Snuff Film: S.A. case debunked
Bo Raxo
Well, turns out the Tanya Flowerday murder wasn't a snuff video after all.
BTW, "dagga" is slang for marijuana.
Bo Raxo
http://www.epherald.co.za/herald/2004/09/01/news/n21_01092004.htm
Man says he was on drugs when girl, 18, strangled
Report by Sapa
Johannesburg - DRUG addict Ronald Grimsley, the accused in the so-called
"snuff" murder trial, has pleaded not guilty to strangling Tanya Flowerday,
saying he was high on dagga, heroin and alcohol and came round after a
blackout to find his hands around her throat.
Grimsley, 25, also pleaded not guilty to rape, indecent assault and
aggravated robbery before the Johannesburg High Court yesterday.
He said Tanya was neither moving nor breathing when he came round, and that
he had not been in his "sound and sober senses".
Tanya's body was found dumped on the pavement in Durham Street, Darrenwood,
north of Johannesburg, on June 14 last year.
Initial reports, which turned out to be untrue, were that she had been
gang-raped and murdered in a "snuff" film for sale outside the country.
In a confession made after his arrest and read out in court, Grimsley said:
"To stop her shouting I put my hand on her mouth and across her throat. She
punched me and I automatically tightened my grip on her throat."
He said in his plea that he was innocent as he was "not in his sound and
sober senses" due to having taken dagga, heroin and alcohol.
The day before the murder, Grimsley said Tanya, 18, whom he had known for a
few days, had phoned four times asking him to fetch her from a Randburg
bistro. By that time Grimsley was "up to his eyeballs" on dagga, heroin and
alcohol, having been to Hillbrow to buy heroin. "I would mix my heroin with
my normal store-purchased cigarettes," said Grimsley, who works in the film
industry making advertisements.
After numerous "heroin-mix" and dagga cigarettes, and six beers, he went to
fetch Tanya.
He wanted something to eat and they went to his home.
"At first she kissed me half-heartedly. The more fervent my kisses became,
the more the deceased began pulling back. She just wanted to be taken home."
Driving Tanya home, Grimsley stopped for another heroin- mix cigarette. An
argument broke out over his heroin use and he accidentally ingested "pure
unmixed heroin".
"Once I came to my senses I was seated (in a car) on top of the deceased, my
hands around her throat with one leg of her pants undressed and my pants
being unbuttoned. The deceased was no longer moving nor breathing. I dressed
her up and dragged her out of the motor vehicle to where her body was
found."
Robert Flowerday broke down yesterday testifying about police non-
co-operation when he reported his only child missing. He said at first he
received no help from the Linden police station when he was told it was "too
early" and that his daughter "had probably just gone out with friends".
When Tanya's ID book, which was in her handbag, materialised in his mailbox,
police showed no interest other than to search her bedroom for drugs. Three
days after his first attempt to report her missing, Mr Flowerday saw his
daughter's body in a mortuary. The trial continues. - Sapa
Michael Snyder
that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps the
fact that they never existed in the first place.
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:lk81d.1972$_G4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Gregory
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:J391d.13455$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Never mind then. Anyway, I always wonder why some people seem to think
> that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
> film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps
the
> fact that they never existed in the first place.
You are being silly. The definition of homicide pornography has recognized
criminological attributes which you have consistently ignored.
Michael Snyder
"Gregory" <mike.bau...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ld91d.16$A96...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Maybe that's because I have been consistently discussing snuff films.
Don't come in here and substitute your own phrase, and then tell me
I don't know what it means.
Well, that is, DO do that -- it benefits my case to have folks
see what an idiot you are.
TdN
> that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
> film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps the
> fact that they never existed in the first place.
The trope of "someone staged a real-life murder for the purposes of
voyeuristic entertainment" has been around in the Western world, at
least, since the testimony against Gilles de Rais. The Hellfire Club
of 18th century England and the Marquis de Sade are among the many who
have been accused of staging murderous entertainments.
There are some wonderful 19th century Grand Guignol scripts that play
with the idea of the actor/director who stages an actual gory murder
under the guise of a simulated gory murder. Cf. "I Pagliacci".
So it's an idea that has been around for way more than 30 years.
