Thursday, January 12, 2012

I've decided to remove this photo.  It's only been posted for 24 hours, and it's already proven more trouble, than it's worth.  This is just a hobby, and folks are getting needlessly hurt and insulted on all sides.  Ironically, the discussion in the comments section, has little to do, with the photo anyway.  Peace... Lynyrd

66 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If you click and enlarge the photo... you can see her wrinkles... but, she still looks great for her age.

She was always a very attractive woman.
She was barking mad-crazy... but, very beautiful none-the-less.

She looks very well adjusted in the photo.
Maybe she's more stable mentally these days...

MrPoirot said...

She was a very mean woman for a long time. She was always defensive in interviews. She loved to threaten people.

Dilligaf said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
If you click and enlarge the photo... you can see her wrinkles... but, she still looks great for her age.

She was always a very attractive woman.
She was barking mad-crazy... but, very beautiful none-the-less.


Sorry man, not even with your d##k.

Cease2 said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...She looks very well adjusted in the photo.
Maybe she's more stable mentally these days...


With those peepers I'm thinking our Sandy's might still taking the LSD sacrament on a daily basis. Or is still on the same ongoing trip from whenever she ultimately passed thru the Fear, back in the day. If so, looks like this a is a good-trip phase.

katie8753 said...

What's that she's reaching for...a Tye-dyed apron?

Wow, it's so weird seeing her in such an everyday setting. Magnets on the fridge, assorted cookware. Looks like she's whipping up a batch of cookies. LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Dilligaf said:
>>>>"Sorry man, not even with your d##k".<<<<

There's no need to be nasty.
In the future, please state your opinion(s) without reference to my anatomy.

You do realize this woman is 67 years old, correct?

I'm not a big Sandy proponent... but, let's be honest... looks are certainly relative to age... and for 67, she's not half bad.

I doubt many 70 year old guys, would throw Sandy out of bed... but, to each his own.

As I said... state your opinon, and leave me out of it...

I've always treated you respectfully.

Mrstormsurge said...

I would baby sex her then crawl on her shoulder and have her burp me

bobby said...

Honestly: I dont think I have ever seen a more becoming photo of her. I dont see any of that pent up anger the is usually on display.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stormsurge said:
>>>>"I would baby sex her then crawl on her shoulder and have her burp me".<<<<

AHahahahaha

Stormsurge... You ROCK!
LMFAO!

(Hands down, the funniest dude in Manson-space!)

: )

bobby said...

wow, It didnt take long for this picture to be put up on Liz's blog.

Dilligaf said...

My apologies to you LS. It was not meant to offend you or anyone else on this site. It was a phrase we used many years ago to describe someone of less than attractive nature, in a joking manner.

katie8753 said...

Hey Mr. Dill. I have another legal question for you.

Kinda stupid, but why do they put a witness on the stand and ask them to point out the defendant and describe what he's wearing. Doesn't everybody already know who he or she is?

Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

Alright Patty, I'm gonna step in on this one. You don't need to take that tone.

Take your "nutjob Patty" shit outta here and don't let the doorknob tear you a new one.

Facts are facts. The picture was here FIRST. End of discussion!!!!

And stop calling yourself Patty. It was novel about 20 years ago. Now it's just annoying and creepy.

Dilligaf said...

Katie,

There are a couple of reasons.

First, it helps to establish a connection between the witness and the defendant. It establishes that the witness is able to, under oath, testify that this is the person they most likely have already identifed during an investigation.

Secondly, it helps the jury, as the watch the witness, determine the credibility of the witness.

It is not done all of the time, but on television it does provide that dramatic moment. The reality is that many of the trials that go one everyday can be very boring at times. Not every witness will be exciting, demonstrative, or appealing. You learn over time how to read the jury to see if you are losing them or not.

Dilligaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
v717 said...

Sandra Good has the power to interpenetrate what Manson is saying and his true intentions.
She is very intelligent.

katie8753 said...

>>>Mr. Dill said: It is not done all of the time, but on television it does provide that dramatic moment. The reality is that many of the trials that go one everyday can be very boring at times. Not every witness will be exciting, demonstrative, or appealing. You learn over time how to read the jury to see if you are losing them or not.>>>

Thanks Mr. Dill!

You're right, it isn't done every time, AND a lot of the trial testimony is boring. Especially with all the "I objects" and the sidebars.

But for some reason, I'm just hooked on this trial stuff. I'm in awe of the lawyers who can spot problems instantaneously, and that the judge has "total authority" over the proceedings.

Man...I wish I was a judge. HA HA.

katie8753 said...

>>>Patty said: Fuck you too katie. You suck!>>>

Wow, that's impressive talk coming from a psyche major.

Well...see ya....wouldn't wanna be ya.

Piss off asswipe.

Dilligaf said...

