy attitude towards the rest of the world, even her so-called "friends,"
> like Jerry Hopkins, a hack who wrote NOHGOA & The Lizard King for money &
> knows next to nothing about The Doors compared to her. Good work, Alex.
Gee, and Jerry had such nice things to say about you, Dave. And I
quote: "I never heard another word from Dave/Wormwood; he was rude, so
I was no less back." You must be so excited to have made such a great
impression! After all, if you can't get attention in a positive,
productive way, might as well do it by being as big an asshole as
possible, right?
Swampfetus
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117315521....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Either you're a lying sack of shit or Jerry is because I was not the least
bit rude. Why would I be? I don't dislike the man.
Patricia
Neither one of us is lying. Considering my personal experiences with
you and the way I've seen you behave both publicly and privately, I
sincerely doubt that you possess the ability to discern the way your
own behavior is perceived by others. I'm sure to you it seems the
height of civility to approach someone in hopes of baiting them into
saying something to demean a good friend, and then ignore them when
they write back asking you to identify and explain yourself. Others,
though, find that sort of thing rude. Go figure.
Subterranean Cinema
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> Asked and answered.
In order for this answer to make sense, someone must first ask you a
question that you then answer. Since no one asked you anything, and
since you've never answered anything, this statement just makes you
look like a bit of a loon.
Subterranean Cinema
>> A different boyfriend entirely did die in when I was 24 and
living in Michigan, in 1985.
Were you engaged to him? And at the funeral, did you find out he was
also engaged to three other women that looked alot like you? If its
not true, then did you ever tell it this way to anyone as a story?
Because if its not true, then someone needs to be writing fiction
instead of non-fiction, as its quite a story. Talk about material for
a Lifetime Channel special presentation. "Polygamists Dance and
Polygamists Die" ... Id check into it.
>> While that was very sad and did help me later when I wrote about Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same age, my big "depression" that you referred to couldn't have been too crippling since I started dating someone new within a few months and
moved to Chicago to live with him that same year.
So, your boyfriend (fiancee?) died in 1985, and this event caused you
to bond with Pamela later because of the sadness you felt losing your
"lover" at the "same age" of 25 ... but this event wasnt so emotionally
overwhelming that it stopped you from immediately jumping into a
relationship with another fella and moving to another city, within the
same YEAR as your previous "lover" had died? Gee, he must have
really meant alot to you for him to merit an entire "few months" of
mourning before you replaced him ... unless you were really pissed off
at his memory for some reason ... and finding out he had three other
fiancees would be a credible (if not very bizarre) explanation.
Funny how the story my "source" told still fits in perfectly with this
explanation.
The story was about you telling a story of being engaged to a man who
died, and at the funeral, you discovered there were three other
"fiancees" besides you, all of whom looked similar (red hair, etc).
If the story isnt true, then all it takes is for you to say, "its not
true". See, then I say "ok then, whatever", and the thread ends at
that point. You know what "the end" means, right? Its when everyone
gets bored with the subject and stops talking about it.
Subterranean Cinema
"Salli". How about this: I will swear, here publicly, that it isnt
"Janet" or "Salli", as I dont know either of them. Perhaps my source
got it from them. Who knows? Who cares? If its a true story, then
it doesnt matter if Jesus whispered it to me.
But if you really need a name for the "source" ... how about Deep
Throat?
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> A few questions about your posting from last night, dear:
>
> >> A different boyfriend entirely did die in when I was 24 and
> living in Michigan, in 1985.
>
> Were you engaged to him? And at the funeral, did you find out he was
> also engaged to three other women that looked alot like you? If its
> not true, then did you ever tell it this way to anyone as a story?
> Because if its not true, then someone needs to be writing fiction
> instead of non-fiction, as its quite a story. Talk about material for
> a Lifetime Channel special presentation. "Polygamists Dance and
> Polygamists Die" ... Id check into it.
He was my boyfriend. He wasn't engaged to anyone at the time of his
death.
> >> While that was very sad and did help me later when I wrote about Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same age, my big "depression" that you referred to couldn't have been too crippling since I started dating someone new within a few months and
> moved to Chicago to live with him that same year.
>
> So, your boyfriend (fiancee?) died in 1985, and this event caused you
> to bond with Pamela later because of the sadness you felt losing your
> "lover" at the "same age" of 25 ...
That's not what I said. I said it helped me later when I wrote about
Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same age.
but this event wasnt so emotionally
> overwhelming that it stopped you from immediately jumping into a
> relationship with another fella and moving to another city, within the
> same YEAR as your previous "lover" had died?
You're the only one who keeps saying I was devastated and depressed. I
never said anything like that.
Gee, he must have
> really meant alot to you for him to merit an entire "few months" of
> mourning before you replaced him ... unless you were really pissed off
> at his memory for some reason ... and finding out he had three other
> fiancees would be a credible (if not very bizarre) explanation.
> Funny how the story my "source" told still fits in perfectly with this
> explanation.
You mean the story your "source" told you fits in with your psychotic
need to write stupid things about my personal life. Some grownups know
how to move on and not obsess.
> The story was about you telling a story of being engaged to a man who
> died, and at the funeral, you discovered there were three other
> "fiancees" besides you, all of whom looked similar (red hair, etc).
> If the story isnt true, then all it takes is for you to say, "its not
> true". See, then I say "ok then, whatever", and the thread ends at
> that point. You know what "the end" means, right? Its when everyone
> gets bored with the subject and stops talking about it.
I've said it isn't true several times now. The problem is you're
physically incapable of seeing any answer that isn't the one you want
to see.
By the way, Don, what does any of this have to do with the subject of
this newsgroup? Or you, for that matter?
Patricia
> Your question was, who is my source. You think its "Janet" or
> "Salli". How about this: I will swear, here publicly, that it isnt
> "Janet" or "Salli", as I dont know either of them. Perhaps my source
> got it from them. Who knows? Who cares? If its a true story, then
> it doesnt matter if Jesus whispered it to me.
But since it's not a true story, it matters a great deal. Either
someone's lying to you just for kicks, or you're lying all by yourself
and not having the balls to take responsibility for it without blaming
it on an unnamed source. Either way, makes you look like quite the
dickless wonder.
Patricia
won't mind a bit of your personal life being laid out for public
consumption here, right? Unlike you, I'm a *very* good researcher.
And it takes so little information to pry open the vault. Like your
name (got it) and where you live (got it). That's really all it takes.
But I'm sure your life is an open book, right?
Subterranean Cinema
name" (Don Hicks) and where I live (Dayton, Nevada) was such a grand
achievement, then you really are delusional. Ive given that info out
to MANY people over the last several years, its how trades are done
between collectors. "Alex" is my internet name because its a
reference to the lead character in my alltime favorite film, Clockwork
Orange. When I was using "kubrick milkbar", that was the same thing, a
nod to my alltime favorite director. My real name was never a secret
to anyone but you, I would have given it to anyone who emailed and
asked for it. And I always talk about living in Nevada, I happen to
love it here, its a great state (the west is the best). So, unless you
are planning to use my personal info for illegal harassment purposes
(which I trust you arent dumb enough to lower yourself to), then Im
perfectly ok with you knowing who I am. Ill send you a picture if
thatll help.
In fact, here's a little "quid pro quo", Clarice: Im 41 years old
currently. I get a speeding ticket approximately once a year, but
never been to jail. Im single, heterosexual, never been married
because I dont believe in the institution (and never had one fiancee,
much less four), and currently seeing nobody in particular, mostly
because I dont make the effort to date anymore (Im going to California
in June for a week long journey, maybe thatll change then). I tend to
dress in a tshirt and black jeans (often the Tshirt is one of my Doors
shirts), I have collar length semi-curly brown hair, blue eyes, and a
Cobain like goatee beard thats starting to get its first grey hairs.
I drive a Kawasaki motorcycle in the summer, but my car (a Ford) is
going on the fritz after years of faithful service, so I need a new one
and hopefully can afford to get one later this year. Im 5'11", 210
pounds, and I love chinese food even more than cake. My life may not
be an "open book", but for the most part its been a fairly uneventful
one, at times downright dull. So bring some no-doz when you do your
research. Hey, at least Im honest about my rather average life,
unlike you. And at least Im a Doors fan, unlike you.
Now, if you're quite done blowing wind out of your sphincter and trying
to be intimidating, then this is the part where I tell you to go fuck
yourself, and where you get that last word that I promised you, Duke.
Try not to spit any green pea soup on the newbies, youve chased enough
of them away over the last decade.
Subterranean Cinema
SUBTERRANEAN CINEMA
http://www.subcin.com
Rare films and rock music are my obsessions.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>So I took a couple of hours and transcribed some relevant passages
>about the death of Jim Morrison, written by Jerry Hopkins. (this is
>where youll get Butler copout #27: when all else fails, whine about
>copyright violation).
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>excerpts from THE LIZARD KING: THE ESSENTIAL JIM MORRISON
>by Jerry Hopkins
>CHAPTER VI - THE EXILE
>beginning page 161
>______________________________________________
>
>Jim was familiar with the junkie underground, or at least aware of it,
>not because of Pamela's sporadic use of the drug, but because of the
>dives in which he chose to drink.
>According to information gathered by Herve Muller, one of the dealers
>on the scene in the summer of 1971 was a Chinese called "Le Chinoise".
>Supposedly, he had a laboratory for making heroin in Marseille, while
>explains why he happened to have such unusually potent heroin to sell,
>running to about 30 percent "pure" instead of the customary 5 to 10
>percent. The way the story goes, "Le Chinoise" , who was not known to
>use heroin himself, sold a quantity to a second-level dealer named
>Michel, who in turn sold a smaller quantity to someone called "Le Petit
>Bernard", charging him $100. Bernard then sold that packet to Jim for
>about $200, warning him of the potency.
>
>"That's okay," Jim reportedly said, "Im used to it." All sources say
>Jim seemed to be nervous, upset.
How about this?! He may have said this, but is there any indication
that he in fact was a regular user?!
>
>All sources also told Herve Muller that the final transaction took
>place in the men's room of the Circus, where Jim snorted the heroin,
>then slumped into a comatose state. The junkies present heaved him to
>his feet between them, guiding him back into the night club, then
>through the adjoining kitchens to the Alcazar, and into a cab on the
>street.
>
>At this point, it is generally agreed that Jim was still alive. This
>is reasonable. In most heroin overdoses, the victim generally dies
>after one or two hours of lethargy, stupor, and coma. The way this
>story ends, Jim was returned to his flat and dumped into a bathtub full
>of cold water in an attempt to revive him, standard treatment for an
>overdose, although there is some question about its practicality.
Sounds credible to me.
>I re-interviewed some of my earlier subjects, among them Diane
>Gardiner.
>Jim had known about Pam's heroin
>use, bust most agree that apparently he didnt know how frequently she
>used it. Diane told me that Pam seemed able to use it on a daily
>basis for a while, then merely stop, suffering rarely from withdrawal.
> And, Diane said, to her knowledge, Pam never used heroin with Jim or
>in his presence, at least until now. Jim disapproved of heroin.
>This was confirmed by everyone I talked to. Danny Sugerman, the 14
>year old high school student who hung out at the Doors' office and ten
>years later helped me get No One Here Gets Out Alive published, said
>Jim actually lectured him about "the evils and horrors of heroin".
>
>So, Diane told me, when Jim saw Pam bent over a line of white powder,
>it is possible he thought it was cocaine. Jim liked cocaine. There is
>no reason to think he would have done anything but smile and join Pam
>on the couch and inhale the next line of powder.
Indeed possible.
>It is the story that was told by Alain Ronay and Agnes Varda to Paris
>Match in 1991, twenty years after Jim's death, that makes this story
>most real.
>
>Pam took Ronay's arm in the apartment as the doctor was examining Jim's
>body. Pam said she and Jim had been snorting heroin for two days.
