"Art" Shawcross for Sale
Yve Skeet
Dealers insist the serial killer isn't paid, but
does
receive favors; state plans inquiry
By Greg Livadas
Democrat and Chronicle
(Sept. 10, 1999) -- Autographs and
artworks by convicted serial killer Arthur
Shawcross are for sale on the Internet.
EBay, a Web-based auction house, is
listing items reportedly created by
Shawcross, who is serving a 250-year
sentence in Sullivan Correctional Facility
for the grisly killings of 11 local women.
Recently, eBay has been in the news after
bids for an unborn child and a human
kidney for transplant reached into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Both
were believed to be hoaxes.
The Shawcross items are real and some
have sold.
"Shawcross is more famous for the other
things he can do with his hands than his
artwork, such as strangling and partially
consuming some 11 prostitutes . . . which
really makes this weird piece
of prison art something the high bidder will
treasure forever!" reads the
description accompanying one Web item.
Some of the sellers are marketing the original
artwork as from "The
Genesee River Killer," and even boasting the
number of victims, saying
he "slaughtered 19 prostitutes, probably more."
The mother of one victim was shocked that someone
would use the
notoriety of Shawcross as a marketing advantage.
"Who would want to buy artwork or an autograph
from a serial killer?
They're disgusting. They're making him out to be a
hero," said Liz
Vigneri, of Rochester, whose daughter, Maria
Welch, was murdered by
Shawcross in 1989. "If any money changes hands, it
should go to the
children. He left many children without mothers."
The state Department of Corrections plans to
investigate whether New
York's Son of Sam law has been broken.
The law prohibits inmates from profiting from
their crimes. While
Shawcross is not selling the items himself, he
does receive occasional
favors from those he sends his artwork to.
"Inmates are not allowed to run a business while
incarcerated," said
Michael Houston, a department spokesman. "We will
conduct an
investigation and if we can determine one is being
done, we will take
steps to prevent that."
Inmates do not have access to computers or
Internet services, Houston
said. But they can purchase paint and other
art-related materials in
prison stores or through the mail because art is
considered a
recreational activity.
Another Shawcross lot up for bid recently included
four index cards,
"each with a fearful note penned by the deadly
serial killer, and every
card, signed in full and fingerprinted once! Notes
include, 'Do you see
me at night when you sleep? Look deep in the
darkness, the eyes tell it
all. When you feel the fear, I will be there.' "
The high bid was $20.50 for the cards.
One of the sellers is art dealer Walter O'Reilly,
of Mahopac, Putnam
County, who has corresponded with Shawcross for
about two years.
"Let me just say we don't fund a serial killer.
He's not compensated for
this," O'Reilly said. "This is not blood money. He
pays for the whole
thing himself."
O'Reilly has received artwork from the prisoner
for about a year.
"Things started arriving in the mail," he said.
"And if Art needs a shirt or
a pair of shoes, I take care of him. If he sent me
a nice painting and I did
well on it, I'd get a letter from him saying,
'Boy, I could really use a pair
of sneakers.' "
Shawcross' art has included a portrait of NASCAR
driver Dale Earnhardt,
and Marilyn Monroe has been the subject of several
drawings. One large
portrait sold for $250.
"Art basically draws whatever is prominent in his
thoughts at the
moment," O'Reilly said.
A recent oil painting, of a motorcyclist on the
open road with the words
"Ride Fast, Ride Free," sold for $200.
O'Reilly said the 54-year-old Shawcross, who is
eligible for parole in
2240, has been known to take requests -- including
one for a portrait of
Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
"Some of the bigger collectors have made requests
through me,"
O'Reilly said. "Sometimes he does them, sometimes
he doesn't."
O'Reilly has sold artwork by other serial killers,
including John Wayne
Gacy, who was executed in 1994 for killing 33 men
and boys in Illinois.
O'Reilly said Shawcross' work is much better.
"There have been a couple with real photographic
quality," he said. "It's
such a bizarre and tragic thing. It is interesting
to me that someone who
can do such terrible things can do something so
beautiful, too."
O'Reilly said he has sold prison art -- including
work by Shawcross -- to
police officers, lawyers, doctors and a dentist.
