Posted on

Telling the Tate-LaBianca Story: Truth and Embellishment

Update 7/30/20: Since writing this post, I’ve been in touch with David Oman and believe my criticism below was harsh. He has invited me to visit his house next time I’m in the area and I hope to do so. As I said before, when following a case like the Manson murders, everyone has a theory and some do, as Brian Davis noted, “worm their way” into the narrative by exploiting people who were there in the beginning. I will always come clean when I’m wrong.

***

A while back I wrote a post about how, in my opinion, Restless Souls: The Sharon Tate Family’s Account of Stardom, the Manson Murders, and a Crusade for Justice by Alisa Statman and Brie Tate, was the most important book ever written about the Manson Murders. Since then the book’s accuracy has been thrown into question. So let’s talk about it.

Brian Davis, host of the online Tate-LaBianca Radio Program podcast, which posts Sunday nights, contacted me by Twitter a few weeks ago after seeing one of my tweets on how important I thought Restless Souls was. He wrote, “Yes probably because it contains some of the most fabricated material about [Tate-LaBianca] ever. So in that regards it is important.”

Davis explained what he meant in a follow-up email:

I host a Tate-LaBianca radio program every Sunday online, and my listeners are very well versed about the murders and TLB-related material.

I can tell you they very much anticipated this book Restless Souls, but most were disappointed and had questions for Alisa.

I attempted to get Alisa on [the program] to speak about the book, but she declined, saying her publisher wouldn’t let her do any media without going through them. That was understandable, except it wasn’t true. She lied. She went on another website to answer questions. Prescreened. So as my listeners continued to pick apart the book, they continued to find many [discrepancies] in the book.

He says the worst example of fabrication is a section where prosecutor Steven Kay has a confrontation with former Manson follower and convicted murderer Patricia Krenwinkel. The scene is the prison yard, following her unsuccessful parole hearing. She lets it drop that she knows where Kay lives, and he asks if she’s making a threat.

Davis says that on June 24, 2012, he had Steven Kay on the TLB Radio Program and he claims that conversation never took place.

Historical biographers are accused of inserting made-up passages in their books all the time. Their excuse is usually that adding a fictional voice here and there is necessary to keep the narrative going but that the heart of their work is true.

Doris Kearns Goodwin was accused of making stuff up in her book on Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals. Specifically, she was raked over the coals for having Lincoln say “What’s up?” Critics asked: Who talked like that in the 1800s? (As it turns out, the phrase what’s up appeared 34 times in print in the 1860s, according to the Corpus of Historical American History. Whether Lincoln would have used the phrase is another question.)

Edmund Morris, who authored an excellent trilogy on Theodore Roosevelt, caught hellfire when he used fictional elements to tell the story of Ronald Reagan in Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan.

I still think the Statman-Brie book is important, because it includes a lot of diary material from the Tate family that I believe is genuine. Are parts of it embellished with fiction? Probably. In that regard, I can understand Davis’ disappointment. And if Statman has ducked questions from him and others about the truthfulness of the book, that’s disappointing, too. Davis didn’t elaborate on whether the website in question received the publisher’s blessing to interview Statmen, but it’s more common than you might think for an interviewee to preview the interview questions.

If there are embellishments in the book, it can’t possibly be as bad as the fiction created by others attached to the Manson case. Take David Oman, who lives four houses down from the former Tate residence on Cielo Drive (I got a good look at the place during my November drive-by). Oman claims his home is haunted by the spirits of Tate and fellow victim Jay Sebring. The Ghost Hunters TV show even did an episode about it. I find it curious that he made these claims as he was making House at the End of the Drive, a horror film about a house being haunted by people killed in a house “at the end of the drive.” In my opinion, this is just another guy trying to make a buck off the case.

That’s the challenge when doing any research about the Manson case. Almost everyone involved seems to embellish here and there. What they offer may be a work that’s almost entirely true, but those embellishments throw everything else into question.

I don’t have a good answer to fix the problem. All I can do is stick to the truth in my own work and hope I don’t fall victim to that writer’s urge to embellish. Wish me luck.

Sharon Tate August 1969
Sharon Tate in August 1969, right before her murder
Posted on

Tate-LaBianca, 45 Years Later: A Strange Society of Manson Watchers

This week marks the 45th anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca murders. I’m marking it first with a prayer for the victims and second by making note of some interesting people I’ve met as a result of this lifelong Manson obsession I have.