Could be true. So, a summary of the events could be that he by
accident becomes a heroin user; they run out of it, he goes to the
Circus to buy some and instead of immediately going home snorts some
heroin on the spot, and ODs. He's dragged to the apartment and dumped
into the bathtub.
Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
sweetchild
However...I suspect there is more to the story then you even disclosed
here.
I find it interesting that the "possible polygamy" issue was never debated
...SubCin...maybe an underestimation on your part with the numbers of
ladies???...
hmmmm....
Peggy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Subterranean Cinema
Well, certainly you have to look at the credibility of the people
telling the stories (or lack of it) and take that into account. But
even if you set aside Ronay's statements, and Marianne Faithfull's, and
Diane Gardiner's, and Danny Sugerman's, there is nothing to indicate
that Agnes Varda would have a motivation to create a fictional story
about a heroin overdose, and then state it publicly in a French
magazine. I saw the Cannes Film Festival closing ceremonies on IFC
channel a few days ago, and Varda was on the film jury this year (the
host and narrator of the IFC show, Roger Ebert, called her "one of the
greatest female film directors of all time" and "the widow of Jacques
Demy"). Hopkins put alot of faith in that Paris Match interview too,
and its probably because he knows Varda's word is solid.
Jerry Hopkins wrote:
>> Varda's accurate description of the death scene in the bathroom gives credence to her story over Ronay's.
Varda's interview is the strongest evidence yet, because she cant just
be blithely brushed aside as a "liar" or "mistaken" or "biased". She
was Morrison's friend (she has used Doors music in several of her
films) and she respected him. And nobody can deny that she WAS there
that morning along with Ronay.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>>> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
>
>Well, certainly you have to look at the credibility of the people
>telling the stories (or lack of it) and take that into account.
I'm looking for a motive why anyone would want to hide the truth. The
only one I can think of is that it would not look good on Pamela if
she would have been responsible for Jim becoming a heroin user;
certainly not if she tricked him into it. She may also have been the
only one at the apartment when they brought him from the Circus, so
that could be the reason why no one else mentions that part.
Subterranean Cinema
her posting last night:
>> Excuse me? How did I "overlook" a book when I heard all about its
production while it was being put together and I received a copy from
the author before the book was actually in stores? Can you explain
this? (No, he can't, so he'll pretend he didn't see this.)
I see it, Patricia. And my rebuttal question would be, how is it that
you heard all about the book's production and you received a copy of it
while you were still working on your own book (Hopkins book released in
1995, Butler book released in 1997, right?) ... one assumes you
actually READ the book at that time, or that you at least read the book
in the following 10 years at some point (Im sure you wouldnt criticize
it as a NOHGOA retread without actually reading it) ... the book quite
openly talks about the Paris Match interview, with BOTH Alain Ronay AND
Agnes Varda being present (as can be seen in the excerpts that started
this thread), in fact he devotes an entire chapter to Morrison's death,
their claims, and his own belief that Jim died from a heroin overdose
(combined with alcohol).
So, if you did read the book, and you were so close to Hopkins, and you
were currently researching the Courson/Morrison story (and Morrison's
cause of death), and you were looking for the truth, then why is it
that when I first started talking about the Davis book a month or two
ago, and I mentioned the Paris Match interview as pretty solid
evidence, you claimed to know nothing about it, and refused to believe
that Varda was present at all. This was your response:
>> Somehow I missed this before. Your black-or-white assessment is naive and simplistic. I've never heard/read Agnes Varda herself make any claims.
And you continued to refuse to believe that Varda confirmed Ronay's
claims in a printed interview, falling back on your own story of how
Ronay allegedly told you (in tears) that it wasnt true, until I
actually proved the existence of the article through the words of Jerry
Hopkins himself. Sister, if your case hinges on everyone believing
your hearsay story of what you were allegedly told in a private
conversation by Alain Ronay, compared to the word of a famous film
director in a printed article (that you "somehow missed before") ...
well, guess what, you lose. And your insane, infantile ranting isnt
going to change that.
Subterranean Cinema
only one I can think of is that it would not look good on Pamela if
she would have been responsible for Jim becoming a heroin user;
certainly not if she tricked him into it. She may also have been the
only one at the apartment when they brought him from the Circus, so
that could be the reason why no one else mentions that part.
The motive was to protect Pamela Courson from arrest, and get her out
of the country. Im sure it also had something to do with the fact
that Morrison already had a terrible rep for his drunkenness, and maybe
they didnt want to add "junkie" to his legacy.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>>> I'm looking for a motive why anyone would want to hide the truth. The
Seems plausible enough. And maybe she kept quiet afterwards because of
the reason I mentioned. It's a pity that there don't seem to be any
non-junkie witnesses for the OD at the Rock&Roll Circus part though.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> Knock yourself out, sweetie. If you think that finding out my "real
> name" (Don Hicks) and where I live (Dayton, Nevada) was such a grand
> achievement, then you really are delusional. Ive given that info out
> to MANY people over the last several years, its how trades are done
> between collectors. "Alex" is my internet name because its a
> reference to the lead character in my alltime favorite film, Clockwork
> Orange. When I was using "kubrick milkbar", that was the same thing, a
> nod to my alltime favorite director. My real name was never a secret
> to anyone but you, I would have given it to anyone who emailed and
> asked for it. And I always talk about living in Nevada, I happen to
> love it here, its a great state (the west is the best). So, unless you
> are planning to use my personal info for illegal harassment purposes
> (which I trust you arent dumb enough to lower yourself to), then Im
> perfectly ok with you knowing who I am. Ill send you a picture if
> thatll help.
I never said it was a grand achievement. I said it was all I need.
> In fact, here's a little "quid pro quo", Clarice: Im 41 years old
> currently. I get a speeding ticket approximately once a year, but
> never been to jail. Im single, heterosexual, never been married
> because I dont believe in the institution (and never had one fiancee,
> much less four), and currently seeing nobody in particular, mostly
> because I dont make the effort to date anymore (Im going to California
> in June for a week long journey, maybe thatll change then).
That's the saddest summation I've ever seen for "women find me
repulsive and I couldn't get laid with a million dollars and Brad
Pitt's dick."
I tend to
> dress in a tshirt and black jeans (often the Tshirt is one of my Doors
> shirts), I have collar length semi-curly brown hair, blue eyes, and a
> Cobain like goatee beard thats starting to get its first grey hairs.
> I drive a Kawasaki motorcycle in the summer, but my car (a Ford) is
> going on the fritz after years of faithful service, so I need a new one
> and hopefully can afford to get one later this year. Im 5'11", 210
> pounds, and I love chinese food even more than cake. My life may not
> be an "open book", but for the most part its been a fairly uneventful
> one, at times downright dull. So bring some no-doz when you do your
> research. Hey, at least Im honest about my rather average life,
> unlike you. And at least Im a Doors fan, unlike you.
Right. A Doors fan who's made no effort to educate himself on the band
and knows next to nothing about it. That's some fan, boy.
> Now, if you're quite done blowing wind out of your sphincter and trying
> to be intimidating, then this is the part where I tell you to go fuck
> yourself, and where you get that last word that I promised you, Duke.
> Try not to spit any green pea soup on the newbies, youve chased enough
> of them away over the last decade.
Have I? They each wrote to you and told you that? I'm sure your
thousands of psycho-rants made them feel right at home.
Patricia
Yes, we know. Your very first post on this newsgroup was spamming your
website. Nothing at all to do with The Doors -- just spamming your
website. That's what a big "Doors fan" you are.
Patricia
Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
>
> Could be true. So, a summary of the events could be that he by
> accident becomes a heroin user; they run out of it, he goes to the
> Circus to buy some and instead of immediately going home snorts some
> heroin on the spot, and ODs. He's dragged to the apartment and dumped
> into the bathtub.
>
> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
You mean by telling the truth? Don't be such a gullible chump.
Patricia
> LOL....
> However...I suspect there is more to the story then you even disclosed
> here.
> I find it interesting that the "possible polygamy" issue was never debated
> ...SubCin...maybe an underestimation on your part with the numbers of
> ladies???...
> hmmmm....
> Peggy
What is it that you think "polygamy" means, exactly?
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> >> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
>
> Well, certainly you have to look at the credibility of the people
> telling the stories (or lack of it) and take that into account. But
> even if you set aside Ronay's statements, and Marianne Faithfull's, and
> Diane Gardiner's, and Danny Sugerman's, there is nothing to indicate
> that Agnes Varda would have a motivation to create a fictional story
> about a heroin overdose, and then state it publicly in a French
> magazine.
And there's a question you've been dodging all along, Don: just when
did Agnes Varga make these statements? And to whom? I've certainly
never seen or heard her say anything like this. Where did you? Answer
this question this time.
I saw the Cannes Film Festival closing ceremonies on IFC
> channel a few days ago, and Varda was on the film jury this year (the
> host and narrator of the IFC show, Roger Ebert, called her "one of the
> greatest female film directors of all time" and "the widow of Jacques
> Demy"). Hopkins put alot of faith in that Paris Match interview too,
> and its probably because he knows Varda's word is solid.
Really? Is that why? It's not because it just happened to be easily
accessible?
> Jerry Hopkins wrote:
>
> >> Varda's accurate description of the death scene in the bathroom gives credence to her story over Ronay's.
>
> Varda's interview is the strongest evidence yet, because she cant just
> be blithely brushed aside as a "liar" or "mistaken" or "biased".
Why? Because you worship her for some sick bullshit reasons? That's
hardly an endorsement from the Pope.
She
> was Morrison's friend (she has used Doors music in several of her
> films) and she respected him. And nobody can deny that she WAS there
> that morning along with Ronay.
You certainly are doing a lot of projection on someone you've never
actually talked to or even read any direct quotes from.
Hyacinth
fucking over Jerry Hopkins, your new best friend, when you post his
copyright protected work on the internet without his permission."
Oh, oh, SC, you're in trouble now. At least you predicted the outcome!
Thanks for sharing.
Accoring to B&N, this book is INDEED "out of print."
Thanks for your indepth reporting.
Hyacinth
reports in 1992. Jerry Hopkins had access to all and would have
considered them when he wrote his last book.
End of story.
Patricia
> I see it, Patricia. And my rebuttal question would be, how is it that
> you heard all about the book's production and you received a copy of it
> while you were still working on your own book (Hopkins book released in
> 1995, Butler book released in 1997, right?) ... one assumes you
> actually READ the book at that time, or that you at least read the book
> in the following 10 years at some point (Im sure you wouldnt criticize
> it as a NOHGOA retread without actually reading it) ... the book quite
> openly talks about the Paris Match interview, with BOTH Alain Ronay AND
> Agnes Varda being present (as can be seen in the excerpts that started
> this thread), in fact he devotes an entire chapter to Morrison's death,
> their claims, and his own belief that Jim died from a heroin overdose
> (combined with alcohol).
>
> So, if you did read the book, and you were so close to Hopkins, and you
> were currently researching the Courson/Morrison story (and Morrison's
> cause of death), and you were looking for the truth, then why is it
> that when I first started talking about the Davis book a month or two
> ago, and I mentioned the Paris Match interview as pretty solid
> evidence, you claimed to know nothing about it, and refused to believe
> that Varda was present at all. This was your response:
Gee, this isn't too old. I've only answered this question a dozen
times now. Maybe this time you can pay attention? Alain Ronay told me
the article was bullshit. Are you calling him a liar? Because if he's
a liar, then what makes you think he wouldn't have lied to Paris Match?
> >> Somehow I missed this before. Your black-or-white assessment is naive and simplistic. I've never heard/read Agnes Varda herself make any claims.
>
> And you continued to refuse to believe that Varda confirmed Ronay's
> claims in a printed interview, falling back on your own story of how
> Ronay allegedly told you (in tears) that it wasnt true, until I
> actually proved the existence of the article through the words of Jerry
> Hopkins himself.
