Hbwriter - I really appreciate your article and your point of view, however how can we know that what Keith thought of him is unfair from your meeting with him for all of two minutes?

HisMajesty - very eloquently put - i've received some notes today, leaning more toward this point of view - of course, I've also been attacked for even bringing this up, for daring to even question the self proclaimed "Riff Master" - that's the apologist's point of view and it's easy to spot

Quote
mattty973
Hbwriter - I really appreciate your article and your point of view, however how can we know that what Keith thought of him is unfair from your meeting with him for all of two minutes?

it has nothing to do with HOW LONG HBwriter "knew" Cantrell.......it has to do with
a 66 year old man being so petty as to call a troubled teen that supposedly killed himself..."a prick".
The point is Keith's callousness 30yrs later....which (to me) adds suspicion to the SC "suicide" event.

Sorry if Keith's halo is falling off.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 21:18 by sweet neo con.

Quote
mattty973
Hbwriter - I really appreciate your article and your point of view, however how can we know that what Keith thought of him is unfair from your meeting with him for all of two minutes?
---

Matty - thanks for reading but where on earth did I write that? I never connected those two things - they are completely separate - in fact, I think I even say I "had no idea" what was taking place in the house - my story is simply one of coincidence- my issue is the grossly harsh treatment of a dead teenager by Keith Richards - the fact that I met the teenager - and that he seemed like a good kid - is just another view - and since nobody in the free world was taking issue with what Keith/Marlon said, I thought this view simply served as some interesting context - could Scott Cantrell have been a drug crazed potential killer? Maybe--but why was a 7 year old the only one to sense trouble?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 21:44 by hbwriter.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
mattty973
Hbwriter - I really appreciate your article and your point of view, however how can we know that what Keith thought of him is unfair from your meeting with him for all of two minutes?

it has nothing to do with HOW LONG HBwriter "knew" Cantrell.......it has to do with
a 66 year old man being so petty as to call a troubled teen that supposedly killed himself..."a prick".
The point is Keith's callousness 30yrs later....which (to me) adds suspicion to the SC "suicide" event.

Sorry if Keith's halo is falling off.

Did he ever had a halo? it all falls in line with Keith anyway. in the same book he's also saying Brian was an a-s-s-hole. and he was his own band member and one-time mate. Still it doesn't bother me at all in either case (Cantrell or Brian), sorry. I much prefer Keith write it as he sees it, which it seems he did. Again, the minimal investigation on Anita is the only thing that bothers me about this.

I have several knocks on Keith in regards to the book. Firstly is his lack of material on Bill and Charlie. They are barely mentioned throughout. And secondly is his failure to mention the Lennon killing, which I know had a deep impact on Keith. This didn't cause me to dislike the book however ... I still love what's in there, I just think he left out so much more.

Erk, dunno about others, but I'm even pissing myself off with my own anti Keith stuff. It might be deserved, but there has to come a point where you just accept them for what they are and carry on enjoying(or not!) what you musically like about them despite the faults you see in them as people!

Been through it before when I discovered Brian's liking for beating up women etc. Wasn't too cool to find that out, but damn, he played some good shit!

In Keith's own words, Talk is Cheap and I'm really wary of destroying my own and other peoples enjoyment of their music... Too much negativity can do that!

*shrugs shoulders*

Quote
LeonidP
Did he ever had a halo?

ok..that might be true. but you get my point.
there are some people here that think Keith can do no wrong.....or will
find ways to excuse his behavior. howabout....his "man of the year" award is in jeopardy.


IORR............but I like it!

His Majesty
"The book is a blessing in that it reveals what he's really like, probably unintentionally... "
---

HM--the more I think about this the more interesting a premise it becomes - I'd come to sort of see a "soulful sage" Keith of the last decade or so - - the mellowed gunslinger - in that case - "Life" would have been the perfect place to address this death with a simple nod to the family about how tragic the loss of a young person is, regardless of the circumstances - but that's not who he is obviously - that's, I guess, what I found so disappointing about the book - the inherent meanness that bleeds through from time to time - none worse than this graceless example though, if you ask me



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 22:07 by hbwriter.

Thanks hbwriter, for sharing this.

I need to admit that by the time I got to that part of the book I was so so sick and tired, or even immune, to Keith's moronic tough boy John Wayne antics that it almost skipped out of my attention. Thanks for showing the human side and the true tragedy of it.