But he doesn't recall any
sold to anyone in the Rochester area.
Dr. Russell Barton, a retired Pittsford
psychiatrist who examined
Shawcross after his arrest, said the lure of
owning something connected
to a notorious criminal has existed for centuries.
"In the days when people were hanged in England,
people would pay
quite a sum of money for a piece of the rope,"
Barton said. He said the
value is "probably the ownership that it may be
brought out and toasted
just to shock everybody."
Kregg Sanders, a Danville, Ill., dealer
specializing in autographs of
criminals, said some of his customers are true
autograph collectors but
believes others are probably mentally ill and
collect because they have
an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Sanders, who tries to sell Shawcross autographs on
eBay, said he
doesn't sell much criminal art.
An autograph from Charles Manson can fetch $150 or
more, Sanders
said.
"Jeffrey Dahmer is going to be worth big dollars,"
Sanders said.
"Shawcross is worth about $1 to $2 on a good day.
A real good day."
He said Shawcross has destroyed the market for his
signature.
"He'll sign autographs for anyone who will want
one," Sanders said.
Sanders gets his share of criticism about his
business, mostly from
religious groups.
"I'm just a guy marketing autographs," he said.
"They aren't the
embodiment of evil. It really harms no one since
the criminal doesn't
benefit from this."
Sanders said he never pays the criminal in cash.
"If they ask for a book
of stamps, we'll send them a book of stamps."
Assemblyman Joseph Robach, D-Greece, said he's
willing to look at
proposed amendments to the original 1977 Son of
Sam bill to see
whether any laws are being broken, or whether
additional laws could
stop the marketing of serial killer paraphernalia.
The question is whether buying Shawcross a pair of
shoes or giving him
a roll of stamps means he is profiting from his
crimes.
And if the autographs and artwork are given to
others, what's to prevent
those people from selling their property?
"I don't think others should be able to do that,"
Robach said. "I think we
should look at every loophole available to try to
shut these people
down."
No one from the San Jose, Calif.-based eBay would
comment yesterday
specifically about the Shawcross sales. But
earlier this year, the site
banned the sale of guns and ammunition after
people tried selling a
missile, a bazooka, a rocket launcher and other
weapons.
A spokeswoman said illegal items as well as pets
and firearms are not
permitted on the site. But with 6 million users
and more than 3 million
items up for bid each day, tracking inappropriate
items can only be done
when someone complains on their community watch
site.
EBay receives a commission of up to 5 percent for
each item sold
through them.
Michael Ballard
cheaper to buy them directly from him?
Shane
Volfie
>cheaper to buy them directly from him?
>
>Shane
Why would anyone want to buy Shawcross' drawings?????
Volfie -> directly or not?
Michael Ballard
of Andy Kaufman for me.
Shane
Volfie
>Shawcross is actually a pretty good artist. He did a great pencil sketch
>of Andy Kaufman for me.
>
>Shane
>
I really do think that I would have to chop off my hands with dull butter
knives before I forked over any cash for a piece of "artwork" by a convicted
killer -- good or not.
Volfie -> but, hey, that's just me
Fred Davidson
Jackie, who is rereading Olsen's book but not fast enough to suit her.
Martha
>
> >
> >Shawcross is actually a pretty good artist. He did a great pencil sketch
> >of Andy Kaufman for me.
> >
> >Shane
> >
>
> I really do think that I would have to chop off my hands with dull butter
> knives before I forked over any cash for a piece of "artwork" by a convicted
> killer -- good or not.
>
> Volfie -> but, hey, that's just me
I would feel uncomfortable about that, too, Volfie, but I wonder about
why. I mean, do we know what horrible acts other artists may have
performed? What if we learned somehow that Rembrandt had been a child
molester? Would that change the value of his paintings? Would we then
feel repulsed that anyone should make money off the creative output of
someone who did such horrible things? If the artwork is good, it should
stand on its own, I would think, regardless of *who* created it. Sort
of like responding to the post and not the poster, I guess.
But I do agree with your reaction--I don't think I could do it, either.