You proved the existence of the article? LOL! You make it sound like
you proved the existence of life on Mars. The existence of the article
was never in question, you boob. The veracity of the article was what
was in question.
Sister, if your case hinges on everyone believing
> your hearsay story of what you were allegedly told in a private
> conversation by Alain Ronay, compared to the word of a famous film
> director in a printed article (that you "somehow missed before") ...
> well, guess what, you lose. And your insane, infantile ranting isnt
> going to change that.
And your blind hero worship of someone you've never met and don't know
the first thing about is hardly evidence to the contrary. You are the
most ridiculous little person, Don. You are willfully ignorant,
refusing to educate yourself on any topic any further than the little
you can find to bolster only those things you want to believe, and
you're physically incapable of answering questions put to your,
reforming your opinions based on new information, or even admitting you
may not be fully informed. When you are cornered on facts, you start
throwing around a lot of personal irrelevance to distract attention
from the fact that you can't defend your own theses. (Or was lying
about my past and blaiming it on unnamed sources somehow related to The
Doors?) You really didn't have to tell us that you've never been laid,
Don. If you're even a small fraction as socially retarded in person as
you are on this newsgroup, it's a wonder you were even able to tempt
your mother into giving you all those inappropriate sponge baths.
Hyacinth
by "Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> May 27, 2005 at 11:05 PM
Yes, I assumed you'd come up with something along these lines. Where
shall I begin? With the fact that you've condensed 10 years worth of
events into a single story, mashing together people and incidents that
happened years apart and had nothing to do with one another? Right.
I went to BYU when I graduated high school. That was 1979. My
boyfriend at the time flew to Utah and took me to see Barry Manilow,
who was playing in Provo, as a treat for my 21st birthday; that was
1982. A different boyfriend entirely did die in when I was 24 and
living in Michigan, in 1985. While that was very sad and did help me
later when I wrote about Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same
age, my big "depression" that you referred to couldn't have been too
crippling since I started dating someone new within a few months and
moved to Chicago to live with him that same year. This was SEVEN YEARS
before I ever heard of Jim or Pam Morrison, before I went to Paris
(where your friend was apparently standing at customs at both airports
monitoring incoming flights and taking names).
That is a very sad story, PB. Losing a loved one can be devastating. And
if the three fiancees are true (after all, we'e talking about Brigham
Young territory), there's nothing to be ashamed of. Its more a reflection
on the guy than on you, the person deceived (along with the other 3
ladies).
Patricia
Still haven't learned to post yet, eh? Thus confirming my assessment
that you're dumb as a sack of hair. No wonder you admire Don's
"indepth reporting" so. To you, anything that's been successfully
posted on the internet seems "indepth." By the way, B&N seems unaware
of the fact that this book is out of print, considering the fact that
they're not only offering it for sale but they're bringing out a new
edition in August.
Patricia
There's some fascinating logic for you. Because you saw copies of
something, that means everyone saw them? Fascinating!
Patricia
Hyacinth wrote:
> That is a very sad story, PB. Losing a loved one can be devastating. And
> if the three fiancees are true (after all, we'e talking about Brigham
> Young territory), there's nothing to be ashamed of. Its more a reflection
> on the guy than on you, the person deceived (along with the other 3
> ladies).
I see your stupidity continues unabated. It was stated fairly clearly
that the fiance story is bullshit. And Brigham Young University had
nothing whatsoever to do with the man or his death. Looks like you can
add reading comprehension to the (long, long, LONG) list of skills you
lack.
Subterranean Cinema
Four postings full of namecalling, pissing, moaning, and trolling, and
once again she skipped right over those parts that are actually related
to the death of Jim Morrison (and hence, that are "on topic" for this
particular newsgroup). It's funny how she keeps saying how Ive "made
no effort to educate myself on the band" when Im quoting numerous books
written about them that I have read and am reading, including one
written in 1995 by her "good friend" that she makes such a big deal
about getting an advance signed copy of ... so she got this book
directly from Hopkins, then she apparently "missed" the part of it
(almost an entire chapter) where Agnes Varda confirmed the overdose
death of Morrison, in an interview she gave in 1991.
Patricia Butler wrote:
>>Somehow I missed this before. Your black-or-white assessment is naive and simplistic. I've never heard/read Agnes Varda herself make any claims.
So, it would appear that Patricia Butler was either lying blatantly
(again) when she recently claimed to have "never heard/read" that Varda
was with Ronay at the interview and confirmed the story (even though
its very clearly stated in the Hopkins book repeatedly), or that she
never bothered to actually read the Hopkins book when he sent it to her
"in advance" in 1995 or in the following ten years, or that she did
read it and that she knew about Varda's statements in the Paris Match
interview, and that she conveniently overlooked them, thinking that she
could brush the whole thing off by say that "Alain" told her personally
that it wasnt true and so that settles it. What a professional, eh?
Real quester for "truth", this one. The fact is, she is the one that
needs to make an effort to educate herself, by actually reading the
Lizard King book, instead of orgasming over how autographed it is and
not bothering to study the information inside of it.
sweetchild
To me a marriage type relationship does not have to be defined in the
confines of a marriage certificate; therefore someone ( male or female) who
dates more than one person on a consistent basis is also a polygamist in my
eyes ( esp when not telling one about the other-- add cheater in that) -- I
am not taking about one night stands...I am referring to solid serious
relationships. You can be married and have a shit relationship with someone
and be "together" and be considered in a marriage/union relationship-- Let
me bring up YOUR example of the " Pamela Courson - Morrison/ Jim Morrison
relationship"??
Now that we have this question answered...take it in your "pipe of
piousness" and smoke it sweetie. :) :) :)
Peggy
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117390892....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Subterranean Cinema
Dear, YOU are the one calling him a liar. YOU are the one saying that
he told you the article was "bullshit" (I have to wonder if those were
his exact words, or yours). I think he's telling the truth with
Varda, and I think that if he did state that to you, it was probably
because youre such an overbearing dominant loudmouthed bulldyke bitch
that you scared him (hence the tears). Ive got news for you, Joan of
Arcata: just because you say that someone told you something in a
personal conversation, doesnt make it set in stone as a fact. Why
should anyone even believe you that the conversation took place at all?
See, because the thing is, Im not calling Alain Ronay a liar. Im
saying he told the truth in the article. Im calling YOU a liar, and a
pathological one at that. Clear enough, Duke?
Sjoerd Bakker
No; by *not* telling the truth
> Don't be such a gullible chump.
Speak for yourself.
Patricia
sweetchild wrote:
> Of course I know what the definition of polygamy is my dearest Patricia...
> To me a marriage type relationship does not have to be defined in the
> confines of a marriage certificate; therefore someone ( male or female) who
> dates more than one person on a consistent basis is also a polygamist in my
> eyes ( esp when not telling one about the other-- add cheater in that) -- I
> am not taking about one night stands...I am referring to solid serious
> relationships. You can be married and have a shit relationship with someone
> and be "together" and be considered in a marriage/union relationship-- Let
> me bring up YOUR example of the " Pamela Courson - Morrison/ Jim Morrison
> relationship"??
> Now that we have this question answered...take it in your "pipe of
> piousness" and smoke it sweetie. :) :) :)
> Peggy
In other words, no, you don't know what polygamy means. Thanks for the
confirmation.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> >> Alain Ronay told me the article was bullshit. Are you calling him a liar? Because if he's a liar, then what makes you think he wouldn't have lied to Paris Match?
>
> Dear, YOU are the one calling him a liar. YOU are the one saying that
> he told you the article was "bullshit" (I have to wonder if those were
> his exact words, or yours).
Yes, he said the article was bullshit; no I didn't call him a liar.
I think he's telling the truth with
> Varda, and I think that if he did state that to you, it was probably
> because youre such an overbearing dominant loudmouthed bulldyke bitch
> that you scared him (hence the tears).
Yes, he was so scared of me calling him on the phone from 2000 miles
away that he wept hysterically and recanted his entire story, lest I...
what? Hang up on him really, really hard? Get a grip!
Ive got news for you, Joan of
> Arcata: just because you say that someone told you something in a
> personal conversation, doesnt make it set in stone as a fact.
And just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
Why
> should anyone even believe you that the conversation took place at all?
Why not? You believe Agnes Varda said things you have absolutely no
way of knowing she said or not. The difference is that you want to
believe what you think Agnes Varda said, and you don't want to believe
anything to the contrary, simple as that.
> See, because the thing is, Im not calling Alain Ronay a liar. Im
> saying he told the truth in the article. Im calling YOU a liar, and a
> pathological one at that. Clear enough, Duke?
Actually you are calling him a liar. Either he lied in the article or
he lied to me. Pick one.
Patricia
Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
> On 29 May 2005 11:19:31 -0700, "Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >> Could be true. So, a summary of the events could be that he by
> >> accident becomes a heroin user; they run out of it, he goes to the
> >> Circus to buy some and instead of immediately going home snorts some
> >> heroin on the spot, and ODs. He's dragged to the apartment and dumped
> >> into the bathtub.
> >>
> >> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
> >
> >You mean by telling the truth?
>
> No; by *not* telling the truth
>
>
> > Don't be such a gullible chump.
>
> Speak for yourself.
I'm speaking entirely for myself when I say to you, don't be such a
gullible chump. Otherwise I would have said, "We all think you should
stop being such a gullible chump."
Sjoerd Bakker
>
>
>Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
>> On 29 May 2005 11:19:31 -0700, "Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Could be true. So, a summary of the events could be that he by
>> >> accident becomes a heroin user; they run out of it, he goes to the
>> >> Circus to buy some and instead of immediately going home snorts some
>> >> heroin on the spot, and ODs. He's dragged to the apartment and dumped
>> >> into the bathtub.
>> >>
>> >> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
>> >
>> >You mean by telling the truth?
>>
>> No; by *not* telling the truth
>>
>>
>> > Don't be such a gullible chump.
>>
>> Speak for yourself.
>
>I'm speaking entirely for myself when I say to you, don't be such a
>gullible chump.
Then mind your own business.
> Otherwise I would have said, "We all think you should
>stop being such a gullible chump."
IMO, only fascists speak on behalf of "we" in discussions like these..
Patricia
> Gee, somebody sure is browned off today (as opposed to "cheesed off").
> Four postings full of namecalling, pissing, moaning, and trolling, and
> once again she skipped right over those parts that are actually related
> to the death of Jim Morrison (and hence, that are "on topic" for this
> particular newsgroup).
You mean other than refuting all of your claims with facts, presenting
new information you didn't know, and answering all your questions
thoroughly, I "skopped right over those parts." Right.
It's funny how she keeps saying how Ive "made
> no effort to educate myself on the band" when Im quoting numerous books
> written about them that I have read and am reading,
Oh, don't make me laugh! You're quoting a lot of books you haven't
actually read just like you've spent years shitting on my book when you
haven't actually read it. You're the laziest poser I've ever seen. At
least your average poser will do his homework and read everything
available, but not you! No, you've read two books in 25 years and one
chapter out of a third, and off you go!
including one
> written in 1995 by her "good friend" that she makes such a big deal
> about getting an advance signed copy of ... so she got this book
> directly from Hopkins, then she apparently "missed" the part of it
> (almost an entire chapter) where Agnes Varda confirmed the overdose
> death of Morrison, in an interview she gave in 1991.
I didn't miss a thing, nor did I ever say I missed it. I said I've
never seen or heard Varda actually saying anything about Jim's death.
Neither have you, a fact you conveniently keep skipping over and have
pretended not to see every time you've been asked about it, just like
you do every question you can't answer (which means every question).
Patricia
> On 29 May 2005 13:28:18 -0700, "Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
> >> On 29 May 2005 11:19:31 -0700, "Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Sjoerd Bakker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Could be true. So, a summary of the events could be that he by
> >> >> accident becomes a heroin user; they run out of it, he goes to the
> >> >> Circus to buy some and instead of immediately going home snorts some
> >> >> heroin on the spot, and ODs. He's dragged to the apartment and dumped
> >> >> into the bathtub.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
> >> >
> >> >You mean by telling the truth?