The case of the Barnardo/Homolka murders, at least one of which was
captured on video by the murderers for later use as a sex tape, raises
an interesting dimension on this question. Were Barnardo and Homolka
making a "snuff film" for themselves? Or just the more traditional
"documentary" of their crime?
T.
Hester888Mofet
<<
Never mind then. Anyway, I always wonder why some people seem to think
that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps the
fact that they never existed in the first place.
Okay, so they never existed. What's the big freakin' deal? I think someone
somewhere has probably made one. Why is that so hard to believe? I didn't say
it was mass distributed, heck, maybe no one has ever seen it but the guy who
made it. I speculate that everything that could be done with a human body and a
camera has been done somewhere at sometime. I don't find that hard to believe.
Also, something from another post that you chose not to comment on because it
doesn't fit your agenda -- you assume by snuff film I mean a woman being
murdered. It could be a man. It's just not that absurd to expect that
somewhere, somehow someone has done this.
Hester Mofet
Michael Snyder
"Hester888Mofet" <hester8...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040913175755...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Nope. But it IS absurd to assert that it DEFINITELY HAS happened,
and still more absurd to assert that it REGULARLY happens. What-ifs
aside -- snuff is fiction. And yet various women's advocacy groups
still talk about it as if it was real. My bringing it up here was a direct
response to someone HERE displaying the belief that it was real.
Uncle Dollar Bill
> Never mind then. Anyway, I always wonder why some people seem to think
> that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
> film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps the
> fact that they never existed in the first place.
Now, now, Michael, you know you can't assert an unproven negative as a
fact. The most you can say is that they have never been _proven_ to
exist. That's logically sound and something I think even the "There
really _ARE_ snuff films!" folks can agree with.
Besides, the burden isn't on you to prove that they don't exist in the
first place. It's on those who say that snuff films are real to prove
that they _do_ exist.
Child
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:60hm7qg5r96k.1w...@40tude.net...
this whole snuff film thing has gotten kind of silly - michael is saying
there is no snuff film industry where people are killed on film for profit.
I think we can agree with that statement.
Michael Snyder
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:60hm7qg5r96k.1w...@40tude.net...
>
>> Never mind then. Anyway, I always wonder why some people seem to think
>> that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
>> film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps
>> the
>> fact that they never existed in the first place.
>
> Now, now, Michael, you know you can't assert an unproven negative as a
> fact.
Yes I can -- I can assert that LE has never found a snuff film because
they've SAID that they've never found a snuff film. Unles you think
they're lying?
> The most you can say is that they have never been _proven_ to
> exist.
That's sufficient. It started out as an imaginary thing, it's always been
an
imaginary thing, no one has ever shown this imaginary thing to be real --
therefore it remains an imaginary thing. I don't have to prove that the
tooth fairy doesn't exist -- the person asserting that she does is the one
with the burden of proof.
Michael Snyder
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:10kff26...@corp.supernews.com...
Agree???
With *Michael*?????
*This* newsgroup?????????????
Uncle Dollar Bill
> "Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> news:60hm7qg5r96k.1w...@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:09:13 GMT, Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Never mind then. Anyway, I always wonder why some people seem to think
>>> that the argument that somebody, somewhere may have made an actual snuff
>>> film SINCE having the idea forced down our throats for 30 years, trumps
>>> the
>>> fact that they never existed in the first place.
>>
>> Now, now, Michael, you know you can't assert an unproven negative as a
>> fact.
>
> Yes I can -- I can assert that LE has never found a snuff film because
> they've SAID that they've never found a snuff film. Unles you think
> they're lying?
That wouldn't be a negative assertion then, would it? But that wasn't
the assertion you made. The assertion you made was that they never
existed, not that LE said they've never found a snuff film. That's a
bird of a completely different color, not a negative assertion at all.
You can't prove that they never existed, it's a logical fallacy to
even try.
>
>> The most you can say is that they have never been _proven_ to
>> exist.
>
> That's sufficient. It started out as an imaginary thing, it's always been
> an
> imaginary thing, no one has ever shown this imaginary thing to be real --
> therefore it remains an imaginary thing. I don't have to prove that the
> tooth fairy doesn't exist -- the person asserting that she does is the one
> with the burden of proof.
Precisely. :-)
Sherman
It is a wonder then, that so many folks can describe her, isn't it?
And yes, snuff films do exist.
Sherman.
