I'm just wondering if Grogan is still in the band Rhythmtown Jive...I've gone to website of band, but I don't see Grogan. Just wondering if the band dismissed him.
I had read last year that he was still in band but had changed his name because of the unwanted attention he was bringing to the band. Guess not all publicity is good publicity.
He was on the website for the band under an assumed name. The news broke and poof Steve was gone. Perhaps he had an agreement with them if the news ever broke he would leave the band. Maybe he did it on his own. Maybe he is still with them, but perhaps he is not listed on the website for reasons we can all figure out. I do not know-but from the limited time the video was up and running-the band jammed and they looked tight as hell.
That's just it. I remember reading on Mansonfamilytoday.com about Grogan "aka Adam Gabriel" and I hurried up to the Rhytmtown Jive website and myspace page and there were a few pics with Grogan. Now, there is only one, and I'm not even sure it's Grogan.
[quote author=courtney link=topic=3990.msg32738#msg32738 date=1242583231] Would you really really want Steve Grogan in a band with you? ??? > [/quote] To tell the truth I would have no problem. He's done his time and been released. It's not his fault if you think his sentence should have been longer. I believe that society should give a hand to criminals who are released back into the free world, and yes, I would be happy to help him or any other released criminal to get going again. He's a competent musician - why shouldn't he be in my band (if I had one, that is). It's got nothing to do with TLB - the guy is trying to rebuild a life is all. I'd personally like to have a word with whoever outed him - I wouldn't be at all surprised if money didn't cross hands. And I think we all have an idea who might be behind it all. Not to imply any coherent segue here, but I also think that what Debra Tate does in the name of 'justice' - panhandling the public to try to collect signatures to keep potential parolees safe inside - is wrong. Not illegal - as a citizen she has that right - but morally wrong, especially when the people concerned had no involvement in crimes against her family. Sez I this fine Sunday evening in Grasmere, Cumbria. Jem
I think the outing of him was indeed wrong. He went under an assumed name, and got on with his life without further issues or problems with the law. If he had problems with the law and continued to be a poster boy of rancid behavior, I wouldn't have an issue with it for it is public record. He served his time and got out. Built a life under a different name. He seems to have musical talent. How much is enough --I do not know...but the outing of him crossed a line I do believe.
For sure the outing by whomever did it (money or nil) was wrong. But after seeing WITH MY OWN EYES his behavior with those children on the Henderckson tapes - he had a lot more problems than just being an accessory to killing an adult man. Murders worked in our household when I was growing up. Wonderful men who helped with the cooking, the cleaning and certainly the raising of my brothers. They were dear to us - extended family. Bifurcation you say - but my Dad always felt that a murder (and most that were in were black) that had killed someone in perhaps a barfight was not a habitual criminal and not likely to do it again. In fact, if most had been white and able to afford a great attorney they wouldn't have had more thanjustificable homicide or at the worst manslaughter. Steve Groban however was in a different class - he had priors before he met Manson - he had indecent exposure charges with children around, (nuts falling out of pants? Say What?) But he had also a long string of deception whether it was shoplifting, or other misdemeanors, looking at his rap sheet the happened about every 3 months - Still habitual criminals can be rehabilitated. Okay I'll give you that one - but not around my sons, not around my grandchildren, and I don't want him around me. Even as an unsuspecting small venue concert goer, I don't want him around me even if he is a good musician. I don't think that Hendrickson was feigning what we were shown several times in that movie - I don't think Grogan was acting either - I think what we saw was pure dependence and a lack of regard not just for property (you can replace that) but in his eyes as he was 'dealing with the little ones'. Paranoid, maybe - my husband was always careful to become a scout leader when our children were young or a assistant soft ball coach or tennis coach when they were involved and he did it because he wanted to protect our children against those who 'like to do things with children a little too much' not because he had the time or really wanted to - he had to - Where do pedophiles show Up? Around children. That caressessing of the little blond girl is one of the most evil little glimpses of true pedophilia I've ever seen. To each his own of course.
Agreed the touching of the blonde girl has always made my stomach turn. And when the close up came on her and she was so stoned she couldnt keep her eyes open. In the next segment I am going to post from the Rolling Stone interview from DVS, there is a quote about little Ivan not being able to feel his legs and stuff after Grogan got done playing is favorite drop and catch by the legs game with him.. Though it is disturbing, where is the evidence that this disgusting behavior continued after his release? Pedophiles can not be cured, and admittedly from their own mouths say they will continue this behavior if released. This is also documented in other cases where pedo's have been released and re-offended. If he is indeed a pedo-where are the other victims? I am not excusing his rank behavior, just trying to see if he is truly a pedo.
Is there any documentation of Grogan's IQ or other testing to determine if he was mentally retarded? It's been said on other websites and in books, that the family considered him retarded. I was curious if there was any medical proof of this.
I was part of the outing process. I received no money for doing so. Bret was the main outer- as far as I know he received no money. JemPud as usual spouts her opinions and makes no fing sense. In any case- pedophile, sure, murderer, sure, reformed, maybe- but nobody mentions the still unfathomable point that Sadlie got prosecuted for the LaBiancas and Clem, who was just as guilty, did not. There's no statute of limitations on murder. If I were Clem I would just be happy I'm free.