Katie,

One of my closest friends is a judge in Madera County, CA. Prior to his originnal appointment to the bench, he was the long time District Attorney of that same county. Because of possible conflict of interest claims, for the first two years on the bench, he handled only civil matters. That included various lawsuits, divorce matters, and unfortunately, too many claims from the inmates ate the women's prison there. It was the worst two years of his life.

The sidebars are where you really need to be on your game. Your trial strategy can change rapidly and as such, you must pay attention, regardless of the matter at hand.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Dilligaf, for ignoring the peanut gallery.

I apologize for the ridiculous interruption(s) and banter.

Patty is obviously projecting pent-up feelings stemming from issues elsewhere, onto me.

I'm not sure, where this is all coming from...

Thanks for you patience...

katie8753 said...

Thanks Mr. Dill.

I was wondering how Jose Baez passed the bar. I know you have to know a lot about "case law" and he seems dumber than dirt.

Have you seen the movie "Star Chamber"? I think of that movie often when I see judges having to dismiss cases because of technicalities. Must be so frustrating. Not only for judges, but for DA's.

katie8753 said...

>>>V717 said: Sandra Good has the power to interpenetrate what Manson is saying and his true intentions.
She is very intelligent.>>>

Is "interpenetrate" a word??? HA HA

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

BTW...

Hello to Bob, Poirot, V717 and Cease2.

katie8753 said...

Okay, this just in from Casey Anthony's "dream team".

She's now claiming that she was abducted as a baby by aliens and that she's from a "small town in France". Some mutterings about how aliens took her daughter, put duct tape on her mouth, transported her to her trunk, and yada, yada, yada.

Yada...yada...???? HA HA.

leary7 said...

it seems to me that Sandy is sans tatoos and piercings. I forget, did she X her forehead?
I'm with you Lynyrd on this one, she looks great to me. But then I have always liked my women a bit batty.Check out the female singer in The Head and The Heart. She knocks my socks off with her intensity/zaniness.
How has Sandy lived all these years? Does she have family money? Has she ever had a career? As a convicted felon is she prohibited from contact with Manson and any other Family members?

katie8753 said...

Leary, from her sparse belongings it looks like she's living day to day. Her family had lots of money but I'm sure they thumbed their noses at her years ago. She could have had it all, but she gave it all away for Manson.

Imagine that!!! Giving it all away for that guy. I can't even conceive of that.

Well she might be residing on residual money from the government. But I don't really know.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.

To my knowledge (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong)...

Sandy was in jail for using stolen credit cards during the time of the murders... but, promptly "X"-ed her forehead and shaved her skull... and took-up residence with the others on the sidewalk, shortly there-after.
So Yes... she was X-ed and shaved. LOL

One has to wonder, if she'd be in jail today... if she was available, those nights in August.

Course, ultimately, she DID go back to jail anyway, for sending death threats through the US mail (or some shit), to politicians and corporate folks... who according to her, were endangering the environment.
Oddly enough... I believe they found the letters still in her apartment... and they were never actually mailed-out yet!
Another strange "conspiracy" type indictment.
Dilligaf???
But, I digress...

She came from money.
She was the daughter of a stock broker.
I'm sure that explains how her earlier years were financed.

As of late... I really don't know.
It's a good question.
She's still with George Stimson... if that's any type of clue, to anyone.
I'm not sure what he's made of financially.

I wish I could find a way to support myself without working.
But... I'd draw the line with entering jail! LOL

katie8753 said...

According to Sanders, when Sandy joined the "family" she was using her Dad's money to support the "family".

At some point Daddy cut her off, and she and the others denounced parents. What a shock! Parents are only good if they shell out. HA HA. Ask Casey Anthony.

She threw her whole life away for a con man vagabond. Go figure.

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

Lynyrd, silly question but is Sandy OK with the pic being out there on the internets?

Mrstormsurge said...

>>Kinda stupid, but why do they put a witness on the stand and ask them to point out the defendant and describe what he's wearing. Doesn't everybody already know who he or she is?

Katie, nothing is assumed in court including whether who the witness is talking about really truly is who is on trial. When I've examined litigants I've asked for a photo ID to prove indeed that the person I examine is the same person litigating in a case and not someone else posing as them. I do this because I've had attorneys ask me how I can be certain that the person I examined is the litigant.

Or I could be wrong.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stormsurge asked:
>>>>"Lynyrd, silly question but is Sandy OK with the pic being out there on the internets?"<<<<

That's not a silly question.
It's a great question actually...

I have little reservation about having possession of this photo personally... as, it wasn't obtained through underhanded means.

As for sharing it online... I do have reservations.

Because personally... (to answer your question specifically):
I'm honestly don't know, if Sandy would be OK with this online exposure... or not.

That's why, I posted this disclaimer, on the thread:
"If anyone has any reservations about this photo being shared here... contact me privately... and I'll take it down".