Martha
Li'l Brat
news:19990911175456...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
| >
| >Shawcross is actually a pretty good artist. He did a great pencil sketch
| >of Andy Kaufman for me.
| >
| >Shane
| >
|
| I really do think that I would have to chop off my hands with dull butter
| knives before I forked over any cash for a piece of "artwork" by a
convicted
| killer -- good or not.
|
| Volfie -> but, hey, that's just me
That's me too.
glas
--
alt.true-crime WebSite and FAQ can be found here -
http://www.donet.com/~truecrime/
"A good friend will help you move...
A REAL friend will help you move a body."
Volfie
>I would feel uncomfortable about that, too, Volfie, but I wonder about
>why. I mean, do we know what horrible acts other artists may have
>performed?
I can't go by what *might* have been but by what I know to be true. I know for
a fact that this man is in jail for murder.
> What if we learned somehow that Rembrandt had been a child
>molester? Would that change the value of his paintings?
It would to me.
>Would we then
>feel repulsed that anyone should make money off the creative output of
>someone who did such horrible things?
Yes, I would.
> If the artwork is good, it should
>stand on its own, I would think, regardless of *who* created it.
There are thousands of artists in the world today -- wonderful, talented and
struggling to survive. The state is already supporting this guy so I figure he
doesn't need the money -- I'll be giving my $$ to the poor guy who paints or
draws or sculpts and still manages to live within the law.
It's like a scholarship, I guess. You give the money to the most worthy among
the applicants, not the least worthy.
>But I do agree with your reaction--I don't think I could do it, either.
Volfie -> Thank you for not flying off the handle and having a fit because I
stated an opinion. So few people seem able to do that anymore.
Martha
<snip>
>
> Volfie -> Thank you for not flying off the handle and having a fit because I
> stated an opinion. So few people seem able to do that anymore.
I don't generally fly off the handle over opinions.
Martha
Volfie
>
>Martha
Then you are a rarity in *this* newsgroup, Martha.
Volfie -> and that's a fact!
Every9man
From: Martha <ma...@erols.com>
Volfie wrote:
>
> >
> >Shawcross is actually a pretty good artist. He did a great pencil sketch
> >of Andy Kaufman for me.
> >
> >Shane
> >
>
> I really do think that I would have to chop off my hands with dull butter
> knives before I forked over any cash for a piece of "artwork" by a convicted
> killer -- good or not.
>
> Volfie -> but, hey, that's just me
/I would feel uncomfortable about that, too, Volfie, but I wonder about
why. I mean, do we know what horrible acts other artists may have
/performed? What if we learned somehow that Rembrandt had been a child
/molester? Would that change the value of his paintings? Would we then
/feel repulsed that anyone should make money off the creative output of
someone who did such horrible things? If the artwork is good, it should
/stand on its own, I would think, regardless of *who* created it. Sort
of like responding to the post and not the poster, I guess.
/But I do agree with your reaction--I don't think I could do it, either.
/Martha
I don't feel uncomfortable at all. In fact the art work interests me a lot.
I think this may be the same type of discussion that went on when Elia Kazan
was presented with the lifetime achievement award earlier this year. Did his
personal ~transgressions~ take away from the appreciation of his art? What if
you knew nothing about naming names? ( I'm not even going into the discussion
about ~what would you have done in his place?~.
Also, John Wayne has been criticized for his ummmmm.... personal politics as it
were and some gays that I know go nuts when his name is mentioned, as they do
when Mel Gibson is mentioned. Does his attitude take away from the value of his
works?
Joan Crawford was allegedly a child abuser, and yet I'd kill if anyone were to
try to run off with my collection of her films.
I think we can separate the works from the artist and if we cant, if not, we'd
have to worry about investigating the personal politics and behaviour of every
artist before we allowed ourselves to appreciate them.
I happen to think that in addition to any artistic appreciation they afford, a
killers art might make a good study into the workings of their minds which I do
believe is a worthwhile study .
Barbara
Every9man
From: vol...@aol.comPackQ1 (Volfie)
Date: Sun, 12 September 1999 09:34 AM EDT
Message-id: <19990912093400...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
>I don't generally fly off the handle over opinions.