[quote author=ColScott link=topic=3990.msg32766#msg32766 date=1242626445] JemPud as usual spouts her opinions ...... [/quote] Sure - thought that's what boards and forums are for. Don't you do the same, Col? [quote author=ColScott link=topic=3990.msg32766#msg32766 date=1242626445] .... and makes no fing sense. [/quote] Which part of it didn't you understand, Col? I'll be glad to spell it out for you? Jem
Evitaaz- I have never seen anything medical on Grogan's mental status other than what is in parole reports. The jury didn't find him all that wonderful, but it was the judge who said/thought (but I am not in the judge's head) that he was too slow to be put to death. He obviously wasn't that slow, he got out. As a matter of law one would think that Grogan should have been held equally as responsible as Sadie in the murders of the LaBianca's. Sadie was in the car and was held accountable; Manson tied them up, was held accountable; Kasabian turned state's evidence and went from trial to trial telling her tale, and then we have Grogan, in the car, and nada. Perhaps with the second count on him, he would not be a free man. But then we have Tex as well-by all accounts helping in the murder of Shorty (which he seems to avoid speaking/writing of) and he doesn't get that charge on his ass either. (with the other charges on him, it is in a way understandable, maybe not just, but understandable) With the counts that he got convicted of, it is more understandable that the lack of prosecution of Grogan for being in the car like Sadie. My question is whether or not the prosecution at the time of the TLB trial knew about the murder of Shorty and Grogan's part in that, or did they just have him in the car doing nothing but being at the scene? With Sadie, the Cielo drive murders were known and on her hands..not saying this was an excuse not to get him on the LaBianca's, but just trying to understand the lack of prosecution of him on that charge...
[quote author=ColScott link=topic=3990.msg32766#msg32766 date=1242626445] nobody mentions the still unfathomable point that Sadlie got prosecuted for the LaBiancas and Clem, who was just as guilty, did not. [/quote] Not sure about US/CA law, but wasn't there mention of Clem's diminished responsibility? And the fact that Clem cooperated by pointing authorities to Shorty's burial place? And I'm not sure that Clem sang his head off so publicly as Susan did about how people had to die and how much fun it all was. Might these be things that make the point less unfathomable to you? Jem
Jem, Clem may have had diminished responsibility, but not so much that he wasn't charged with the murder of Shorty. And the fact that Clem cooperated with authorities by pointing out the location of Shorty's body had nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't charged in the LaBianca murders because he didn't point out the location of Shorty's body until a decade or so later. He still should have been charged. Every bit as guilty as Sadie.
Question? So since there are no time limitations on murder - would a state perhaps hold back on another murder charge to assure the re-arrest and re-trial of someone who is paroled on the first charge? Sort of like having an ace in the hole?
Gleefully as he stated something about them offing five pigs, I am wondering if the prosecution could prove his intent when getting in that car that night. I do not think that statements from co-conspirators uncorroborated by anyone else can be used in court. I am not a lawyer so I am not really sure on rules of law/evidence. While we have Sadie there the first night, so the assumption could be made that it was with the same intent they set off on the second night, could Clem's intent that night be proven in a court of law in accordance with their rules? Perhaps, even though it was shown that the intent could have/was there by others statements that may or may not have been legally sound, what other evidence besides statements did they have that he went out to kill that night? He could have said something to the fact he didnt know and thought they were going to the local coffee house for a milkshake...
Cats, i think you're right. What i wonder about though, is couldn't they have charged Leslie with the first night, based on her apparent disappointment that she hadn't been allowed to go and insistence that she get to go the second night? At the very least a second conspiracy charge? As for Sadie, i think they knew about her involvement in the Hinman murder before the Tate/Labianca trial, but could they use that against her since the Hinman trial hadn't happened yet?
From the evidence that I know of, I do not see how the DA could charge Grogan with the La Bianca murders and hope to secure a conviction. I am assuming that those that think he was guilty of murder are basing it on a conspiracy theory (Penal Code 182). There has to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy beyond the agreement to commit the crime though (PC 184). What did Grogan do to further the conspiracy to murder the La Biancas? For that matter, what did Bugliosi present as evidence that Atkins did to further the conspiracy? If Grogan and Atkins simply sat there as Charlie and Tex went in and then LVH and Pat too, what is the act in furtherance? Getting into the car with knowledge that that plan was to kill? Proving that knowledge without a confession would be pretty tough. Oh, and someone mentioned something about co-conspirators' statements not being admissible - not so provided certain conditions are met (Evidence Code 1223).
If the conspiracy was to start HS and to murder as many as they could to start such, the actions of Sadie et al at stopping at the actors apartment, the red light instance etc. shows that indeed they did have intent. Atkins has against her the previous night-Clem could have said he didnt know, and thusly the intent wasnt there making him not part of a greater conspiracy. What conditions are mentioned in that rule of evidence? Refresh me please so we can see if they are met.. Bry-Leslie's disappointment in not going the first night does not provide guilt in that she wasnt at the scene nor perhaps she didnt know or was not included in why those who were sent out/went out left. If disappointment expressed about not going could be used in that context for her in the Cielo Drive, couldn't they charge everyone at the ranch who was grooving on killing pigs with the conspiracy as well? For stolen credit cards etc. were used to support them in their search for the hole etc. that was to be used to hide away in when the great old HS hit...