> >>
> >> No; by *not* telling the truth
> >>
> >>
> >> > Don't be such a gullible chump.
> >>
> >> Speak for yourself.
> >
> >I'm speaking entirely for myself when I say to you, don't be such a
> >gullible chump.
>
> Then mind your own business.
>
>
> > Otherwise I would have said, "We all think you should
> >stop being such a gullible chump."
>
> IMO, only fascists speak on behalf of "we" in discussions like these..
Great, another genius. I didn't speak on behalf of "we," now, did I?
Pay attention.
Sjoerd Bakker
I didn't say you did, did I?!
>Pay attention.
Speak for yourself.
sweetchild
Are we using the lower end of our comprehensive part of our brain today?
I will re-explain....
I said " One in my opinion does not need a marriage certificate to be a
polygamist....
to me a person can be one outside of having a marriage certificate. To me a
relationship with commitments is sacred without having a marriage license--
that is ME saying this...others may disagree...
If I have to spell it out for you I will in simpler terms-- even tho I do
not believe in the definition of a polygamist being different when 2 people
are committed outside of marriage and there are more than one relationships
going on at the same time with one partner...
THE PROPER DEFINITION IN CLEAREST OF TERMS IS:
.. a polygamist is one who has more than one spouse at the same time. Some
require "spouse" to mean married.
I do not...
Capiche el denso??
Peggy
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117398101.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sweetchild
you treat him like a buffoon in this NG??
I would wager that his opinion wouldn't change either as he has seen enough
of your writing style on this newsgroup.
Peggy
~~~~~~~~`
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117398848....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Subterranean Cinema
Ah ok, then I guess that means the interviewer created his words AND
Varda's, and neither of them has bothered to come out publicly and
correct them in the 15 years since. In case you missed it earlier when
it was very clearly stated in the Hopkins excerpts at the beginning of
this thread, Agnes Varda WAS at the interview with Ronay. So if Ronay
was "misquoted", then so was Varda. Stop trying to make out like it
was Ronay alone (as youve done in the past). They were both
interviewed together, so what you say about Ronay applies to Varda. If
he lied, if he was misquoted, then so was she. And neither has come
out publicly since to recant.
>> Yes, he was so scared of me calling him on the phone from 2000 miles away that he wept hysterically and recanted his entire story, lest I... what? Hang up on him really, really hard? Get a grip!
Ohhhhh ... ok, thanks for being more specific, thats helpful. So he
made this statement to you over the PHONE. I was under the assumption
that you talked to him in person or something, you have this odd way of
making it sound like you are close friends with everyone who every
breathed the same air as Morrison. So it was a phone interview. No
problem.
Anyway, I just did a little google search, and you told the story this
way in 1999:
>> At some point Patricia Kennealy wrote a bunch of shit about Pamela and heroin and all kinds of other crap, citing Alain Ronay as the source. I called Alain and asked him if he had actually told her these things and he started crying. "How could you even think I'd say anything like that?" he said. He also said that the article you mentioned was completely inaccurate and that everything he'd said had been skewed.
In one of your endless replies to me years later, you stated:
>> As for Alain, when I asked him about his quotes in Paris Match he burst into tears (I'm not kidding) and went into a whole torrent of "How can you believe I'd say these things! I was completely misquoted!" yada yada. Now if you've ever talked to Alain, you'd know that it's very hard to know what to believe with him. I can believe he was misquoted. I can also believe he said the things he did just to get attention and then regretted it later when he was called on it. I can believe a lot of things when it comes to Alain, which is pretty much the same thing as saying I can't believe anything.
So, was he crying because of Patricia Keneally, or because of the
article. On the one hand, you say his tears and his comment of "How
could you even think I'd say anything like that?" was in reference to
Keneally (which is plausible, that he would be upset that you could
believe he would cooperate with PK), while on the other hand you say
that it was in reference to the Paris Match article (and there is no
plausible reason he would break down in tears over his comments about
Morrison's death, since he told them to the interviewer willingly, as
did Varda). Also, the way you quoted him in the two postings was very
different. (I think if youre going to quote a witness and expect that
quote to nullify a published interview with him, a professional
journalist should probably get the person's words down a little more
accurately than "yada yada".) Was he just crying about everything that
day? Its obvious that the alleged tears and the statement had nothing
to do with the Paris Match interview, but were in fact due to a
reference about Keneally, and you twisted it around in the second
version to fit your verdict, once again.
______________________________________________
And then, here's a really good one from the same year:
Someone apparently had the Paris Match article posted online, in its
entirety, and you responded this way:
>> And as you read it keep in mind that Alain Ronay said that he was grossly misquoted and the entire thing was misrepresented.
So you WERE very well aware of the article, at the very least when it
was posted online and you acknowledged it (with your standard line of
denial). Did you bother to read it and find out that, gee golly,
Agnes Varda was sitting there with him and confirming it all? Did
you miss that very important point in both the article AND the book by
Hopkins? Or did you lie when you recently said you were unaware of
Agnes Varda making public statements about it?
There is more, SO much more in the Google archives. I think you really
dont grasp just how many contradictions youve stated here over the
years, and that they are all still there. You are your own worst
enemy, Patricia, you dont need me. Your own past statements come back
to haunt you, and you just keep on making up new lies to cover the old
ones. That's what being a pathological liar is, and you definitely
are one. The evidence is all over the net. Dont worry about doing
research on me, dear, you should be much more concerned with
researching all of your old postings and getting your various stories
straight.
Subterranean Cinema
Ummm, excuse me, shit for brains, but Ive stated again and again, Ive
read at least EIGHT books, and Im working on the ninth one now with the
Lizard King. The Davis book, NOHGOA, Break on Through, Riders on the
Storm, the Manzarek book, the Lisciandro book, Dark Star, and
Wonderland Avenue. That makes eight, and the new one makes nine.
This is in addition to numerous magazine articles, including every
major one in Rolling Stone over the years. Now, did you get it this
time, Duke? The "two books in 25 years" is another complete and total
fabrication on your part, and I defy you to find where I ever said
that. Cmon, bigshot fucking researcher, when did I state it? Find
the posting on google, and post the link here, to where I stated that
Ive read "two books in 25 years". Back up your bullshit with proof,
you pathologically lying snake.
SubCinFan
I read that Hyacinth meant your boyfriend not fiancee and Brigham Young
the man not the university.
I have no idea who you are but you are a very angry and embittered battle
axe. Are you also Nothing V? Because that person trails you everywhere
sticking up for all your baseless arguments. It is impossible to believe
another poster would think you were great after reading your disgusting
responses to people who want to discuss the doors and Jim Morrison.
Are you really the author of "Angels Dance and Angels Die"? The author of
that book sounds like she's a nice person, one who would be welcomed with
open arms to a forum such as this one. I think you are an imposter and
the real author of the book would be horrified to find out you are using
her good name to bring shame on her.
Why do you hang out here if all the posters are numbnuts? Why not
contribute like subterranean cinema and sweetchild (an appropriate name
for a nice poster)? I have been checking out this board for quite awhile
and this is the first time I was compelled to post this public message to
whoever you are.
May God bless you and keep you well.
Sincerely,
SCF
(aka Stephanie C. Feinstein)
SubCinFan
I read that Hyacinth meant your boyfriend not fiancee and Brigham Young
Subterranean Cinema
(now if you can just make Patricia speechless, we can all relax again,
lol)
SubCinFan
articulate manner. It is obvious you are widely read and know the topics
thoroughly. Whoever that Patricia person is, she likes to start fights
because she acts like she is intimidated by your quick wit and grasp of
the facts.
I hope the real author of ADAD finds out about this imposter and sues her
for ruining her good name.
Sincerely,
Steph
p.s. I am a big subterranean cinema fan and have visited your website lots
of times.
by "Subterranean Cinema" <sub...@aol.com> May 29, 2005 at 03:17 PM
sweetchild
Maybe try a nicer approach-- ditch the holier than thou attitude...this, in
turn, wins people over better and then you can sell more books too...
we can all be friends here and have some fun exchanging info..instead I feel
like I am out in 4th grade recess...
Peggy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117392661.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sweetchild
Peggy
"Subterranean Cinema" <sub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117235905....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> This morning, I received my copy of The Lizard King, by Jerry Hopkins.
> Published in 1995 (and now apparently out of print), this is the book
> that Patricia Butler recently wrote off as a retread of NOHGOA that
> Hopkins threw together.
>
> Well, Im gonna read it in full over the long holiday weekend, but since
> the reason I ordered it was to confirm Hopkins' speculations on the
> death of Jim Morrison (and their direct contradiction of the
> speculations of Patricia Butler in her book), I immediately turned to
> the chapter called THE EXILE, concerning Jim's last days in Paris and
> his early death. It's no wonder that Ms. Butler "overlooked" this
> book during her "research", and its no wonder that she tries to brush
> it off as an insignificant rehashing of old stories. This chapter is
> rather devastating to her case, and it comes from a personal friend who
> she cant call a liar. These words are ALL written by Jerry Hopkins,
> Danny Sugerman had nothing to do with them (other than as a witness to
> the words of Pamela Courson).
>
> So I took a couple of hours and transcribed some relevant passages
> about the death of Jim Morrison, written by Jerry Hopkins. (this is
> where youll get Butler copout #27: when all else fails, whine about
> copyright violation).
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
>
> excerpts from THE LIZARD KING: THE ESSENTIAL JIM MORRISON
> by Jerry Hopkins
> CHAPTER VI - THE EXILE
> beginning page 161
> ______________________________________________
>
> What happened following the movie was, for a long time, open to
> conjecture -- the subject of wild disagreement and controversy.
>
> I was living in London in 1972, the following year, and I visited Paris
> several times in my search for information. The stories I was told
> about Jim's death were confusing. The one I heard most often was that
> Jim died from an overdose of heroin in a nightclub called the Rock n
> Roll Circus. This is a version I heard repeatedly during my
> interviews and later was confirmed by sources in the junkie underground
> talking to Herve Muller, a French journalist whi picked up some of the
> threads of the story after I returned to the US.
>
> Junkies are generally not known for their reliability. Usually they
> are anxious to say anything they think the listener wants to hear, in
> exchange, they hope, for enough money to score another bag of relief.
> None of the sources with whom Herve talked was paid for information
> beyond the cost of coffee at some sidewalk cafe. Nor was any
> "ulterior" motive apparent, at least to Herve or me. Junkies generally
> dont look for publicity and there is little status to be gained amonst
> other junkies, or anyone else, to say you shared heroin with Jim
> Morrison the night he died of an overdose.
>
> Of course, there's always a chance that some nut made up the whole
> story and that it started going around, building up, becoming more
> elaborate as it travelled. But the lack of contradiction on the basic
> points of the story is impressive.
>
> Nor does it seem that this version of Jim's death was a fabrication
> created to counter the "official" version. To the contrary, the
> "official" version -- death by heart attack in a bathtub -- seemed
> totally unknown in the junkie underground until its members were
> interviewed.
>
> Jim was familiar with the junkie underground, or at least aware of it,
> not because of Pamela's sporadic use of the drug, but because of the
> dives in which he chose to drink. The most notable of these in Paris
> at the time was the Circus, where the walls were covered with huge
> photographs of rock stars wearing clown costumes. Earlier, this was
> the slickest rock club in Paris -- where Led Zeppelin, Richie Havens,
> and Johnny Winter had played -- but by Summer 1971, it had slid close
> to the bottom. Rock and roll was still the music played, but now most
> of the action wasnt on the dance floor, it was in the toilets.
> Occasionally the place was raided by police and that would precipite an
> exodus that related to the junkies' version of Jim's death.