>
>Martha
/Then you are a rarity in *this* newsgroup, Martha.
/Volfie -> and that's a fact!
It's in the Orbiteer Handbook Volfie and Martha is the founding member:)
Barbara
Every9man
From: Martha <ma...@erols.com>
Every9man wrote:
<snip>
> I happen to think that in addition to any artistic appreciation they afford,
a
> killers art might make a good study into the workings of their minds which I
do
> believe is a worthwhile study .
/In principle, I agree absolutely. In practice, I don't think I could do
/it--buy a painting or drawing by someone whose crimes I know about and
/think horrible. It isn't rational, but then I get to be irrational
/sometimes.
/Martha
Actually I was concentrating on the appreciation angle or lack thereof, I might
have trouble with the paying for it as well, although I am perfectly willing to
shell out an inflated amount for The Manson File. ( I know it's not the same
but if it were, I dont think I'd resent Manson getting the money because I do
believe it goes along with getting the shaft. )
Barbara
Martha
<snip>
> I happen to think that in addition to any artistic appreciation they afford, a
> killers art might make a good study into the workings of their minds which I do
> believe is a worthwhile study .
In principle, I agree absolutely. In practice, I don't think I could do
it--buy a painting or drawing by someone whose crimes I know about and
think horrible. It isn't rational, but then I get to be irrational
sometimes.
Martha
Yve Skeet
> Didn't Shawcross get the death penalty?
There was no death penalty in New York State at the time. In fact, Artie was
convicted of several (5?) counts of 2nd degree murder since 1st degree in NY then
was only for killing peace officers or while incarcerated.
> If so, when will it be carried out?
> Jackie, who is rereading Olsen's book but not fast enough to suit her.
Jack did a marvelous job with all aspects of the case, from the cloud in the
community as yet another body was recovered, to the commitment of DC Terry Rickard
and Captain Johnston (my CO back then) of the Roch. PD, to the (living) women in
Shawcross' life, to the impact on the victim's families who often weren't
respected in the community, to the idiotic testimony of Dorothy Otnow Lewis (and
Chuck Siragusa's dissection of her theories).
Debby
is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop going to see his movies???
What about hollywood stars that were in jail or beat thier spouses???? Would you
stop watching Tim Allens sitcom because he was in jail at one time??? Still it
makes me feel uncomfortable to spend money on a piece of artwork that a murderer
created...... Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Every9man wrote:
> I happen to think that in addition to any artistic appreciation they afford, a
> killers art might make a good study into the workings of their minds which I do
> believe is a worthwhile study .
>
> Barbara
Jack1Olsen
Tnx for the kind words.
You refer to >the idiotic testimony of Dorothy Otnow Lewis (and Chuck
Siragusa's dissection of her theories).>>>
Lewis is a pet peeve of mine. After Assistant D.A. (now judge) Siragusa
completed his public evisceration of this psychiatric quack and she sneaked
down the back stairs of the Rochester Plaza to get out of town, I thought she
would crawl under a rock somewhere and never be heard from again.
I reckoned without her chutzpah.
She's now published a poorly reviewed book full of her cockamamie theories and
has also explained ad nauseum how she "solved" the problem of what makes
Shawcross tick. In her examination of Shawcross pre-trail, she took this creepy
lunatic at his word in lie after lie after lie, e.g. that he suffered PTSD from
his horrifying Vietnam experiences (he was a file clerk far behind the lines),
that his mother brutalized him as a child by sticking a toilet brush up his
rectum (at the time, the family had an outhouse -- ever heard of a toilet brush
in an outhouse?) etc. etc. In fact (and I interviewed several dozen relatives
and locals to establish this firmly) Artie brutalized his mild-mannered and
somewhat ineffectual parents, not the other way around
Rochester was in stitches about his outlandish stories but Dorothy took them
with utmost seriousness and became the defense's only witness -- on the stand
for five days of stultifyingly inept testimony.
She is still peddling her story about the mother's brutalization and if I were
the helpless Mrs. Shawcross I would sue her ass off.
Tnx for your post.
terryh...@my-deja.com
vol...@aol.comPackQ1 (Volfie) wrote:
> >I don't generally fly off the handle over opinions.