TdN
> an
> imaginary thing, no one has ever shown this imaginary thing to be real --
> therefore it remains an imaginary thing. I don't have to prove that the
> tooth fairy doesn't exist -- the person asserting that she does is the one
> with the burden of proof.
It's not exactly the same, though.
The tooth fairy cannot exist, because we (rational people) know that
there are no supernatural beings that can walk through walls, etc.
Snuff films could exist, though. People do, and can, commit murders.
People do, and can, make violent pornography. It is logically
possible that someone ***could*** make a snuff film, although there is
no documented case of it ever happening to date.
Except maybe Paul Barnardo and Karla Homolka, who did make a tape of
one of the sex murders they committed for their own viewing
pleasure...
T.
Michael Snyder
"Sherman" <Sher...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:It2dnW0EnKz...@adelphia.com...
>
> And yes, snuff films do exist.
Who the hell are you, and what are you gonna do with the million dollars?
Michael Snyder
"TdN" <triann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:314a4ba6.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:<poQ1d.13827$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> > That's sufficient. It started out as an imaginary thing, it's always
>> > been
>> an
>> imaginary thing, no one has ever shown this imaginary thing to be real --
>> therefore it remains an imaginary thing. I don't have to prove that the
>> tooth fairy doesn't exist -- the person asserting that she does is the
>> one
>> with the burden of proof.
>
> It's not exactly the same, though.
>
> The tooth fairy cannot exist, because we (rational people) know that
> there are no supernatural beings that can walk through walls, etc.
>
> Snuff films could exist, though.
As I said, I'm not interested in discussing what COULD exist.
If some hypothetical rich pervert has produced something modeled
on the MYTH of the snuff film, that does not change the fact that
it was a MYTH to begin with. They do not exist in anything even
remotely resembling the form that the MYTH held them to exist
(something common, frequently occurring and frequently perused
by sadistic paying audiences, something you could theoretically
go out and find yourself if you were of a mind to).
TdN
> "TdN" <triann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:314a4ba6.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> > news:<poQ1d.13827$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >> > That's sufficient. It started out as an imaginary thing, it's always
> >> > been
> >> an
> >> imaginary thing, no one has ever shown this imaginary thing to be real --
> >> therefore it remains an imaginary thing. I don't have to prove that the
> >> tooth fairy doesn't exist -- the person asserting that she does is the
> >> one
> >> with the burden of proof.
> >
> > It's not exactly the same, though.
> >
> > The tooth fairy cannot exist, because we (rational people) know that
> > there are no supernatural beings that can walk through walls, etc.
> >
> > Snuff films could exist, though.
>
> As I said, I'm not interested in discussing what COULD exist.
Yes, but you likened snuff films (a logical possibility) to the Tooth
Fairy (a logical impossibility).
> If some hypothetical rich pervert has produced something modeled
> on the MYTH of the snuff film,
I don't think that anyone would have to be rich to produce a real-life
snuff film. After all, Barnardo and Homolka were just getting by.
> that does not change the fact that
> it was a MYTH to begin with.
Why do you keep capitalizing the word "myth" here?
I agree that the idea of "cruel sexually perverse people killing
others for pornographic entertainment" has exerted a strong pull on
people's imaginations for many years. Look at some of the atrocities
attributed to Countess Elisabeth Bathory and Nero, among
others--people were absolutely convinced that there were "snuff
entertainments" long before anyone had an idea of making films.
Once the film industry came into existence, the story took a more
modern turn.
> They do not exist in anything even
> remotely resembling the form that the MYTH held them to exist
> (something common, frequently occurring and frequently perused
> by sadistic paying audiences, something you could theoretically
> go out and find yourself if you were of a mind to).
Why does it bother you so much that there are some people who believe
that these never-proven-to-exist things exist? I certainly
understand, and sympathize with, irritation at those who assert the
truth of urban legends and the like against all rational evidence.
But you seem to have a particular investment in this issue.
T.
Michael Snyder
Because both are myths.
Robert N. Lee
@typhoon.sonic.net:
>> Yes, but you likened snuff films (a logical possibility) to the Tooth
>> Fairy (a logical impossibility).
>
> Because both are myths.
>
Never mind that the more you follow the added complexities out on the
idea of a "snuff industry," the closer the notion comes to a
logical...not impossibilities, since there aren't any logical
impossibilities in that sense, but extremely improbable.