- Doxa

There's a lot of things that I would question about Keith's character -- and I mean a lot! First off, I've never been into guns/weapons etc. And Keith's disposition along with drug use makes this even more irresponsible. And add to it that he had his 7/8 year-old son with him!! As for Keith being petty, calling Scott a 'prick', I didn't even go for the explanation of how angry I would be at someone doing that in the house of my child -- think of the danger he put that kid in just by having a loaded weapon! But how could that be the basis of Keith's anger since Keith also carried a loaded weapon in the presence of his own kid.

And how about that Keith just casually justifies, with a sentence in the book, how he gave up his daughter to live with his mom? Because of his lifestyle, being on the road etc. he said that she was better off! Well then why wasn't Marlon similarly better off? And how about changing your lifestyle a bit so that you can raise your own daughter!!??

And how can a person you know from a couple years (Graham Parsons) get so much more book time than either Bill or Charlie, guys you knew for 40/50 years?

You can go on and on. Keith is not a great person, there's no doubt about it. But to me, the best bios are ones that hold nothing back. From my reading it seems like Keith let it all out, whether it was criticism, praise, financial details, relationships, it's all there! I am still fascinated by this man - writer of so many songs that I love, and with a lifestyle that, although I would never attempt, still intrigues me a great deal. The more I read about him, the more I love it! Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least.

Look at it this way, at least he didn't call him a small prick.

The guy was sleeping with his wife. It would stick in my craw for a long time too.

Doxa- thanks for the ever-predictable ray of sensible light
-
as i've said, i do like the book for the mere fact that it's a huge amount of stone-related information with a first person lens - but i hear you and many others have expressed similar feelings to me about the perceived "boorishness"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 22:12 by hbwriter.

Quote
Doxa
Thanks hbwriter, for sharing this.

I need to admit that by the time I got to that part of the book I was so so sick and tired, or even immune, to Keith's moronic tough boy John Wayne antics that it almost skipped out of my attention. Thanks for showing the human side and the true tragedy of it.

- Doxa

Keith's wife Patti must be so proud.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 22:13 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
with sssoul
>> he's in the process of trying to track Cantrell's family down for a full feature <<

... is there some aim to that exercise, other than giving a journalist something to root around in?

not a big fan of so-called journalism these days...but what's wrong with looking for the truth (or at least more info).

had Scotty been your son, you'd probably welcome that "exercise".

Just wondering. But where was his family when he was mixed up with Keith and ANita. What were the circumstances that led a 17 yr old to lead that type of lifestyle?

found this too






IORR............but I like it!

thanks, SNC-so Marlon's age was actually 9 when the shooting happened - not 10 like it says here or 7 as reflected in the local newspaper report - I had them edit the article - it makes his recollection even more interesting - at 9 (to be 10 the next month) why would he have not flagged someone making death threats in the house toward his father?

another interesting link - when Keith moved in to the neighborhood in 1977 - this was the People cover piece - the PR was that he had cleaned up - a new man - "No Longer Rolling Stoned" -

[www.people.com]

snc- that supermarket shot is ironic- remember the bit i mentioned to you about how they asked her to leave market back then because she was smoking?

All - just found this - this is a public post a few years ago (not on this site) from Scott Cantrell's sister - I think it's very interesting in view of this thread discussion - pay attention to how she describes Scott/Marlon's relationship