> >
> >Martha
>
>
Were it so.
It is only the perverse imbecility of the mob that should rile any
thinking person.
Best, Terry
Best, Terry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Volfie
I guess you are right. Look at Woody Allen. There Mia Farrow
>says he
>is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop going to see his
>movies???
Well, I know you're asking Barbara but, as for me, the answer is YES, I plan on
not seeing another Woody Allen movie. I certainly won't pay to see one or buy
one on video tape.
>What about hollywood stars that were in jail or beat thier spouses????
I no longer to see Steven Segal or Jean Claude VanDamme (sp?) movies because
they are known to be wife beaters. As they are identified, I just remove them
from my mind as entertainers that I would like to see.
Would
>you
>stop watching Tim Allens sitcom because he was in jail at one time???
For having pot? No. This one I don't mind. A non-violent crime that hurt no
one but him does not make me think he is an evil doer beyond redemption. Wife
beating and murder are other matters entirely.
Still
>it
>makes me feel uncomfortable to spend money on a piece of artwork that a
>murderer
>created......
Like I said: he's already being given everything he needs to survive by the
State. I will not give him money for "perks" while incarcerated. I will,
however, support those artists (who are just as good as him and probably
better) who do their art and still live within the letter of the law.
Volfie -> tell you the truth, I'm pissed that the State is supporting him too
Martha
>
> Janet Meairs wrote:
<snip>
> >***I will never go to see a Woody Allen movie, if he is on television
> >either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
> >see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow, the man is a
> >child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
> >with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
> >Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
> >Pleaseeeeeeeee.
>
> No doubt. He is a really vile man. I don't plan on seeing any movies he does in
> the future. That's too bad, too, because I enjoyed his films. However, now all
> I do is get the creeps every time I see him. UGH!
Me too. But I'm glad Debby brought Woody Allen into this. Knowing
about Woody Allen's carryings-on with his lover's child has become such
a distraction for me that I can no longer watch his movies, either. So
the feelings I have about what he has done change the way I perceive his
art, and I guess that's what I'm trying to say about the idea of my
buying a Shawcross painting. There are a good many people whose work I
admire and own who committed crimes that horrify me--Thomas Malory, for
example, was jailed twice for rape--but their acts (probably, in
Malory's case, because it was so long ago and far away from me) do not
intrude themselves on my enjoyment of their works. OTOH, I went to the
big Picasso retrospective at MOMA about 20 years ago and was genuinely
shocked by his misogyny, so apparent when you look at *all* of his work
in one day. And that experience did change my feelings about Picasso; I
don't know if I feel so weird about his work that I would turn down the
opportunity to *own* one, but it did make a difference.
Martha
Janet Meairs
Volfie wrote in message <19990913104518...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>Debby S wrote:
>
>I guess you are right. Look at Woody Allen. There Mia Farrow
>>says he
>>is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop going to see his
>>movies???
>
>Well, I know you're asking Barbara but, as for me, the answer is YES, I
plan on
>not seeing another Woody Allen movie. I certainly won't pay to see one or
buy
>one on video tape.
(snip........)
>Volfie -> tell you the truth, I'm pissed that the State is supporting him
too
***I will never go to see a Woody Allen movie, if he is on television
either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow, the man is a
child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
Pleaseeeeeeeee.
JMeairs <was Jkm1051> trying to get used to a new ISP.
Jme...@kscable.com
terryh...@my-deja.com
Geez I hate to admit agreeing with anybody but incest (in effect) is
just not to my liking. Such open perverts will have to get along in
life without any help from me.
Demona888
>
>
>Volfie wrote in message <19990913104518...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>>Debby S wrote:
>>
>>I guess you are right. Look at Woody Allen. There Mia Farrow
>>>says he
>>>is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop going to see his
>>>movies???
>>
>>Well, I know you're asking Barbara but, as for me, the answer is YES, I
>plan on
>>not seeing another Woody Allen movie. I certainly won't pay to see one or
>buy
>>one on video tape.
>
>(snip........)