If a photo causes any stress, harm or hardship (to anyone) by being posted here... it's simply not worth it, for the sake of entertainment.

Beyond that:
I DO have current photos of others, as well.
These are the reasons, I generally don't post them.

As I said in the thread...
Initially, I held-off on posting this photo of Sandy.

I decided to proceed (with this photo of Sandy)... after factoring two variables... not present regarding my other photos.

1) The photo had already been shared online... which, in retrospect, may not be so important, regarding the morality in question.

2) Sandy (unlike some of the others)... kept herself in the public eye much longer.
So, in that regard, it didn't seem as much a dis-service... (as say, exposing someone who had been dis-connected completely for the entire 42 years).
But again... it's all relative.

At the end of the day... I do entertain very mixed feelings about the whole "current photo" topic, and it IS with much reservation, that I made this decision.

To be frank with you Stormsurge... if the photo hadn't been shared online already... I wouldn't have bothered being the first.
That's the truth... 'cuz, I already had the photo, in my posession... and wasn't using it.

For whatever all that is worth... LOL
As my Dad used to say:
"With all that and a dollar, you can buy a newspaper" LOL

Peace... Lynyrd

MrPoirot said...

Sandra Good's mother once said she wished Sandra had died in her toddler years. Sandra was very sickly as a baby. Both parents feared Sandra was going to kill them.

Mrstormsurge said...

>>>Sandra Good's mother once said she wished Sandra had died in her toddler years.

That's really disturbed.

MrPoirot said...

I was struck by the mother's comment the same way MSS. Sandra made the statement "I have finally reached the point where I can kill my parents".
sandra strikes me as a bipolar sufferer with acute brainwashing and obsessisiveness.
The odd thing about Manson devotees is that they were never happy. Charlie made them all angry and discontent.

leary7 said...

Crap, I really hate to disagree with you again Mr.P, but that is one of those "absolute" statements that Lynyrd talked about. I seriously believe a number of Family members would argue that their Spahn days were the happiest days of their lives, much like a 'regular' person would say their college days were the happiest days they had. In a number of photos and videos they look extremely happy to me. It was, of course, a delusional happiness, but still a valid one.

MrPoirot said...

Leary I asked Dean Moorehouse' wife once, what were the girls like at Spahn's. She replied "they were very cold".
What would you make of her answer Leary?

bobby said...

I think I read somewhere that Sandy's sister's had reached out to her and made some progress at reconcilation. I'll try to find a source & post.

In reagards to the girls being angry or happy: I know lots of people who seem very happy being angry.lol.

Mary said...

it amazes me that the people over at eviliz don't acutally get why people are disgusted with them. It is not because they are posting NOW pictures...it is the way they go about getting these NOW pictures.

sorry, I didn't want to comment on this - but Patty is completely out of line

Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bobby said...

Hi Katie ! I feel real bad about the comments that have been generated because of my careless comment about Liz's site posting the same photo so quickly.

That off the cuff comment should not require anyone to send items to try and hurt you.

Please know that all of us who like you will not pay any attention to what Patty just sent in regards to how we feel about you.

bobby said...

Patty, You just proved yourself for everyone here to see to be a person who cant be trusted. The minute you are made at someone you pull out some old email. Why would anyone ever want to trust you with anything confidential.

We all know Lynyrd and Katie's relation and you will not be able to hurt it one bit with this ! HA HA

Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bobby said...

Fuck you Bobby

No problem Patyy.

Dilligaf said...

Lynyrd Skynyrd Said:

Course, ultimately, she DID go back to jail anyway, for sending death threats through the US mail (or some shit), to politicians and corporate folks... who according to her, were endangering the environment.
Oddly enough... I believe they found the letters still in her apartment... and they were never actually mailed-out yet!
Another strange "conspiracy" type indictment.
Dilligaf???


You are correct that she was arrested and convicted on a Conspiracy charge. Whether she mailed the letters out or not was not relevant to meet the requirements of the charge. When you take the statements of the inhabitants of the apartment,and the physical evidence found, you had the Mens Rea (intent) necessary to sustain a charge. The fact that there was no evident Actus Rues (the actual act) of mailing the letters was not required, as the letters were written and prepared, ready to be mailed out, which was considered to meet the necessary conduct element of the crime.

Conspiracy is a very effective means in which to gain a conviction in many criminals charges.

leary7 said...

yeah, I understand Mr. P., but that is one person's assessment. Hard to make a blanket judgement based on that. I suspect you would get a different answer from a Dennis Wilson or Danny DeCarlo or such. Happiness, like beauty, is subjective. Some people are most happy when they are angry. Anger makes em feel alive.
But I get where you are coming from - I have always thought the greatest "get" in terms of Manson info today would be to hear from Mary Brunner or Ruth Ann about how they feel about their Family life in retrospect. We know how Cappy and Gypsy and several others feel, but Mary and Ruth Ann would be interesting. Were they happy? I'd bet donuts they were, or at least would claim to have been.