I’ve been to L.A. twice, and both times drove around to the two murder sites and other places.

Tate Home
Behind that gate, Sharon Tate and four others were murdered by minions of Charles Manson.

LaBianca Home
On the second night of terror, minions of Charles Manson went to this house and murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca

I’ve also read Restless Souls: The Sharon Tate Family’s Account of Stardom, the Manson Murders, and a Crusade for Justice, a book written by Tate family friend Alisa Statman and Brie Tate, niece of Sharon Tate.

After reading it, I declared it “the most important book ever written” on the case because it showed the struggle of the Tate family in the decades after the murders better than any book up to that point. The day that post published, co-author Alisa Statman sent me a thank-you on Twitter. We then engaged in an extended back and forth about the case. Statman is an interesting woman.

She lived in the guesthouse at 10050 Cielo Drive — site of the Tate murders — in the early 1990s at the same time Nine Inch Nails set up a recording studio in the main house and recorded The Downward Spiral. She also went on to strike up a domestic partnership with Sharon Tate’s youngest sister, Patti, which lasted until cancer killed Patti in 2000.

Restless Souls is a compilation of the unfinished memoirs of Patti, her mom, Doris, and her dad, Paul. You really get to see how they struggled with all of the media attention and personal demons in the years after the murders, and that’s what I liked about it. Doris is a hero to me, because she picked up the pieces and became a tireless advocate for victim’s rights, even counseling convicts.

I heard from others after writing that post, including Brian Davis, host of an online Tate-LaBianca Radio Program, which airs on Sunday nights. I’ve listened to some episodes and they’re quite good.

Davis believes parts of Statman and Tate’s book is fabricated, something I’ll explore in a future post. There are a lot of blogs and other media on this case, including the Helter Skelter forum and Truth on Tate-LaBianca. CieloDrive.com has a comprehensive set of links to those sites at the bottom of its homepage. In visiting all these sites over the years, I’ve discovered that there’s a lot of fighting and disagreement between them.

People really rip into each other over what did and didn’t happen, and almost everyone claims to be an expert. It goes to show how much passion and obsession this case has generated over the years. It’s certainly been the object of my obsessiveness.

Along the way, I’ve learned that there are people so obsessed with the case that they try to make themselves part of the story. The most glaring example is the late Bill Nelson. This guy basically stalked members of the Manson family and befriended Doris Tate. There’s a great write-up about him on Eviliz’s Manson Family Blog. The Tate family had a falling out with Nelson after learning he was a convicted sex offender.

This interview he did with Doris probably didn’t help.

He asks her questions and mentions the most gory details of her daughter’s murder with no sensitivity or decency whatsoever. I admit that I’ve been obsessed with the case over the years. But, boy, am I grateful that I never got as bad as that guy.

Related Posts:

Helter Skelter

Slaying Old Fears in the Hollywood Hills

Posted on

“Rolling Stone” Bomber Cover Sparks Outrage, But Why?

Before I deliver what will surely be an unpopular opinion, let me note the following: The Boston Marathon bombings happened on my home turf. That day, I was sickened by the video replays, scenes of people without limbs and word that one of the victims was an 8-year-old boy. I was as full of satisfaction as everyone else a few nights later, when one of the bombers was hunted down and captured.

Mood music:

http://youtu.be/IN9REo4Le6g

Several friends were at the marathon that day, and one family from our kids’ school community left the finish line a few minutes before the bombs exploded. Yeah, I was effected to the core.

Now I’m waking up to find a lot of outrage online because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine, which features the face of Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the young monster who carried out the attack with his older brother. Much of the anger is over the way he looks: like a rock star or someone to be celebrated. One friend ran a picture of the cover next to another Rolling Stone cover featuring Jim Morrison to illustrate the point. Business Insider  hissed that the magazine portrayed Tsarnaev as a “dreamy heartthrob.”

Rolling Stone Cover

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Here’s mine: People are making a bigger deal of this than it deserves.

Though Rolling Stone is primarily known for its essays on celebrities, it also has a history of covering current events, including crime and war. Charles Manson once graced the cover with the headline, “The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive.” The articles almost always involve a lot of investigative reporting and detail, although there’s a political bias to the writing, as well.

Charles Manson Rolling Stone Cover

Tsarnaev does indeed look like a rock star on the cover. He’s got that long, black, curly hair and boyish face (he is, after all, still a kid, at least in my book). But the headline and summary make it clear that this is not an expos&eacute on a dreamy heartthrob: “The Bomber: How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed By His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.”