>>Volfie -> tell you the truth, I'm pissed that the State is supporting him
>too
>
>
>***I will never go to see a Woody Allen movie, if he is on television
>either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
>see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow, the man is a
>child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
>with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
>Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
>Pleaseeeeeeeee.
No doubt. He is a really vile man. I don't plan on seeing any movies he does in
the future. That's too bad, too, because I enjoyed his films. However, now all
I do is get the creeps every time I see him. UGH!
Hester Mofet
You cannot go against nature because when you do go against nature, it's part
of nature,too. -- Love & Rockets "No New Tale to Tell"
Demona888
>
>Demona888 wrote:
>>
>> Janet Meairs wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
>> >see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow, the man is a
>> >child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
>> >with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
>> >Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
>> >Pleaseeeeeeeee.
>>
>> No doubt. He is a really vile man. I don't plan on seeing any movies he
>does in
>> the future. That's too bad, too, because I enjoyed his films. However, now
>all
>> I do is get the creeps every time I see him. UGH!
>
>about Woody Allen's carryings-on with his lover's child has become such
>a distraction for me that I can no longer watch his movies, either. So
>the feelings I have about what he has done change the way I perceive his
>art, and I guess that's what I'm trying to say about the idea of my
>buying a Shawcross painting. There are a good many people whose work I
>admire and own who committed crimes that horrify me--Thomas Malory, for
>example, was jailed twice for rape--but their acts (probably, in
>Malory's case, because it was so long ago and far away from me) do not
>intrude themselves on my enjoyment of their works. OTOH, I went to the
>big Picasso retrospective at MOMA about 20 years ago and was genuinely
>shocked by his misogyny, so apparent when you look at *all* of his work
>in one day. And that experience did change my feelings about Picasso; I
>don't know if I feel so weird about his work that I would turn down the
>opportunity to *own* one, but it did make a difference.
>
>Martha
Yeah, I can see that, but I still love Guernica. I have a hard time with Clive
Barker because it's always been pretty obvious to me what he thinks about women
(as in "not very often").I don't think I would ever knowingly buy anything made
by a serial killer. It would weird me out to have it in my house.I also have a
hard time watching movies with those big Hollywood $cientology folks in them. I
always wonder
" what the hell are you thinking joining something like *that*?"
Every9man
From: "Janet Meairs" <jme...@kscable.com>
Volfie wrote in message <19990913104518...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>Debby S wrote:
>
>I guess you are right. Look at Woody Allen. There Mia Farrow
>>says he
>>is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop going to see his
>>movies???
>
>Well, I know you're asking Barbara but, as for me, the answer is YES, I
plan on
>not seeing another Woody Allen movie. I certainly won't pay to see one or
buy
>one on video tape.
(snip........)
>Volfie -> tell you the truth, I'm pissed that the State is supporting him
too
/***I will never go to see a Woody Allen movie, if he is on television
/either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
/see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow, the man is a
/child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
/with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
/Pleaseeeeeeeee.
JMeairs <was Jkm1051> trying to get used to a new ISP.
Well, come to think about it , I must admit, upon reflection, I remember that I
stopped going to Mel Gibson movies after I found out what a flaming homophobe
he is.
And I"m not comfortable going to any Woody Allen stuff either.
Perhaps because they hit close to home.
Barbara
Michael Ballard
Shane
George Byrd
on "Re: "Art" Shawcross for Sale"
demo...@aol.com (Demona888) wrote:
>Janet Meairs wrote:
>>
>>
>>Volfie wrote in message <19990913104518...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>>>Debby S wrote:
>>>
>>>I guess you are right. Look at Woody Allen. There Mia Farrow
>>>>says he is a child molester and a pedophile, but would you stop
>>>> going to see his movies???
Wasn't his stepdaughter over the legal age of consent when the alleged
acts took place?
>>>Well, I know you're asking Barbara but, as for me, the answer is YES,
>>> I plan on not seeing another Woody Allen movie. I certainly won't pay
>>> to see one or buy one on video tape.
>>***I will never go to see a Woody Allen movie, if he is on television
>>either in a movie or talk show I switch the channel. I will never go to
>>see a Woody Allen movie again because I believe Mia Farrow,
>> the man is a child molester and a pedophile. Any man who carries on
>>with and then marries his step-daughter fits the description IMO.