The issue isn't *production*--clearly, murderers have documented their
acts in photos on film and in video. The idea of someone doing that just
to produce a video is fairly reasonable, which is why proponents of the
myth generally stick to production: "What, you're saying this couldn't
happen?" No, of course it could. In some senses, it already has, many
times.
The problem comes in marketing and distribution: the idea of "snuff
films" is that they are produced for a select market of extreme perverts
(generally wealthy ones, as the stories go), which...opens the whole
thing wide, and this where the notion of secret snuff rings all over the
world, no proof of which has ever been discovered in three decades, never
mind an actual film, approaches absurdity.
Forget production for the moment, where the legal ramifications are
pretty clear. *Everyone* involved in the distribution, sales and
marketing of a "snuff film," all the way down to the viewer, ultimately,
would be an accessory after the fact to murder, at best. Given the
subject of these hypothetical films, too, it can be assumed that everyone
in the distribution business is a hardened, longtime criminal, and so are
many of the customers. Most of the other customers can be assumed to be,
at least, criminal dabblers, who like to pick up, say, a mountain of
cocaine for the odd nights they show their murder movies to their close,
pervy friends.
The harder criminals in this chain, particularly the ones in the biz,
could be assumed to be engaged in other criminal acts: drug dealing,
theft, money laundering, and hell, if you'll make movies of people
getting killed, kiddie porn's not exactly a stretch. They're also going
to hurt and murder a few people, sometimes related to the snuff movies,
sometimes related to some other low endevour.
And here's the problem: criminals get caught. They get caught all the
freaking time, usually doing dumb stuff. There also isn't, contrary to
popular myth, a lot of honor amongst them. They turn over on each other
all the time to avoid punishment, because their fortunes have turned
sour, because they've fallen out of favor with former comrades and are
facing certain death or just because they're mean and hate each other.
In thirty years of this story going around, and law enforcement agencies
looking for this stuff...nobody's ever found it. Nobody's ever found a
movie in the home of a murdered drug lord or gang leader, or some dead
rich guy like in that Nick Cage movie. Nobody's ever gotten arrested on
his third strike or a murder rap and given up a snuff business, or some
small part of it. Nobody's ever left a suicide note saying "I can't go
on like this anymore..." and confessed to having taken part in such a
business, in any sense.
This, in itself, makes the notion of a snuff film industry a virtual
impossibility, and the story just sounds more like other "secret
society" and absurd conspiracy stories like JFK stuff and UFO stuff and
"we never went to the moon" and nonsense about The Jews or The
Illuminati. There just isn't any such thing as a large conspiracy that's
that effective in staying secret.
--Robert
--
***
My Head Is Filled with Yeast
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spimby/
Carla
I knew Ronald about 8 years ago, and we all predicted this would come
to pass - he just didn't have respect for others, even then. Even then
he was doing so much heroin we all surmised he'd be dead sooner than
later.
Ronald never applied for bail - and for very good reason, he was safer
in jail.
The weird thing is this country is like the TV movie Oz, you can get
to anyone, anywhere. It's all about the money. I hope he rots in hell,
prison is too good - now I have to pay for his food etc with my
tax?????
Knowing Ronald, it was a snuff movie, but to prove it they have to
find the movie first. (I spoke to the investigating officers).
To these folks who think snuff movies don't exist - catch a wake-up.
Suppose you'd say it until you see the film, eh? And of course,
Ronald's not telling.
I never knew Tania Flowerday, but may she rest in peace. Nobody
deserves what she had to endure.
Carla
Michael Snyder
>
> Knowing Ronald, it was a snuff movie, but to prove it they have to
> find the movie first.
Not knowing you, but knowing that NO law enforcement agency
*anywhere* has *ever* located a snuff movie, please forgive me
if I do not take your word for it.
>(I spoke to the investigating officers).
> To these folks who think snuff movies don't exist
You mean like the FBI and Interpol?
> - catch a wake-up.
No problem. Just provide some evidence that they do.
> Suppose you'd say it until you see the film, eh?
Well... yeah, exactly. What's your point? You want us
to believe they exist just because you say so?
> And of course,
> Ronald's not telling.
Ronald's failure to tell is not evidence for the existance of
snuff movies, which as far as anyone rational is concerned,
are a myth.