It’s natural for us to want the bad guys to be denied their media spotlight. After all, many times the bad guys crave the coverage. But when a kid like this tries to kill a bunch of people, it’s important to ask why. How does a young person turn into a monster?

No matter what we learn and what we do to steer kids in the right direction, we can’t prevent all of them from turning violent. But we can still try, and in the Boston case, it’s useful to look at the family history that produced two murderers.

That he looks like a rock star on the magazine cover is unfortunate. If the magazine used the surveillance photos or a picture of a bloody, wounded Tsarnaev, we probably wouldn’t have the outrage.

But in the bigger picture, I think the outrage is pain misdirected.

The messenger is delivering an unpopular story, and when that happens our first instinct is to shoot the messenger.

Posted on

Obsessing About Snowden Blinds Us From Bigger Truths

I’ve hestitated to write about Edward Snowden, the former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked details of top-secret mass surveillance programs to the press. People see him as either a hero or a traitor, but I’ve been conflicted.

Mood music:

http://youtu.be/VRXpL8mdgpQ

I used to fear everything and wanted the government to do everything possible to keep me safe, even if it meant giving up some liberty. I eventually got past the fear and now believe we must live life to the fullest, even if it means we’re not always safe. That part of me distrusts government and considers Snowden a hero for exposing how much spying the NSA does on its own citizens.

I also write about information security for a living and have many friends in government. I’ve seen the risks they take to secure us from terrorists and online attackers and how they’ve resisted the urge to talk about what they see because they believe it would damage the greater good. Snowden used to work among them and, by doing what he did, betrayed them. That part of me thinks Snowden is a traitor. His flight from the authorities only solidified that feeling.

Yesterday I decided to take a position one way or the other. I invited friends on Facebook and Twitter to weigh in, and found that half of those who responded think he’s a hero and the other half think he’s a traitor.

But the comments made me realize that by focusing on Snowden and the NSA, we’re distracting ourselves from bigger truths.

The important thing is what this story says about many of us Americans:

  • How we get obsessed with hero worship without considering all the supposed hero’s motives. Those of use who mistrust government are quick to raise people like Snowden on a pedestal, viewing him as a brave soul who exposed government’s evil side. But when you flee and pass on government secrets to countries like Russia and China, countries far more challenged in the freedom department than the U.S., are you really heroic?
  • How we crave scapegoats because it’s easier to scowl at a scapegoat than consider how we allowed the government to spiral out of control. After 9/11, we were so scared that we willingly allowed the government to enact overreaching laws like the PATRIOT Act. We’ve been paying for it ever since.
  • How we miss the forest for the trees. The larger lesson is that we could change things if we were willing to do the work.

We need to stop the blame game and look at what we must do as Americans to change things for the better.

We must be willing to hold political leaders accountable and stop reelecting the very politicians who vote to authorize more and more government control.

We must own up to the fact that we allowed the government to head down this path. If we’re outraged about the end result, we have to reexamine how much safety we’re willing to give up in the name of liberty and push the government in whatever direction we set. Then we have to keep our eyes on the road instead of falling asleep at the wheel.

I admit all that is easier said than done. Democracy is a messy thing. Good people have a bitch of a time reaching consensus. We’re all conflicted and challenged by personal demons every day, and it can be hard to overcome those things to give better government the effort necessary. We’re all busy with family and work, which usually leaves little time for anything else.

Change is hard. But if we want it that badly, we have to work for it.

Edward Snowden

Posted on

Paula Deen and the N-Word

I’m not a fan of cooking celebrity Paula Deen. When I first heard The Food Network fired Deen for using the N-word in the past, I figured she got what she deserved. But part of me feels sorry for her.

Here’s one of three apology videos she made:

http://youtu.be/tDOezlc52z0

According to various news reports, including an item in The Huffington Post, Deen’s troubles stem from her admission that she used the N-word in the past. She said so as an attorney  questioned her under oath last month. “Yes, of course,” Deen said. “[But] it’s been a very long time.” Deen and her brother, Bubba Hiers, are being sued by a former manager of their Savannah, Ga., restaurant — Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House — who is accusing them of racism. From the HuffPost article:

The ex-employee, Lisa Jackson, says she was sexually harassed and worked in a hostile environment rife with innuendo and racial slurs. During the deposition, Deen was peppered with questions about her racial attitudes. At one point she’s asked if she thinks jokes using the N-word are “mean.” Deen says jokes often target minority groups and “I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.” Deen also acknowledged she briefly considered hiring all black waiters for her brother’s 2007 wedding, an idea inspired by the staff at a restaurant she had visited with her husband. She insisted she quickly dismissed the idea.