>
> The Circus was situated at 57 rue de Seine, on the Left Bank near the
> river, and it backed up to a much more respectable club, called the
> Alcazar. The Alcazar, at 62 rue Mazarine, presented an expensive
> dinner-spectacle of French music and scantily clad dancers, catering to
> a crowd of middle aged French businessmen. The club was large, seating
> close to a thousand patrons on three levels, surrounding a stage about
> four times the size of that of the more famous Latin Quarter. For some
> of the junkies in the Circus, when police arrived, the escape route was
> through the Circus kitchen, which had a back door leading into the
> Alcazar's kitchen. It was a simple matter then to slip from the
> kitchen through the darkened club and onto the adjoining street without
> being noticed.
>
> According to information gathered by Herve Muller, one of the dealers
> on the scene in the summer of 1971 was a Chinese called "Le Chinoise".
> Supposedly, he had a laboratory for making heroin in Marseille, while
> explains why he happened to have such unusually potent heroin to sell,
> running to about 30 percent "pure" instead of the customary 5 to 10
> percent. The way the story goes, "Le Chinoise" , who was not known to
> use heroin himself, sold a quantity to a second-level dealer named
> Michel, who in turn sold a smaller quantity to someone called "Le Petit
> Bernard", charging him $100. Bernard then sold that packet to Jim for
> about $200, warning him of the potency.
>
> "That's okay," Jim reportedly said, "Im used to it." All sources say
> Jim seemed to be nervous, upset.
>
> All sources also told Herve Muller that the final transaction took
> place in the men's room of the Circus, where Jim snorted the heroin,
> then slumped into a comatose state. The junkies present heaved him to
> his feet between them, guiding him back into the night club, then
> through the adjoining kitchens to the Alcazar, and into a cab on the
> street.
>
> At this point, it is generally agreed that Jim was still alive. This
> is reasonable. In most heroin overdoses, the victim generally dies
> after one or two hours of lethargy, stupor, and coma. The way this
> story ends, Jim was returned to his flat and dumped into a bathtub full
> of cold water in an attempt to revive him, standard treatment for an
> overdose, although there is some question about its practicality.
> That was one version of how Jim died. Of course it wasnt the only
> one.
>
> In a second, far more innocent story, outlined in a statement given to
> Paris police the day Jim died, and thereafter described as The Official
> Version of the Death, Pam said she and Jim returned to the flat about
> 1am and after she washed some dishes and Jim watched some home movies
> projected on the apartment wall, they went to bed, falling asleep about
> 230am while listening to some records.
>
> About an hour later, Pam told police (in a deposition taken several
> hours after Jim died), she was awakened by Jim's noisy breathing. She
> said she wasnt sure of the time, because there was no clock in the
> bedroom. She thought Jim might be suffocating and shook him. He
> didnt wake up. She slapped him a few times and then shook him again.
> Finally, he opened his eyes. He told Pam that he wasnt feeling well
> and after pacing in the bedroom for a minute or two, told Pam that he
> wanted to take a warm bath.
>
> Once in the tub, Pam told police, Jim said he felt nauseous. Pam
> brought an orange cooking pot from the kitchen and Jim vomited. Pam
> cleaned the pot in the nearby sink and Jim threw up a second time,
> expelling a large quantity of blood. Again Pam cleaned the pot and a
> third time Jim vomited, now a few blood clots. She told police that
> Jim insisted "its over"; he was feeling better and he didnt want her to
> call a doctor. Pam quoted Jim as saying he would finish his bath and
> he urged Pam to return to bed. She said colour had returned to his
> face and she felt "reassured", so she did as he suggested, falling
> asleep.
>
> Pam said she "awoke with a start" some time later and saw that she was
> in bed alone. She got up and went to the bedroom, where she found Jim
> still in the bath. His eyes were closed and he was smiling, she said,
> his head tilted back on the edge of the tub, turned to one side. Pam
> said she thought he was joking and, according to Diane Gardiner, she
> stood there talking to him for some time. She told him it was a dumb
> joke. She said she knew what he was doing; he was trying to scare her.
> Slowly, Pam did become scared. She noticed there was some blood
> under one nostril. She shook him
>
> She told police she thought she could awaken him. She tried to get him
> out of the tub and couldnt. That was when, panicked because she
> couldnt speak French and telephone for help, she called Alain Ronay at
> Agnes Varda's house. Years later, Varda said that the call came about
> 8am, an hour at which she never answered the telephone. But Ronay
> picked up the receiver and heard Pam say, "I cant wake him up. I
> think he's dying." Ronay went to Varda's room, woke her, and she
> called for an ambulance immediately. Ronay wrote out the Morrison
> address as Varda dialed the emergency number for the fire brigade.
> Ronay hurriedly told her not to reveal Jim's celebrity and when the
> telephone conversation was completed, they drove to the Morrison
> apartment.
>
> In interviews she and Ronay gave to Paris-Match magazine in 1991, both
> he and Varda say that when they arrived, they saw firemen on the
> street. Ronay asked, "Is he okay?" and was told to ask his questions
> upstairs. Ronay and Varda went up to the second floor apartment.
>
> There is a contradiction in the Ronay and Varda stories at this point.
> Varda remembers clearly that when they arrived, Jim was still in the
> tub, surrounded by members of the fire brigade. On the other hand,
> Ronay says that Jim was already on the bed and that he never saw the
> body. Varda's accurate description of the death scene in the bathroom
> gives credence to her story over Ronay's.
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> While the doctor made his examination, the telephone rang. It was
> Pamela's friend, the Count. Pam took the phone into another room and
> told her friend that Jim was dead. The Count was with the British pop
> star Marianne Faithfull at the time of the call, a fact that, later,
> would explain how the story of Jim's death began to leak out.
> Apparently, Pam never told anyone what she and the Count said and the
> Count died a few years later of a heroin overdose.
>
> After hanging up the phone, Pam returned to Ronay and Varda, taking
> Ronay's arm. "Tell me, quickly, how he died." Pam told him. Ronay
> and Varda agreed that they had to keep it quiet.
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> NOTE: This next excerpt comes partially into Hopkins explanation of
> "why No One Here Gets Out Alive ended so ambiguously":
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> The years passed and while I remained convinced that Jim was dead, I
> still didnt know what happened. At the same time, I came to believe
> that I might have neglected, or at least underestimated and
> misunderstood, Pamela's role in Jim's life, and I began to consider
> writing a second, smaller book, or perhaps a screenplay, focusing on
> their romance.
>
> I re-interviewed some of my earlier subjects, among them Diane
> Gardiner. After Jim was buried and when Pam returned to the US, Pam
> moved into Diane's cottage in Sausalito, California. Diane, who was
> then working as a publicist for the Jefferson Airplane, had been one of
> Pam's closest confidantes in Los Angeles and I figured that if anyone
> knew what happened, or at least knew what Pam said happened, it was
> Diane.
>
> Diane apologized for not telling me more in interviews she gave me when
> I was researching No One Here Gets Out Alive. She said she promised
> Pamela not to reveal anything about Jim's death and at the time, Pam
> was still alive, so Diane said she felt bound to her pledge. Now --
> ten years after Jim's death -- Diane told me that when Pam returned to
> Europe, "she was a real case, just devastated". Diane said that for
> several months Pam walked around talking to herself, rambling and
> making no sense, and when she did make sense, she blamed herself for
> Jim's death.
>
> "Ive never seen anyone feeling so guilty," Diane told me. "She had
> tried to devote her whole life to one person. That was it. That was
> her life. Her whole life was him. And to have that kicked out from
> under you ... "
>
> As Diane and Pam spent more time together, fragments of the story came
> together, forming a believable scenario, explaining the source of Pam's
> guilt.
>
> Apparently Jim and Pam had stopped at one or more sidewalk cafes on the
> way home from the movie, where Jim consumed several drinks. (This
> explains the arrival home at 1am, quite late for returning from a movie
> theatre.) At home, Jim mixed another drink as Pam lined up some white
> powder on a table top.
>
> At this point, Diane is a bit vague. Jim had known about Pam's heroin
> use, bust most agree that apparently he didnt know how frequently she
> used it. Diane told me that Pam seemed able to use it on a daily
> basis for a while, then merely stop, suffering rarely from withdrawal.
> And, Diane said, to her knowledge, Pam never used heroin with Jim or
> in his presence, at least until now. Jim disapproved of heroin.
> This was confirmed by everyone I talked to. Danny Sugerman, the 14
> year old high school student who hung out at the Doors' office and ten
> years later helped me get No One Here Gets Out Alive published, said
> Jim actually lectured him about "the evils and horrors of heroin".
>
> So, Diane told me, when Jim saw Pam bent over a line of white powder,
> it is possible he thought it was cocaine. Jim liked cocaine. There is
> no reason to think he would have done anything but smile and join Pam
> on the couch and inhale the next line of powder.
>
> On the other hand, he could have sensed, or realized, that it was
> heroin. Diane told me that, according to Pam, the talk about Jim's
> depression was real. The past year or so, many projects had been
> started or discussed -- a screenplay with Michael McClure, a poetry
> album with John Haeny, a stage show with Fred Myrow, a book about the
> Miami trial, an opera, on and on. None has been completed. Most
> were stillborn. In addition, Jim was overweight, alcoholic, and
> impotent (a side effect of his alcoholism).
>
> The constant drinking only aggravated the depression. Jim had written
> a few lines in one of his notebooks that said, "Leave the informed
> sense in our wake / you be the Christ on this package tour / Money
> beats soul / Last words, last words, out." Later, two of Jim's
> biographers would use these lines to support a theory that his death
> was likely a suicide.
>
> Diane doesnt dismiss that theory, at least not entirely. She told me
> that when Jim saw the powder lined up so neatly on the table top, he
> may have known it wasnt cocaine, but heroin, and knew what dangers lay
> in its use, especially in combination with alcohol. (When two central
> nervous systems depressants, in this case alcohol and heroin, come
> together synergistically, they create a knockout punch: one plus one
> equals six!)
>
> Danny Sugerman told me a slightly different version of the same story.
> I now know that when Danny edited No One Here Gets Out Alive in the
> late 70s, he knew that Jim had died of an overdose, but he never told
> me. But later Danny told me that he and Pamela had shared both heroin
> and sex after Pam left Diane Gardiner's home and returned to Los
> Angeles. Danny said that when Pam talked about Jim's death to Danny,
> she also pledged him not to tell "Hopkins", who was then trying to
> interview her. Danny was the one who merged the book's two last
> chapters into one, which gave him an opportunity to tell the truth.
> But he remained loyal to Pamela rather than tell what he knew, even
> though Pam was dead.
>
> I reinterviewed Danny about the same time I talked to Diane Gardiner,
> in 1981. No One Here Gets Out Alive was, by then, a huge success and
> Jim had been dead for more than ten years, so Danny talked more
> candidly. (Although he has never yet admitted to me that he had
> withheld the true story of Jim's death while working on the
> manuscript.) In our recorded conversation, he told me he had asked
> Pam about Paris and heroin. At first she told him that Jim would
> never use heroin. At the time of this conversation, Danny said, both
> he and Pam were stoned on heroin. "If he were alive today," she said,
> "he'd kill both of us, Danny".
>
> Danny told me, "That didnt answer my question. You couldnt confront
> Pam on this," he said, "It was the most painful moment of her life."
>
> I asked Danny, "She never said anything about heroin being a part of
> his death?"
>
> Danny said, "I seem to remember her saying something. In a real
> stupor, when youre nodding out, you dont know who you're talking to,
> you dont even know if youre talking, and I feel not unqualified to tell
> this story, but I feel now awfully secure in its reportage, because I
> was awful high, too. But I do remember a conversation regarding her
> guilt and her getting really down on herself ... something to the
> effect: she was busted, Jim found it (the heroin)."
>
> "What's this!" Jim said. (As Danny recalled the conversation.)