"I happen to be the sister of the young man, Scott Cantrell who was just 17 years old when he died; who was having an intimate affair with Anita who was 36 years old at the time.
My brother lived between my parents house. my mother resided in a neighborhood where Marlon, Anita and Keith Richards eldest child was left with a baby sitter on a daily basis.
My brother coming from a broken family himself befriended Marlon, took him fishing, hung out with him, cared about him. That was his initial contact with Anita. Being a rather free spirit himself, at 6foot 5 inches he was very handsome and rather cocky but gentle young man, fearless though and trusting.
He fell in love with Anita, she would call him at my fathers house looking for him, their affair went on for @ 9 months. He moved into her home offically @ April of 1979 where Jeff Sessler and Makenzie Phillips lived with Anita and Marlon.
The week before he died they were trying to get rid of him. They, I say they, two men in a black car with tinted windows drove him to my fathers house in Norwalk, CT to leave him but the house was locked (as he tried to make the people dropping him off see as he went around and checked the doors). Again that same week either the day he was shot or the day before they came again and the same thing happened. (Per neighbors reports)
Beleive me if my brother wanted in the house he knew how to get in. They were trying to get rid of him and he loved her (Anita, he told me he loved her at Easter that year) and he didn't want to be disposed of.
The night that he was shot Jeff Sessler and Makenzie Phillips (who was Jeffs' wife at the time) said that they had brought food and wine upstairs, to my brother and Anita, who were in her bedroom. Marlon was there but nothing was mentioned about him. I don't even think he was questioned after my brother died.
Anita said that she got up off the bed to "tidy up the room" and she heard a "click" than the gun went off. She said she moved the gun from the bed to her dresser because "she was afraid of it" and my brother laid sideways on the bed gasping for air. He was shot in the back of his head, behind his right ear and the bullet exited out the top of his head.
I write this now , 28 years later because I want the truth to be known. My brother was not a saint, he was handsome, fun, mature for his age as he had lived most of his young life away at private schools. He was not suicidal. The reason they ruled it a suicide was for two reasons. 1. My mother had committed suicide 9 months earlier in a little town near by and the police were very aware of that. 2. My brother was alive when they came to the house to transport him. The whole scene was contaminated by EMTS and family and police. You have to remember back in 1979 South Salem was just a blink of the eye place. Very rural. I think even the rescue crews were volunteers. People didn't die like that around there. Even my mother, died by carbon minoxide poisoning.
I don't know if you will print this, but it is easy to contact the N.Y. state police or medical examiners office to check it out. The case in closed so all of the records are public.
At the time we had as they call it now paparazzi all over us. Our boring little dysfunctional family who lived between Maine and CT at the time. Reporters, journalist called my other brother, myself and my dad from all over the world. They were there the day of his funeral and would have loved to have taken pictures of him lying in his coffin but we had a private affair and it was my choice to have him creamated.
Not one of those people cared about my brother. How fun he was or how much life he had in front of him. All he was to them was a story.
I went to the Richards estate when I arrived in N.Y. from Maine @ 12 hours after he died and Jeff Sessler and Makenzie Phillips met me at the door and would not let me in. All I wanted to do was to see where my brother had been shot and to get his things and to have someone talk to me about what had happened. I thought that anyone who really cared about him would at least talk to his family and tell us about the last night of his life. But..... Anita was gone (rumoured to the Silver Hill Foundation in New Canaan) and the furniture was gone. They had started to move out it seems the minute the ambulance pulled out of their driveway.
The day of my brothers' funeral, when we had his service a reporter came to the split rail fence at my fathers house and handed me my brothers boots and a fringed leather jacket. He said he had gone to the South Salem estate of the Richardsons and someone there gave them to him. I never knew who he was but I will always be grateful to him that he did that becaue that jacket smelled like my brother and is the last memory I have of him.
This is hard to write without emotion and I don't have at my hand the references but I know you can look back to July 18-22 1979 and read about it and as you already know the Rolling Stones have acknowledged the fact that my brother, Scott Robert Cantrell died at his own hand in some of the subsequent publications written about them. I have never resigned to my memory the date Scott died or the night he was shot. Just that it was after his 17th birthday which was on July 7, 1962.
Sincerely and with the fondest memories I write this for my brother who is still missed at his favorite time of the year!"
-----
I wish someone would show this to Keith Richards

Quote
hbwriter
thanks, SNC-so Marlon's age was actually 9 when the shooting happened - not 10 like it says here or 7 as reflected in the local newspaper report - I had them edit the article - it makes his recollection even more interesting - at 9 (to be 10 the next month) why would he have not flagged someone making death threats in the house toward his father?

c'mon hb, you can't be serious ... my son is now 10 years old and i wouldn't expect him to know enough to go to someone if such a threat were made. i'm still trying to get him to memorize our street address! kids as old as 14 & 15 (like Elizabeth Smart, for example) have been known to be in situations where they could easily flag someone down and are too scared to act on it.