If the accusations are true, Deen deserves the blow to her reputation, because it suggests she’s not being entirely truthful in that she and her family have no tolerance for racial slurs. But many of us would also be two-faced if we took joy in her predicament.

I’ve never cared about a person’s color, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. All that has ever mattered to me is that people be good to each other and live their lives with generous hearts. But as a young and stupid kid, I’d sometimes use the word for sheer shock value. It was the same attitude that made me think it would be cool to walk around wearing a Charles Manson T-shirt.

I went through a phase where I listened to a lot of angry hip-hop in which the artists used the N-word constantly. One of my favorites was Ice T’s band Body Count. This song gives you a pretty good idea of what unfolds throughout the album:

The songs were a reaction to how they dealt with racism, but my attitude was that if they used the N-word, I could. Racism never had anything to do with it.

Back then, I thought it was a big joke. In my drunken moments, I would play the most violent songs on the album (“Cop Killer” and “There Goes the Neighborhood”) and cackle myself blue. My attraction to that album illustrates what an angry person I was back then. I was spiritually adrift.

As I got older and matured, I got over it. Today, I hear the N-word and it makes me sick. I know the pain that word has caused so many good people, and it shames me that I once used it like it was nothing.

Having learned the lesson long ago, I can’t help but wonder if Paula Deen reached the same conclusion at some point — that racist language is intolerable. I hope so. The reaction against her is a sign that our society has become a lot more intolerant of racial hatred. It shows that society has evolved.

But we’re not done answering for the past.

In any event, I don’t her entire career should be destroyed over something she said decades ago, when a lot of us were using the same language.

Paula Deen

Posted on

If the Charges Are True, This Man Is a Monster

I tend to avoid the abortion issue, because it’s a no-win topic. But I’ve been following a murder trial recently that turns my stomach so severely that I can’t keep my mouth shut.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:21MwEJ8tHezcPy77BaELJ6]

The Catholic Church tends to label anyone who is against Roe v. Wade as being a baby killer. I don’t think the situation is that simple. I agree that abortion is wrong, tragic and evil. It disgusts me that some women choose to terminate a pregnancy because it’s inconvenient.

There are cases, however, when a pregnancy becomes a grave medical circumstance, such as when the mother’s life is in danger. This scenario is not abortion in my book; it’s a lost baby. And I’ve never met a person who was happy about losing a baby. They’re almost always devastated.

Yet the case of Kermit Gosnell is pretty straightforward. The Philadelphia abortion doctor is on trial for allegedly delivering live, screaming children and then snuffing them out. If the testimony of witnesses in this case are to be believed, and they seem pretty credible to me, this guy is a baby killer. He’s a monster who deserves a special place in Hell.

CNN paints the following picture:

A Pennsylvania doctor is accused of running a “house of horrors” in which he performed abortions past the 24-week limit allowed by law — even allegedly as late as eight months into pregnancy.

He used scissors, authorities say, to sever the spinal cords of newborns who emerged from their mothers still alive. …

Gosnell faces eight counts of murder: for the deaths of seven babies, and in the case of a 41-year-old woman who died of an anesthetic overdose during a second-trimester abortion.

The babies were born alive in the sixth, seventh and eighth months of pregnancy, but their spinal cords were severed with scissors.

This story has not made the front page much. Melinda Henneberger of The Washington Post offers a possible reason:

I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage.

That’s why I choose to write about this case today. This is a case study that forces us to look long and hard at our own positions. As disgusting as the details are, I think we need that look in the mirror sometimes.

If the charges are true, this man is a monster.
Kermit Gosnell

Posted on

Five Takeaways from Steubenville Rape Case

After taking in some of the outrage among friends over the seemingly sympathetic coverage CNN gave to two Steubenville, Ohio, teens convicted of raping a young girl, I decided to watch the specific report that generated all the fuss.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:4NOsHwVqjELCPWiY72bao5]

People are often conflicted over stories like this because the convicted are two kids who did what a lot of kids are capable of doing when they had too much booze. Reporters seemed heartbroken as one of the boys collapsed into the arms of his attorney after the guilty verdicts came down. “My life is over,” Ma’lik Richmond lamented to his lawyer. “No one will want me now.”