>
> "Its coke!"
>
> Jim dumped a quantity on the table, deftly pushing it into long, thick
> lines, probably with the edge of a paper matchbook or a credit card.
> He inhaled the first line.
>
> Pam said, "Jim, dont do too much. Jim, dont do too much!"
>
> Danny again: "rather than say, 'Jim, it's smack.' Because she had
> been hiding it from him, and she knew damned well he did not do that.
> And he did not want her to do it. He saw what heroin did to other
> friends like Tim Hardin. (Another singer-songwriter who died of a
> heroin overdose). He knew the hazards of it.
>
> "So I remember a guilt feeling, and an implication ... that Jim had
> discovered her stash and Pam said, "Oh, Jim, its just coke", which he
> really wasnt into, at that point anyway, and Jim said, "Lets do some".
> He put it out and snorted it like it was coke."
>
> Danny insisted that he didnt know the true story, because this was only
> one of many that Pamela told, and the one she told most consistently
> was the "official" version, of a heart attack in the bathtub. It is,
> however, the story he believes.
>
> It is the story that was told by Alain Ronay and Agnes Varda to Paris
> Match in 1991, twenty years after Jim's death, that makes this story
> most real.
>
> Pam took Ronay's arm in the apartment as the doctor was examining Jim's
> body. Pam said she and Jim had been snorting heroin for two days.
> Pam said they snorted heroin the night before and again that afternoon,
> after Jim had taken his walk with Ronay and before he went out to
> dinner alone. When they returned home from the movie and the bistro,
> the heroin came out again. In this version, Pam did not mention
> washing dishes, or saying Jim watching home movies. Now Pam said Jim
> started playing the Doors' recordings, including the first album, which
> contained the song, "The End" . She said Jim got out of bed and
> snorted some more heroin, so, she added, Jim actually had consumed more
> than she did. She said that one of the Doors' records was playing
> when they nodded off to sleep.
>
> Ronay quoted Varda as asking, "Who had the heroin? Was it you?"
>
> Pamela said, "Of course ..."
>
> Pam said she woke up to Jim's heavy breathing. This matched the story
> she told to police. She said that when Jim failed to awake when she
> shook him, she screamed, and began slapping him "very, very hard".
> Finally, he opened his eyes, but he didnt seem to know where he was.
> She said she helped him to walk to the bathroom and assisted him into
> the tub.
>
> Agnes asked her who had run the water in the tub. Pam said she
> couldnt remember.
>
> Pam told Ronay she returned to the bedroom, fell asleep, waking some
> time later. When she found Jim missing from their bed, she went to
> the bathroom and saw him in the tub with blood running from his nose.
> He started vomiting, she said, so she ran to the kitchen, returning
> with an orange cooking pot. Three times Jim vomited and each time Pam
> said she cleaned the pot, returning to bed once more when assured by
> Jim that he was feeling better.
>
> Varda patted Pam's hand and told her that Jim died at least an hour and
> a half before the firemen arrived; there was nothing she could do.
>
> Pam said, "Jim looked so calm. He smiled." She was in shock.
>
> Pam suddenly produced a piece of paper that she said was a marriage
> application she and Jim had taken out in 1967 in Colorado, but never
> acted on. She asked her friends if they thought the Paris police
> would accept it as proof that she and Jim were married.
>
> As the day brightened, the fiction grew. Alan Ronay said he didnt
> want Jim's death and burial to become the circus that had attended the
> recent deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. As Pam and Ronay and
> Varda -- and soon, Robin Wertle -- devised a plan for handling Jim's
> burial, the "official" version of the death took its final form.
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (Danny Sugerman told me that while helping Pam pack, Siddons found
> heroin in the apartment, but Danny also quoted Pam as saying that
> regarding Jim's death, Siddons knew only what he was told. In all my
> conversations with Siddons, he confirmed this. Apparently, he was
> told nothing about the role heroin played in Jim's death.)
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> In the years that followed, Pam fought for acceptance as Jim's heir and
> wife. Initially, it seemed quite simple. Jim had had his lawyer, Max
> Fink, draft a simple, two page will in 1969, naming Pamela S. Courson
> as his sole heir and, with Fink, his co executor. (In the event that
> Pam died first, Jim's estate was to be shared equally by his brother
> and sister.)
>
> In November 1971, four months after Jim died, in an effort to bolster
> her claim, and to be granted an allowance and an advance from the
> estate -- which was then still in probate -- Pam filed a "declaration
> in support of widow's allowance", claiming "at all times since
> September 30, 1967, I have considered that I was married to James D.
> Morrison, and that I was in fact his wife at the time of his death and
> am now his widow." It was in 1967, as "Light My Fire" was finally
> dropping off the charts, that Pam said she and Jim spent a night in
> Colorado Springs. Earlier, she had Jim ask Max Fink which states had
> the loosest laws recognizing common law marriage.
>
> In her court statement, Pam said, "Jim reported to me that he learned
> from an attorney that to create a marriage in the state of Colorado it
> was sufficient if two people stayed together, had marital relations and
> agreed to thereby be husband and wife, if in fact they thereafter
> conducted and held themselves out as each other's spouse. We spent the
> night at a hotel, had sexual relations and agreed that we would forever
> after be husband and wife. We very briefly honeymooned in Colorado
> and then continued our (the Doors) tour."
>
> Pam's statement went on to say that during their relationship, all her
> living expenses were paid from Jim's earnings. All credit card charges
> were paid, she said, her medical, dental, clothing, and entertainment
> expenses were paid, and she and Jim were given $2500 in cash each month
> for incidentals. Now, she said, she was penniless.
>
> In December 1971, the three surviving Doors filed papers of their own
> in court, making claims against the Morrison estate, most of it for a
> loan they said Jim had taken to help pay some of his legal costs.
> Although the sum asked, less than $36000, was small, considering the
> size of the estate, it was sufficient to bottle things up in court for
> two years. Then in April 1974, the Doors came back with another
> lawsuit, now requesting repayment of a $250000 loan allegedly made by
> the Doors Corporation to Jim as an advance against his share of future
> royalties. At the same time, Max Fink, who continued to represent the
> other Doors, submitted a bill for approximately $75000 for work done on
> the Phoenix and Miami trials. Next the Miami law firm filed suit for
> unpaid services.
>
> Eventually, a compromise was reached. Pam relented, agreeing to pay
> everyone. Max Fink said he authorized a loan to Pam in the interim,
> much of which was spent on a mink coat and a yellow Volkswagen Beetle.
> Then, as the final accounting of the estate was being made, Pam died.
> If she had lived, she would have received about $500000 right away,
> plus a quarter of everything the Doors would make in the future, a sum
> that subsequently proved to be worth millions.
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> What really happened in Paris on July 3, 1971?
>
> I am certain that Jim died of an overdose of heroin, complicated by the
> alcohol level in his bloodstream. What generally happens when these
> two "drugs" come together and deliver their synergistic hammer-blow, is
> described as a "massive pulmonary edema", a kind of mega heart attack,
> where the victim, poisoned by the combination, slumbs, froth spilling
> from his mouth and nostrils.
>
> Of course, no one will ever know. The only person present at the time
> of Jim's death was Pamela, who may not even have known herself what
> happened, and if she did, she took the full story to her grave.
> Obviously, she had something to do with Jim's death, may even have
> unwittingly caused it, at least in her own mind, by having the heroin
> in the apartment and sharing it with him.
>
> I thought it was interesting that before signing over the rights to
> their daughter's life to Oliver Stone for his movie The Doors, her
> parents had it written into the contract that the script makes no
> connection whatsoever between Pamela's and Jim's death. In other
> words, if Stone was going to portray Jim's death in any way, he was to
> stick to the "official" version. (Which he did.) Did Pam's parents
> know what happened, and share their daughter's grief and guilt? Had
> they become partners in the conspiracy to cover up the true cause of
> Jim's death?
>
> When I was researching No One Here Gets Out Alive, I met Pam once, over
> lunch. I left the restaurant feeling I had just spent a couple of
> hours with the most beautiful, fragile, vulnerable, and manipulative
> woman I had ever met, but I had learned very little about Jim, or her,
> or their relationship. And I was told nothing about Jim's death.
>
> I asked her why she had agreed to meet me. She said Jim had liked me,
> and I had written positive stories about him and the Doors. She also
> wanted to know why I was writing the book. I told her that I was more
> affected by Jim's death than I thought our relationship warranted and I
> wanted to find out why. She said nothing, merely nodded.
>
> At the time of the meeting, two years after Jim's death, I had no idea
> what Pam was doing for a living. She avoided answering such questions
> by saying only that she was trying to keep Jim's memory alive and
> untarnished. For example, she told me she had won a fight to keep
> "Light My Fire" from being sold for a television commercial. All her
> other comments were superficial and unrevealing. She seemed nervous,
> but in control of the situation, as if she were caught in a scene she
> wanted to end, and was handling it, nonetheless.
>
> Years later, Danny Sugerman, and others, told me her life was a mess.
> Danny said he had spent some time with her, frequently sharing his own
> heroin with her, sometimes gave her part of the $75 a week that he was
> getting from Ray Manzarek (as Manzarek's publicist). Danny said he
> thought Pamela was seriously disturbed, said she sometimes sat near the
> telephone, waiting for Jim to call. Danny quoted her as saying, "My
> old man hasn't called! He promised me he'd call!" Implying that Jim
> was alive, all evidence -- and her own tortured stories -- to the
> contrary.
>
> When Pam died, on 25 April 1974, at age 27 -- Jim's age when he died --
> she was working as a prostitite, something she often said that Jim had
> predicted was her destiny. A man who had worked as Jim's occasional
> limousine driver was her live-in boyfriend and it was clear, from the
> autopsy, that an overdose of heroin was the cause of death.
>
> Pam once asked Max Fink to draw up her will, but he refused, so she
> died intestate, which meant her quarter share of all future Doors
> earnings went to her next of kin, her parents, Columbus (Corky)
> Courson, and his wife Pearl (Penny). Almost immediately Jim's
> parents, Admiral George Morrison and his wife Clara, entered the fray,
> demanding their "fair share" as stated in the California probate code.
> On 10 January 1975, the two sets of parents signed an agreement
> dividing equally the proceeds from Jim's quarter share of all Doors
> revenue, but it was 1979 before all the loose ends were tied up and the
> parents started receiving any money.
>
> Since then, Jim's share of the Doors' earning have been worth several
> hundreds of thousands of dollars, at the peak more than a million
> dollars a year. Today the Coursons have homes in Santa Barbara and
> Palm Springs and the Morrisons own substantial property in Orange and
> San Diego counties. I think Jim would be amused that his posthumous
> fortune is being shared by a retired high school principal and a
> retired Navy admiral, authority figures for whom he had no time or
> respect when he was alive.
>
> You cant get away with irony like that in fiction.
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Amen, Mr Hopkins. Amen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
>
Subterranean Cinema
again for your support. :)
Patricia
sweetchild wrote:
> ????????
> Are we using the lower end of our comprehensive part of our brain today?
> I will re-explain....
> I said " One in my opinion does not need a marriage certificate to be a
> polygamist....
> to me a person can be one outside of having a marriage certificate. To me a
> relationship with commitments is sacred without having a marriage license--
> that is ME saying this...others may disagree...
> If I have to spell it out for you I will in simpler terms-- even tho I do
> not believe in the definition of a polygamist being different when 2 people
> are committed outside of marriage and there are more than one relationships
> going on at the same time with one partner...
> THE PROPER DEFINITION IN CLEAREST OF TERMS IS:
> .. a polygamist is one who has more than one spouse at the same time. Some
> require "spouse" to mean married.
> I do not...
> Capiche el denso??
> Peggy
I'm sorry, but you don't get to change the meaning of words to suit
your comfort level. They mean what they mean. If you don't like it,
that's tough.