Mrstormsurge said...

It can be difficult in a cult-like environment to really get a true gauge on people's inner feelings. Hell, maybe in that environment people have no clue as to how they really feel. There can be such a group pressure to act, think and feel a certain way that the outsides can seem to reflect that rather than what is true. I mean Sadie, Patty and LVH were laughing when they got sentenced to the gas chamber.

leary7 said...

excellant point, MSS. I know this is wrong, and Bobby called me on this recently, but I have been reading allot lately on Comanchee captives and how many, even when offered rescue, preferred staying with their captors saying they were happy. Most civilized folk would look at the Comanchee lifestyle and say that can't possibly be pleasurable.
I think we look at the garbage dump runs and sleeping on the floor at Spahn and the rampant venereal disease and say no way to that. But I still think that before Charlie's nilihism caused him to fall in love with death that the Family had a good time together.

bobby said...

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591052

Leary, This is the book I recently read about Parker which of course includes the details on his mother. She did will her self to death because they wouldnt return her to the indian famiy she was the mother of. I mean you marry and have children and we think it is not natural that that is where she wants to live ? where i live we have (had) Mery Jemmison white woman of the genesee. Captured as a child raise as a seneca, married a dozen kids lived into her 90's and no one ever tried to return her to her original family ( prolly all killed when she was taken.

leary7 said...

yeah, I read that book too, Bobby. It's a good one. It is an interesting contemplation into the mindset where folk are both family oriented and also have a savage mindset as well.

bobby said...

I dont think the "savage" see themselves as "Savage" Parker ultimatly became pretty well to do in the white world ,( horses & cattle) made his home available to any poor indian who wanted to stay at his home and purchased and moved his mothers remains for re internment.

one man's savage.

Kimchi said...

Hey if you guys are into the Native Americans, check out the Panamint Valley Indians...they are the ones in and around Barker Ranch area and Ballarat...interesting stuff...I can't believe they survived in Death Valley the way they did, before the white man came....

bobby said...

Thank you Kimchi, being here in the people of the long house area all my life, most of my reading has been about them. I will now spend some time reading about the Panamint vally indians.

MrPoirot said...

Leary I agree they were happy at first. In Aug 68 yea they were happy. But how about Aug 69? The girls were murdering people by then. Things had gone horribly wrong.

leary7 said...

precisely Bobby. That is the dynamic that fascinates me. How do people as individuals and then as a group/tribe get to the mindset where visciously ending anothers life is not "savage" to them. It is just something that is done.
One of the TLB anecdotes that has always stayed with me is the sweet Ouisch telling Donkey Dan at Barker that she "couldn't wait to off her first pig".
The evolution of the 'savage mindset' within a group - be it the Comanchees or the Family or the soldiers at My Lai, etc - just flat out fascinates me.

leary7 said...

yeah Kimchi, I will check those guys out. I love studying the lesser known Native American tribes. We have one here in Texas called the Lipan who were really interesting.

Sorry you got stressed Lynyrd. Such nonsense for folk to take to the streets over. It was a sweet photo I thought.

leary7 said...

But Mr P. not to be argumentative, but there is a weird possible logic here. One might argue it was because the girls were in fact so happy with both Charlie and with Family life that they were manipulated or coerced into "killing for the cause". If they had been indifferent about Manson or blase about the Family lifestyle I doubt they would have taken up arms as it were. Were they angry? Sure. Manson fueled their anger. But as I said earlier, anger and happiness are not mutually exclusive. I know that sounds absurd, but I know many folk who aren't happy unless they are angry at something. It's how they get their blood flowing.

MrPoirot said...

sandra is one Manson babe that never appeared happy to me unless you count the pic Lynyrd just removed. It took her 67 yrs to smile.

leary7 said...

but Mr. P., you have never seen Sandy's face when Donkey Dan was behind her.
Sorry, just got a crass impulse.

katie8753 said...

>>>Leary said: But as I said earlier, anger and happiness are not mutually exclusive. I know that sounds absurd, but I know many folk who aren't happy unless they are angry at something. It's how they get their blood flowing.>>>

Tru dat. HA HA.

Seriously though Leary, they're not "happy" at being angry about something, but it drives them to feel alive. Anger gives you power. Sadness makes you weak.

rfoster1 said...

I haven't been around the M blogs in several months. I can't believe the firestorm this recent picture of Sandy generated. Wow.

"MrPoirot said...
sandra is one Manson babe that never appeared happy to me unless you count the pic Lynyrd just removed. It took her 67 yrs to smile."

Better late than never, I guess. George and Sandy are both devoted to their organic gardening. Fresh air, home grown vegetables, and hard work can reform the hardest of hearts. I say good for them!