>>Out of the entire world this man had to pick his step-daughter!!!!!
>>Pleaseeeeeeeee.
But if she was of legal age of consent, he is no child molester or
pedophile, unless every man who marries a woman one day over the age
of majority is one.
>No doubt. He is a really vile man. I don't plan on seeing any movies he does in
>the future. That's too bad, too, because I enjoyed his films. However, now all
>I do is get the creeps every time I see him. UGH!
Vile man, cad, creep, Casanova, adulterer, <nasty name of choice>, all
of these may be true. But if Farrow alleged "child molester and
pedophile" and he was not prosecuted for same, then that leads one to
believe that Farrow didn't get it right. Prosecutors had no qualms
about pursuing such a case against Roman Polanski (but he went back to
Poland). Why would they not pursue a case against Allen if they had
one?
That technical question aside, I'll note that many greats in the arts
have been despicable persons to one degree or other, probably in at
least the same proportion as non-artists. If one accepts art only
from "morally or legally acceptable" artists, one can miss some great
art.
Ezra Pound, for example, was a devout fascist (in the technically
correct sense of the word -- he made propaganda broadcasts for
Mussolini's regime throughout WWII). Yet very few poets dispute that
he is one of the greater poets, and possibly the greatest poet, of
this century.
G "IHNTA, IJLS 'devout fascist' " B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. & are NOT legal advice.
"It was only one life. What is one life in the affairs of a state?"
<< Benito Mussolini, after running down a child in his automobile. >>
<< Reported by Gen. Smedley D. Butler, 1931 >>
Debby
children which the nanny found him in the attic "playing" with the child. It was
Dylan or one of the other ones. That's why he can't see all his kids and even then
only with supervision. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
terryh...@my-deja.com
geo...@apan.org wrote:
> ...Why would they not pursue a case against Allen if they had
> one?
A rather ludicrous question. It is not often the law proceeds when the
victim is unwilling and the key consideration is always the ability to
convict (or sometimes the benefit of publicity in a losing cause) rather
than the strength of the evidence.
What Woody Allen is really guilty of is incest though the law does not
define his transgressions that way.
>
> That technical question aside, I'll note that many greats in the arts
> have been despicable persons to one degree or other, probably in at
> least the same proportion as non-artists.
LOL!
But what does that have to do with my unwillingness to support a
degenerate in his pursuits? I note that many have now determined that
they don't want to support those with whom they have no more than a
philosophical disagreement. That is their privilege but very
narrow-minded.
> If one accepts art only
> from "morally or legally acceptable" artists, one can miss some great
> art.
I have not heard many ready to tear up the Declaration of Independence.
> Ezra Pound, for example, was a devout fascist...
In case you haven't been notified, Ezra is dead. No one can do anything
to help or hurt him. And who the hell reads Pound anyway?
A rather sad note: it is hard to listen to Bing Crosby these days
though I loved his songs. Dammit.
Every9man
/pedophile, unless every man who marries a woman one day over the age
/of majority is one.
I dont remember if she was of the age of consent George, but I do know she was
no prepubescent girl, therefore, he couldnt have been a pedophile, nor do I
recall him ever being called one at the time.
>No doubt. He is a really vile man. I don't plan on seeing any movies he does
in
>the future. That's too bad, too, because I enjoyed his films. However, now all
>I do is get the creeps every time I see him. UGH!
/Vile man, cad, creep, Casanova, adulterer, <nasty name of choice>, all
/of these may be true. But if Farrow alleged "child molester and
/pedophile" and he was not prosecuted for same, then that leads one to
/believe that Farrow didn't get it right. Prosecutors had no qualms
/about pursuing such a case against Roman Polanski (but he went back to
/Poland). Why would they not pursue a case against Allen if they had
/one?
What Mia said at the time, to the best of my fading memory, was that the
Connecticut ( I think I have the state right) officials cleared him of the
child abuse charge but that they had not done a thorough enough job of it and
were influenced by his celebrity.
But the judge seemed to take the charge seriously enough to bar visitation. I
am not sure to this day if Allen can see Dylan.