Patricia
> why in the world would waste his money and buy your book after the way
> you treat him like a buffoon in this NG??
> I would wager that his opinion wouldn't change either as he has seen enough
> of your writing style on this newsgroup.
> Peggy
I would wager you're an idiot, and my money would be a lot safer than
yours.
Patricia
> >> Yes, he said the article was bullshit; no I didn't call him a liar.
>
> Ah ok, then I guess that means the interviewer created his words AND
> Varda's, and neither of them has bothered to come out publicly and
> correct them in the 15 years since.
How would you know whether they had or not? You didn't even know the
book you're getting this stuff out of existed until last week!
In case you missed it earlier when
> it was very clearly stated in the Hopkins excerpts at the beginning of
> this thread, Agnes Varda WAS at the interview with Ronay. So if Ronay
> was "misquoted", then so was Varda. Stop trying to make out like it
> was Ronay alone (as youve done in the past). They were both
> interviewed together, so what you say about Ronay applies to Varda. If
> he lied, if he was misquoted, then so was she. And neither has come
> out publicly since to recant.
You do understand, when you say things like this, that you're not the
only one who owns the book you're referring to, right? Because I have
the book right in front of me, and it doesn't say -- "clearly stated"
or otherwise -- that Agnes Varda was at the interview with Ronay. You
simply made that up. The exact quote is, "In interviews she and Ronay
gave to Paris Match in 1991, both he and Varda say..." That doesn't
even come close to stating the Agnes and Alain were interviewed
together. How would Jerry even know that? In fact, in your haste to
force this into something that fits your theories, you forgot to
include this: "There is a contradiction in the Ronay and Varda stories
at this point." And the contradiction is pretty enormous, one saying
Jim was still in the tub when they got there, the other saying he was
dry and in bed. How can such a contradiction exist if both people are
telling the truth? Or even if both people were sitting together while
the interview was being conducted? Try answering these questions this
time instead of just pretending you don't see them.
> >> Yes, he was so scared of me calling him on the phone from 2000 miles away that he wept hysterically and recanted his entire story, lest I... what? Hang up on him really, really hard? Get a grip!
>
> Ohhhhh ... ok, thanks for being more specific, thats helpful. So he
> made this statement to you over the PHONE. I was under the assumption
> that you talked to him in person or something, you have this odd way of
> making it sound like you are close friends with everyone who every
> breathed the same air as Morrison. So it was a phone interview. No
> problem.
Well, that was a nice diversion. Kept you from actually addressing
what I said and what I asked again, didn't it?
> Anyway, I just did a little google search, and you told the story this
> way in 1999:
>
> >> At some point Patricia Kennealy wrote a bunch of shit about Pamela and heroin and all kinds of other crap, citing Alain Ronay as the source. I called Alain and asked him if he had actually told her these things and he started crying. "How could you even think I'd say anything like that?" he said. He also said that the article you mentioned was completely inaccurate and that everything he'd said had been skewed.
>
> In one of your endless replies to me years later, you stated:
>
> >> As for Alain, when I asked him about his quotes in Paris Match he burst into tears (I'm not kidding) and went into a whole torrent of "How can you believe I'd say these things! I was completely misquoted!" yada yada. Now if you've ever talked to Alain, you'd know that it's very hard to know what to believe with him. I can believe he was misquoted. I can also believe he said the things he did just to get attention and then regretted it later when he was called on it. I can believe a lot of things when it comes to Alain, which is pretty much the same thing as saying I can't believe anything.
> So, was he crying because of Patricia Keneally, or because of the
> article.
> On the one hand, you say his tears and his comment of "How
> could you even think I'd say anything like that?" was in reference to
> Keneally (which is plausible, that he would be upset that you could
> believe he would cooperate with PK), while on the other hand you say
> that it was in reference to the Paris Match article
Sometimes I'm not sure if you're really this dense or you're just
putting on an act to divert attention from the fact that you're
diverting attention. Kennealy wrote something citing Alain's comments
in the article as her source; Alain got upset because he said the
article wasn't accurate and couldn't believe anyone would think he'd
say such things. Up to speed now?
(and there is no
> plausible reason he would break down in tears over his comments about
> Morrison's death, since he told them to the interviewer willingly, as
> did Varda).
And you know this because... you were in the room at the time?
Also, the way you quoted him in the two postings was very
> different. (I think if youre going to quote a witness and expect that
> quote to nullify a published interview with him, a professional
> journalist should probably get the person's words down a little more
> accurately than "yada yada".)
Actually there was very little difference. We're talking usenet
newsgroup postings, not a book. My accuracy was appropriate for the
forum.
Was he just crying about everything that
> day? Its obvious that the alleged tears and the statement had nothing
> to do with the Paris Match interview, but were in fact due to a
> reference about Keneally, and you twisted it around in the second
> version to fit your verdict, once again.
Once again, are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending?
Because if you're just pretending, you're wasting your time as a movie
projectionist and should really seek a career in front of the camera.
> Someone apparently had the Paris Match article posted online, in its
> entirety, and you responded this way:
>
> >> And as you read it keep in mind that Alain Ronay said that he was grossly misquoted and the entire thing was misrepresented.
>
> So you WERE very well aware of the article, at the very least when it
> was posted online and you acknowledged it (with your standard line of
> denial).
I've never said I wasn't aware of the article. You're the only one who
keeps on repeating that, ignoring my response to the contrary every
time, which is your usual M.S.
Did you bother to read it and find out that, gee golly,
> Agnes Varda was sitting there with him and confirming it all?
For one thing, YOU have never read the interview, and YOU don't know
that Varda was sitting there, and she definitely wasn't confirming it
all as their stories differ.
Did
> you miss that very important point in both the article AND the book by
> Hopkins? Or did you lie when you recently said you were unaware of
> Agnes Varda making public statements about it?
I said -- and this is about the 20th time I've said it so pay attention
this time -- that I have never seen or heard Varda make any statements
about Jim Morrison's death. Neither have you.
> There is more, SO much more in the Google archives. I think you really
> dont grasp just how many contradictions youve stated here over the
> years, and that they are all still there.
I don't think you grasp the meaning of the word contradictions, as you
haven't posted any here yet, at least not from me.
You are your own worst
> enemy, Patricia, you dont need me. Your own past statements come back
> to haunt you, and you just keep on making up new lies to cover the old
> ones.
You mean all my past statements confirming all my present statements?
Yeah, that was rough.
That's what being a pathological liar is, and you definitely
> are one. The evidence is all over the net. Dont worry about doing
> research on me, dear, you should be much more concerned with
> researching all of your old postings and getting your various stories
> straight.
Sure, Don. Now let's see you address/answer the comments and questions
I put to you in this post. Can you? Or are you just going to pretend
you can't see them again since otherwise you'd have to admit you were
wrong?
Patricia
You mean you "read" these books in the same way you "read" mine? Where
someone told you something that was in one of the books, or you read a
single chapter, or you read a review? That's not reading a book, Don.
Your demonstrated lack of knowledge on the subject of Jim Morrison and
The Doors is proof of that.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> Wow. Thank you very much. For once, Im speechless. :)
>
> (now if you can just make Patricia speechless, we can all relax again,
> lol)
Don't be silly, Don. You're speechless every time you're asked a
question or someone points out the flaw in your oh-so-flawed logic.
Patricia
[snip bullshit]
Yes, I'm sure it's a total coincidence that you and "Hyacinth" are
posting from the same obscure service using the same boneheaded
English, under a name designed to kiss up to someone whose ass
"Hyacinth" has been kissing for awhile now. Sheer coincidence.
Patricia
sweetchild wrote:
> Do you have to be so cutting and rabidly nasty to everyone??
> Maybe try a nicer approach-- ditch the holier than thou attitude...this, in
> turn, wins people over better and then you can sell more books too...
> we can all be friends here and have some fun exchanging info..instead I feel
> like I am out in 4th grade recess...
Win you over? Sweetie, you're no prize.
Patricia
Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> I appreciate that very much, and Im glad you like my website. Thanks
> again for your support. :)
Wow. First you admit you're a 41 year old virgin, now you're making up
screen names in order to make it look like you have friends. God, Don.
Next thing you know Jerry Lewis is going to be hosting a telethon to
raise money to buy you some balls.
sweetchild
I think you might experience a rush being on the defensive....
"Patricia" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117459224.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Subterranean Cinema
Really? Where did I say that? Sorry if my profile bugged you, dear,
but if that's the best you can troll out of it, then you really are
fishing in the dark. As you know, I live in Nevada, and a "41 year
old virgin" could change that status very fast with a few hundred
dollars. There are no "virgins" in Nevada unless they want to be one
(say, if they are Mormons or something). You dont need to have a
"lover" here to have sex (or anywhere else for that matter). From
the history of your two books, it figures that, when all else fails,
you would go for the secret sex life card. So when's the last time
YOU had a really good fuck, Josie Smith? 1985? Im sure a 300 pound
office secretary gets lots of offers from both sides of the aisle,
hahah ...
This is obviously your reporting method: you dont quote people
verbatim, you take a person's words and then you twist them around into
your OWN words and say the person "admitted" it to you. Alain Ronay:
"<sob> Yada yada" ... yeah, youre a real fucking professional when it
comes to getting quotes down, dear. I dont need to prove anything
further about the death of Jim Morrison, anymore than we need another
book on JFK to discredit the Warren Report. Everyone now knows the
"official story" is bullshit, and hence, so is a good portion of your
book.
Maybe your fiancee was a very lucky man after all. A lifetime spent
living with an overbearing, domineering, ape-faced mormon shrew like
you would be a sad fate for any guy, but having three other fat
redheads on the side that looked just like you would be cruel and
inhuman punishment, even for a polygamist. (He should have gotten
more creative, one red, one blonde, one brunette, and one jet black,
for variety.) God forbid, he might have even impregnated you at some
point ... you would have made Joan Crawford look like a sane mommie in
comparison, and your kid would have been the Antichrist.
"Sometimes dead is better" - Pat Sematary
You obviously cant function past the angry ranting mode, you just
posted eight times to various people, and basically spoke to them all
the same foul way. Youve been doing this shit for almost a decade
here, in almost the exact same words. The cast was different in the
90s (for the most part), but the script was VERY similar, at times word
for word exact. And like a film that youve watched far too many
times, your schtick has gotten very predictable, and very redundant.
This is obviously the only outlet you have in life for any attention,
and you seem to prefer it to be negative. A little anger in life is
normal, healthy even, but you wallow in it gleefully. And you ARE a
pathological liar. You probably think that you NEVER tell a lie,
ever. right? lolol ...
So with that, I will, finally, give you that last word. It's a
holiday today, in case you hadnt noticed, and most people like to relax
and feel GOOD on days like this. I realize that a person like you
doesnt have feel good days, but please try not to begrudge it to those
of us who do. Just because I have a Fan and you have Nothing, doesnt
mean you have to have an Alain Ronay crying fit over it. ;)
Cya!
sweetchild
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sweetchild
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patricia
Wow! Hit a pretty tender nerve, didn't I?
Jane Asher's Vagina
> I'm looking for a motive why anyone would want to hide the truth.
You're dumb as a windmill, Stoner.
Nothing V
pbutl...@aol.com says...
>
>
> Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> > A few questions about your posting from last night, dear:
> >
> > >> A different boyfriend entirely did die in when I was 24 and
> > living in Michigan, in 1985.
> >
> > Were you engaged to him? And at the funeral, did you find out he was
> > also engaged to three other women that looked alot like you? If its
> > not true, then did you ever tell it this way to anyone as a story?
> > Because if its not true, then someone needs to be writing fiction
> > instead of non-fiction, as its quite a story. Talk about material for
> > a Lifetime Channel special presentation. "Polygamists Dance and
> > Polygamists Die" ... Id check into it.
>
> He was my boyfriend. He wasn't engaged to anyone at the time of his
> death.