I just have a few points to make here:

  • While most kids have it in them to rape a classmate when they’re loaded, it’s usually a small minority of kids who go through with it. For that reason, I have trouble feeling sympathy for these boys. Teenagers know rape is evil. These kids knew what they were doing, drunk or not.
  • I don’t believe their lives are over. For starters, they’re getting off easy, spending one to two years in juvenile hall. True, they will forever be branded as sex offenders, but society will go easier on them because they were “stupid kids” at the time of their crime. They can absolutely turn their lives around and do something valuable, like standing up as examples of what kids should never do. They can go in schools across the country and help turn kids away from their darker instincts.
  • Feel badly for these boys if you must. But if you don’t feel a lot worse for the girl who was raped, there’s something wrong with you. She has been damaged far more than those boys will ever know. She’s the only victim in this case.
  • Feeling compassion for the convicted is all well and good. After all, no one should be happy that two teenagers are being locked away. But they did a crime and must be punished.
  • Don’t let the booze factor cloud your mind. The boys may have been drunk, but they still knew right from wrong and chose wrong. And, for the love of God, don’t you dare suggest the girl had it coming because she was blasted. I don’t care how a woman dresses or how drunk she is. No one ever deserves to be raped.

In this case the justice system worked. It’s an unhappy thing. But it’s the right thing.

rape case

Posted on

Sex Change Outrage: Should We Pay for Convict’s Operation?

There are a lot of good people out there who deal with brutal medical situations that make them outcasts. There’s the depression I’ve covered extensively here. And there are things like being transgender. But if you’re behind bars for murder, should taxpayers be paying for your treatment?

Mood music:

[spotify:track:44XvCIXl5rqHGAWcAS2I2i]

Depression is a simpler example. If antidepressants can make a convict well enough to better serve the prison community where he or she is doing time, I’m for it. Maybe their crimes were so bad they should never get out. But if taxpayer-funded treatment means they can become well enough to counsel inmates who aren’t there for life, it’s a win in my book. At the least, it’s better to put them to work keeping the prison running than to let them take up space as useless blobs.

When the convict is transgender and wants a sex change, the picture gets a lot muddier. Take the case of Michelle Kosilek, a convicted murderer formerly known as Robert Kosilek.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf recently ordered state prison officials to provide Kosilek — serving a life sentence for killing his wife in 1990 — with a taxpayer-funded sex change. Wolf ruled that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s “serious medical need.” In his 126-page ruling, the judge said, “The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.”

Check out Boston.com for more details on the case.

I’ve seen a lot of outrage over this in the usual online places (Facebook, etc.). At first, I was a little outraged. This guy made a choice to receive the hormonal treatments that have helped him become a transgender being. Should we taxpayers be paying for his personal choice to become a woman?

Like depression, being a transgender can debilitate the inmate, which means he’s not doing what we tend to picture prisoners doing, such as making license plates and mopping floors. Wouldn’t it be better to “cure” Kosilek and put him (or her) to work?

I’m having trouble seeing how this medical problem was beyond Kosilek’s control. He chose to become a woman. But the more I think about it, the more I remember that many medical conditions are the result of the choices we make. Many heart conditions started with the sufferer choosing to eat junk and smoke. If you have something like Hepatitis C, there’s a decent chance it came from the dirty needle you chose to stick in your arm.

Kosilek chose to become a woman and got hormonal treatments. Now he’s trapped between two sexes, an outcast. Of course, he became an outcast the day he decided to murder his wife.

In the final analysis, society has a choice to make.

Either we accept that the prison system runs on taxpayer dollars and, as such, inmates must receive free treatment for whatever ails them, or we decide prisoners really should rot to death in their cells.

I lean toward the first scenario. People end up in prison for many reasons. Some are rehabilitated and go on to rejoin and contribute to the good of society. Some will never get out but are too mentally gone to know right from wrong.

But the bigger issue is that American justice is supposed to be rooted in compassion. If someone murders another person, we can deny the murderer freedom for life. But as a compassionate society, we should also take care of them when they have medical problems, even if the problem sprung from bad choices.

Maybe it’s not fair. But doing the right thing isn’t always a matter of fairness.

pixel.gif (1×1) Kosilek

Posted on

Exeter Hospital: Stop Making Excuses and Test Employees for Hepatitis C

An open letter to New Hampshire’s Exeter Hospital.