/That technical question aside, I'll note that many greats in the arts
/have been despicable persons to one degree or other, probably in at
/least the same proportion as non-artists. If one accepts art only
/from "morally or legally acceptable" artists, one can miss some great
/art.
I agree, I think I posted about Elia Kazan for an example. But after thinking
about if for awhile, I reminded myself that I wont go see Mel Gibson anymore
after I found out he was a homophobe. Of course, you
~were! talking about great artists , werent you?:)
Barbara
/Ezra Pound, for example, was a devout fascist (in the technically
/correct sense of the word -- he made propaganda broadcasts for
/Mussolini's regime throughout WWII). Yet very few poets dispute that
/he is one of the greater poets, and possibly the greatest poet, of
/this century.
/G "IHNTA, IJLS 'devout fascist' " B
terryh...@my-deja.com
> /That technical question aside, I'll note that many greats in the arts
> /have been despicable persons to one degree or other, probably in at
> /least the same proportion as non-artists. If one accepts art only
> /from "morally or legally acceptable" artists, one can miss some great
> /art.
>
> I agree...
Do you two think it would be morally acceptable if I don't choose to pay
to watch Mike Tyson box because he is a rapist and wife beater?
Douglas M. Case
>Do you two think it would be morally acceptable if I don't choose to pay
>to watch Mike Tyson box because he is a rapist and wife beater?
After I found out what a shit Newton was I stopped obeying the law of gravity.
dm ("and its opposite-comedy") c
------------------
That fellow seems to me to possess
but one idea, and that is a wrong one.
Samuel Johnson
Martha
>
> In article <7rnm9u$1a4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Do you two think it would be morally acceptable if I don't choose to pay
> >to watch Mike Tyson box because he is a rapist and wife beater?
>
> After I found out what a shit Newton was I stopped obeying the law of gravity.
>
> dm ("and its opposite-comedy") c
>
I take it all back.
Martha
PattyC4303
must admit, when it comes to "art" or whatever (meaning, things like going to
see Mike Tyson fight), I don't usually consider the personal life much, IF I am
interested in the product.
Woody Allen is a good example to me. I believe Mia (though she is one unusual
person, is she not?). (And by the way, I believe Mia accused him of abuse with
one of the younger kids, possibly the one that is theirs together. Her only
point about the step daughter was only that he is also disgusting.) Despite
the fact the thing with the step daughter alone turned me off to him on a
personal level entirely, I can't help but appreciate his talent otherwise.
I read a book (recently mentioned here in atc) about Bill Suff, who killed
many. In the book, there were excerpts of a recipe book he'd written. In the
overall context, it WAS indeed pretty weird. I actually thought, gee, that
chili recipe sounds pretty good. Gotta admit though, I figured, there are
enough other chili recipes out there for me to explore; I am going to SKIP this
one.
I guess for me the choice might be about how unique the product in question is.
With Woody, he seems to me to have a unique talent. I let myself ignore the
fact that I think he is a wierdo.
PattyC<---generally agreeing with Doug ( think!)
Subject: Re: "Art" Shawcross for Sale
>From: four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case)
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 08:24 AM EDT
>Message-id: <foureyes-150...@ip173.indianapolis5.in.pub-ip.psi.net>
terryh...@my-deja.com
The law of gravity is deeply flawed just like its proponent. But what
else would you expect from an alchemist?
Michael Ballard
Shane
Every9man
From: terryh...@my-deja.com
ever...@aol.com (Every9man) wrote:
> /That technical question aside, I'll note that many greats in the arts
> /have been despicable persons to one degree or other, probably in at
> /least the same proportion as non-artists. If one accepts art only
> /from "morally or legally acceptable" artists, one can miss some great
> /art.
>
> I agree...
/Do you two think it would be morally acceptable if I don't choose to pay
/to watch Mike Tyson box because he is a rapist and wife beater?
/Best, Terry
Sure, for you that is. If you dont mind missing a lot, who cares? :)
I think if you investigate the "character" of many of our authors, painters,
movie producers, actors etc, that you will find much more unsavory and/or
offfensive flaws than you might want to know about:)
Barbara