I wouldnt even answer him, Patricia. He certainly shows an unnatural
interest in anything & everything to do w/you & your life. He is
diverting attention away from the fact that he doesnt know what the fuck
hes talking about by pulling his usual little stunt - personal attacks.
He has conveniently told you all the pathetic little details of his life
that he doesnt mind you knowing about. Does anyone really think that hes
going to offer up any information that would be fodder for ridicule? You
dont owe him ANY fucking explanations. Hes a piece of shit for even
asking you about it. Its none of his goddamn business. Hes just trying
to squeeze out of the little mess hes made of himself by attacking you
personally AS USUAL.
& to think not long ago he insisted that he was going to be ignoring
you! LOL
>
>
> > >> While that was very sad and did help me later when I wrote about Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same age, my big "depression" that you referred to couldn't have been too crippling since I started dating someone new within a few months and
> > moved to Chicago to live with him that same year.
> >
> > So, your boyfriend (fiancee?) died in 1985, and this event caused you
> > to bond with Pamela later because of the sadness you felt losing your
> > "lover" at the "same age" of 25 ...
>
> That's not what I said. I said it helped me later when I wrote about
> Pam's sadness at losing a lover at the same age.
>
How are your past relationships any of his business?
Don-Don, you little asshole, what the FUCK does this have to do
w/anything? Why dont you worry about your own sad little existence &
stop prying into Patricia's life? Im embarrased for you. Your
desperation is more & more obvious w/each post. You keep getting your
little ass beat all over this newsgroup & youre lashing out like the
infant you are.
--
Nothing V
Nothing V
<a3bb0130688fce91...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com>,
SubC...@talkabout.net says...
> Why do you hang out here if all the posters are numbnuts? Why not
> contribute like subterranean cinema and sweetchild (an appropriate name
> for a nice poster)?
LOL
--
Nothing V
Nothing V
> > >> Now, what would anyone have to win by telling another story?!
> >
> > Well, certainly you have to look at the credibility of the people
> > telling the stories (or lack of it) and take that into account. But
> > even if you set aside Ronay's statements, and Marianne Faithfull's, and
> > Diane Gardiner's, and Danny Sugerman's, there is nothing to indicate
> > that Agnes Varda would have a motivation to create a fictional story
> > about a heroin overdose, and then state it publicly in a French
> > magazine.
>
> And there's a question you've been dodging all along, Don: just when
> did Agnes Varga make these statements? And to whom? I've certainly
> never seen or heard her say anything like this. Where did you? Answer
> this question this time.
Is it just me, or did Don-Don not answer this question?
Don, you didnt hear about Varda's "statement" though a source of a
source of a source, did you? Because you know, that shit aint credible.
It doesnt hold up under scrutiny, does it?
> I saw the Cannes Film Festival closing ceremonies on IFC
> > channel a few days ago, and Varda was on the film jury this year (the
> > host and narrator of the IFC show, Roger Ebert, called her "one of the
> > greatest female film directors of all time" and "the widow of Jacques
> > Demy"). Hopkins put alot of faith in that Paris Match interview too,
> > and its probably because he knows Varda's word is solid.
>
> Really? Is that why? It's not because it just happened to be easily
> accessible?
>
Don?
This is your favourite subject. Lets have a reply, shall we?
Also, how EXACTLY do you explain your hero, Jerry Hopkins, glowing
introduction to Patricia's book, if everything he has written is the
opposite of what she discovered & hes as insanely stubborn as you are
about it? How EXACTLY do you explain the mistakes he made in NOHGOA, if
youre taking everything he says as gospel? I asked you this before, &
you didnt answer.
>
> > Jerry Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > >> Varda's accurate description of the death scene in the bathroom gives credence to her story over Ronay's.
> >
> > Varda's interview is the strongest evidence yet, because she cant just
> > be blithely brushed aside as a "liar" or "mistaken" or "biased".
>
> Why? Because you worship her for some sick bullshit reasons? That's
> hardly an endorsement from the Pope.
>
> She
> > was Morrison's friend (she has used Doors music in several of her
> > films) and she respected him. And nobody can deny that she WAS there
> > that morning along with Ronay.
>
> You certainly are doing a lot of projection on someone you've never
> actually talked to or even read any direct quotes from.
>
>
Wait. Don has never actually READ this "statement" of Varda's that he
keeps going on & on & on about? LOL
Typical. Fucking perfect.
--
Nothing V
Nothing V
pbutl...@aol.com says...
> Subterranean Cinema wrote:
> > >> Yes, he said the article was bullshit; no I didn't call him a liar.
> >
> > Ah ok, then I guess that means the interviewer created his words AND
> > Varda's, and neither of them has bothered to come out publicly and
> > correct them in the 15 years since.
>
> How would you know whether they had or not? You didn't even know the
> book you're getting this stuff out of existed until last week!
LOL
>
> In case you missed it earlier when
> > it was very clearly stated in the Hopkins excerpts at the beginning of
> > this thread, Agnes Varda WAS at the interview with Ronay. So if Ronay
> > was "misquoted", then so was Varda. Stop trying to make out like it
> > was Ronay alone (as youve done in the past). They were both
> > interviewed together, so what you say about Ronay applies to Varda. If
> > he lied, if he was misquoted, then so was she. And neither has come
> > out publicly since to recant.
>
> You do understand, when you say things like this, that you're not the
> only one who owns the book you're referring to, right? Because I have
> the book right in front of me, and it doesn't say -- "clearly stated"
> or otherwise -- that Agnes Varda was at the interview with Ronay. You
> simply made that up. The exact quote is, "In interviews she and Ronay
> gave to Paris Match in 1991, both he and Varda say..." That doesn't
> even come close to stating the Agnes and Alain were interviewed
> together. How would Jerry even know that? In fact, in your haste to
> force this into something that fits your theories, you forgot to
> include this: "There is a contradiction in the Ronay and Varda stories
> at this point." And the contradiction is pretty enormous, one saying
> Jim was still in the tub when they got there, the other saying he was
> dry and in bed. How can such a contradiction exist if both people are
> telling the truth? Or even if both people were sitting together while
> the interview was being conducted? Try answering these questions this
> time instead of just pretending you don't see them.
>
Uh-oh. Damn. What ABOUT those contradictions, Don? Really. You didnt
answer this question either, did you? This is your girl Varda under
suspicion of lying. Come to her defense, man! Her credibility is
shrinking & you dont even want to talk about it? Id be pretty upset if I
were you. Someone who I had put that much blind faith in, suddenly
contradicting herself about such an obvious matter. Either the dead guy
is in the tub or hes on the fucking bed. Whats your gut instinct say?
> Sometimes I'm not sure if you're really this dense or you're just
> putting on an act to divert attention from the fact that you're
> diverting attention. Kennealy wrote something citing Alain's comments
> in the article as her source; Alain got upset because he said the
> article wasn't accurate and couldn't believe anyone would think he'd
> say such things. Up to speed now?
>
Um, dont you get it? Don-Don believes everything he reads, unless the
author is WOMAN that he DOESNT LIKE. Im afraid you score high on both
measures. Besides, everybody knows that when people are interviewed,
their words are NEVER taken out of context or deliberately ALTERED. That
is, unless you REALLY, REALLY want to believe what theyre quoted as
saying. Then its gospel.
>
> Did you bother to read it and find out that, gee golly,
> > Agnes Varda was sitting there with him and confirming it all?
>
> For one thing, YOU have never read the interview, and YOU don't know
> that Varda was sitting there, and she definitely wasn't confirming it
> all as their stories differ.
>
Now hold on just a goddamn minute. Don has NEVER READ the interview that
he keeps quoting as the gospel truth? The truth that he clings to is
told in an interview that he has not set his eyes on? This is getting
better & better.
> Did
> > you miss that very important point in both the article AND the book by
> > Hopkins? Or did you lie when you recently said you were unaware of
> > Agnes Varda making public statements about it?
>
> I said -- and this is about the 20th time I've said it so pay attention
> this time -- that I have never seen or heard Varda make any statements
> about Jim Morrison's death. Neither have you.
He thinks he has. He believes he has. But he hasnt??
This is terribly important, Don. Can you share w/the group whether or
not you know what the fuck youre talking about, or if youre just putting
blind faith in something you have never had the opportunity to read?
> That's what being a pathological liar is, and you definitely
> > are one. The evidence is all over the net. Dont worry about doing
> > research on me, dear, you should be much more concerned with
> > researching all of your old postings and getting your various stories
> > straight.
>
> Sure, Don. Now let's see you address/answer the comments and questions
> I put to you in this post. Can you? Or are you just going to pretend
> you can't see them again since otherwise you'd have to admit you were
> wrong?
>
Lets see you answer these questions, Don. You didnt, did you?
--
Nothing V
Hyacinth
the way up the stairs to the apartament. You cant hide that from the
public for 35 yrs.
He took heroin in the apt according to everyone except the person
pretending to be the author of that book.
Nothing V
@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com>, Hyacint...@netscape.net says...
Could be, but if he DID do heroin in the apartment, who would have been
witness to it besides Pamela? I dont believe Ive ever read that anyone
has claimed to have been in the apartment w/Pam & Jim, & witnessed him
doing heroin. Therefore, how do you know he did?
--
Nothing V
Sjoerd Bakker
<Hyacint...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I dont buy it. It wouldve taken 6 strong men to drag a deadweight body all
>the way up the stairs to the apartament. You cant hide that from the
>public for 35 yrs.
One thing that would be interesting to know if Hervé Muller's books
mention any witness saying that anyone got in the cab with him.
>
>He took heroin in the apt according to everyone except the person
>pretending to be the author of that book.
One doesn't exclude the other. My guess is that Morrison may have been
using heroin in the last couple of days and maybe weeks. Using a new
supply of stronger heroin than he was used to could very well explain
an OD, and then a deal at the Circus would also fit in.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
sweetchild
I definitely agree with the past post.....
A heart attack / respiratory failure induced by repeated heroin (and
alcohol) use is very plausible. He may have been doing heroin all night
while out , then finally stumbling back to the apt and that last dose
either out or at the apartment could have done him in as he did it so many
times that his poor young/old heart just finally gave out .. then the
change in body temperature by getting in bathtub was the last catalyst in
causing irreparable trauma to his already overdamaged body. How in depth of
an "autopsy" did the coroner actually perform to determine COD??
Peggy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SB wrote:
One doesn't exclude the other. My guess is that Morrison may have been using
heroin in the last couple of days and maybe weeks. Using a new supply of
stronger heroin than he was used to could very well explain an OD, and then
a deal at the Circus would also fit in.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>
> I definitely agree with the past post.....
>A heart attack / respiratory failure induced by repeated heroin (and
>alcohol) use is very plausible. He may have been doing heroin all night
No, I really think that it must have been a couple of snorts only.
According to the book, the heroin would have been 3 to 6 times as
strong as usual, remember?! Just an accident.
>while out , then finally stumbling back to the apt
Only problem would have been to drag him upstairs if he passed out
completely, as Hyacinth suggested. 17 Rue Beautreillis does not appear
to have an elevator, as many old Paris apartment buildings do.
> and that last dose
>either out or at the apartment could have done him in as he did it so many
>times that his poor young/old heart just finally gave out .. then the
>change in body temperature by getting in bathtub was the last catalyst in
>causing irreparable trauma to his already overdamaged body. How in depth of
>an "autopsy" did the coroner actually perform to determine COD??
As far as I know, none at all.
>Peggy
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>SB wrote:
>One doesn't exclude the other. My guess is that Morrison may have been using
>heroin in the last couple of days and maybe weeks. Using a new supply of
>stronger heroin than he was used to could very well explain an OD, and then
>a deal at the Circus would also fit in.
>-- Sjoerd Bakker
>
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
Hyacinth
Patricia
You mean "everyone" except all the people who were actually there at
the time.