To Whom It May Concern:

You may find the outrage I’m about to unleash unfair. But the Hepatitis C scare caused by your lax security has threatened someone I love and thousands of others. I spent my childhood in and out of the hospital, getting stuck with needles weekly and sometimes daily. I had a blood transfusion in the 1970s, before blood was tested for AIDS contamination, so I know the fear many of your patients feel right now.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:3eKXd8eSlzMbvg94EPVmQE]

I just read about your clash with state health officials over whether some of your employees should be tested for Hepatitis C along with thousands of your patients. The state is worried that more than one employee was involved in your outbreak because another patient contracted Hep C even though that patient had a procedure at the hospital prior to David Kwiatkowski working there.

State officials are practicing the due diligence you failed to practice when your lax procedures made it easier for Kwiatkowski to steal drugs and leave contaminated needles behind — needles that were then used on your patients. You cite your employees’ right to privacy, which is pathetic. Your first responsibility is to your patients and employees, protecting both from being infected and taking care of them if they become so.

You’re probably thinking, “Who is this jerk to criticize us? We’re the hospital that blew the whistle on Kwiatkowski when hospitals across the country had failed to contact the police after he was caught doing the same thing in their facilities.”

I do give you credit for blowing the whistle, and I agree this isn’t just about your hospital. The entire system failed to protect the public from this monster. Hopefully, this will lead to better reporting in and more cooperation between all states.

That doesn’t absolve you of all responsibility. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services found that you “failed to follow standard procedures for preventing the abuse of powerful narcotics administered by staff,” according to an Exeter Patch article. Their investigation found that drugs were not secured to prevent theft by employees who should not have had access to them, among other violations. Your president and CEO, Kevin J. Callahan, failed to apologize for this when he was busy writing a letter to the editor about how proud he was of his institution’s response to the crisis.

Now you balk at the state’s plan to test other employees because of their right to privacy? Give me a break. What about their health?

As I sit here waiting to learn if my relative has Hepatitis C or not, the last thing on my mind is the privacy of your employees. Do I think most of them are excellent at what they do and free of blame here? Absolutely.

But when there’s a danger of Hepatitis C spreading further, you have to stop complaining and roll up your sleeves.

For the sake of your patients and your employees, let state health officials do their job.

Sincerely,

Bill Brenner

Kwiatkowski Exeter Hospital Mashup

Posted on

Nikki Sixx, Michael Jackson and Pedophiles, Part 2

Last year, Mötley Crüe bassist Nikki Sixx created a Twitter shitstorm when he opined about Michael Jackson being an alleged pedophile. At the time, I wrote a blog post about it being a fascinating case study in human nature. This week marks the third anniversary of Jackson’s death, and the case study has taken an interesting turn.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:1S3Bc6pVYOmzad7d1WiQO7]

I knew something was up when my post from last year started getting a ton of traffic. I also started getting fresh comments on the post, all of it defending Jackson and panning Mötley Crüe’s chief songwriter. So I explored Google and found another interesting Twitter exchange, this time between Jackson’s daughter, Paris, and Sixx.

Jackson sent him this tweet: “Heyy quick question dude – and this is coming from a huge fan of motley crue – but why do u feel the need to hate on talented ppl [people]?”

To which Sixx replied: “Hello parisJackson. My snarky humor and sarcasm sometimes gets the best of me. I sincerely apologize to you and your family. God Bless.”

According to published reports, she accepted his apology and he invited her to come on his radio show. “If ya ever wanna come on SixxSense and talk about what Your working on would love [to] have you on,” he tweeted.

I had forgotten about my post from last year, so I went back and read it. It mostly stands the test of time in terms of how I feel about the subject. I think Jackson did a lot of good in his life but that the cloud hanging over him was hard to dismiss.

True, he was never convicted of being a pedophile, but the reports of what went on in his home still make me uneasy.

Watching a childhood friend become a pedophile definitely colored my reaction to the Sixx-Jackson controversy. But I fully admit that I’m basing my views on all the things that were reported in the media. For all I know, everything that happened behind closed doors was harmless. The media has a long history of getting it wrong.

I still find it curious how the masses were ready to tear Jackson down at the time of the allegations yet conveniently forgot about all them when he died. I guess we all suffer from varying degrees of hypocrisy.

One thing’s for certain: Nikki Sixx seems to have had a change of heart — at least in how he chose to give his opinion on the King of Pop.

I’m glad Paris Jackson challenged Sixx the way she did. And I’m glad he apologized.

Nikkie Sixx