Leonid--you were the one saying that at 7 he may have had vivid memories of death threats- i'd argue, that once that kid become indoctrinated and was put to work as he was as a conduit for his father while on the road- that this was no mere 10 year old - that this was a kid who grew up with adults and functioned older than his years - and that if he remembers his hatred so vividly today--of course he would have done something -

but i do digress because I think it's a load of crap what Marlon suggests--there were adults living there all the time - if what Marlon says is true - that Scott was constantly saying he was going to kill Keith - someone else would have been aware of it - and if you tell me that little Marlon was the only one made privy to it and he was too scared to speak- this is a kid who admits sneaking a peek of brain matter on the walls- he's playing to his father's narrative it appears

look what Scott's sister wrote: "My brother coming from a broken family himself befriended Marlon, took him fishing, hung out with him, cared about him. That was his initial contact with Anita."

If this is true, it sounds like Keith may have been pissed off that someone was acting like an actual father to his son while he was screwing other women and shooting up

Leonid--love the music, fine--we all do - always will - but why defend (or make excuses) for these people's ghoulish personal behavior? You wrote in a previous post: "Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."

seriously??



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 00:53 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
Leonid--you were the one saying that at 7 he may have had vivid memories of death threats-

yes, and that's also from my own experience of my own memories ... still MUCH different then expecting that a 9/10 year-old would know enough to report that someone is threatening to shoot somebody! Even so, it is highly possible the dude just said it to be a 'prick' and didn't mean it -- and even if he meant it would you really think that if Marlon told Anita (and maybe he did) that Scott wouldn't convince her that he was joking? You are really stretching this with assumptions about the way kids would/should react, imo.

Quote
hbwriter
thanks, SNC-so Marlon's age was actually 9 when the shooting happened - not 10 like it says here or 7 as reflected in the local newspaper report - I had them edit the article - it makes his recollection even more interesting - at 9 (to be 10 the next month) why would he have not flagged someone making death threats in the house toward his father?

hbwriter, you know more about the history than I do, but how, in that household, could Marlon have "flagged" this with any prospect of anything getting done about it? Would anyone have taken him seriously? Were the threats indeed serious, or just nasty remarks made to "wind up" a kid who took them for more than they were? Marlon is recalling what he felt and believed as a 9-year-old - you appear to be judging his actions as you would judge an adult in that situation.

Leonid-- Marlon was telling hotel maids (according to him) to "@#$%& off" at age 8 - saying the same thing to people that tried to wake his father up - so is it too hard a leap that he wouldn't flag it if someone was threatening his father's life? (pg 383)

we're not talking "kids" here and how normal children react or behave - - we're talking Marlon Richards- a kid that was abused beyond what I'm sure most of us care to imagine - he lived in an adult world his whole life -

so yeah, i stand by what i say - if we're to rely on Marlon Richards for evidence , then let's take it all the way - (though like i said, I think he is full of crap and is making stuff to aid his father's myth - that seems to be the family business now - propping up the Riff Master)

oh - and from pg 386

Keith: "There's no question that losing a child is the worst thing that can ever happen - which is why I wrote to Eric Clapton when his son died."

Really? Does the same apply to Scott Cantrell? Guess not -

Leo--you ignored my question: You wrote in a previous post: "Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."

seriously??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 01:00 by hbwriter.

Marlon is recalling what he felt and believed as a 9-year-old - you appear to be judging his actions as you would judge an adult in that situation.
--GreenLady -

we should back up here -

1. A lot of this discussion is in response to people that seem to want to make excuses for Keith and his family - my argument all along is that if Marlon wants to make such exact statements, it calls a few things into question

2. I do not believe Marlon's account based on this - in part because of his young age - however, by his own storytelling , he was no ordinary 10 year old - he dealt with dealers, hookers, hangers on, junkies etc - he babysat his father - he told adults to "@#$%& off" regularly - so it might be fair to reason that had this really been happening - he may have mouthed off, punk that he was (or claimed to be) but this is all conjecture on all of our parts -

3. I also doubt Marlon's account because Keith was everyone's meal ticket and if a genuine threat existed in the house, as prevalent as marlon makes it sound, everyone would have known it and done something about it.

4. As well, Marlon says he was "relieved" when Scott killed himself - so terrible and tortuous was he. How bad would it had to have been for a 9 year old to be relieved that this young man blew his brains out? Does anyone really believe Marlon on this? That he had built up such rage and resent at the "abuse" he suffered from Scott Cantrell as he describes it that he'd be actually "relieved" at this horror? those are *his* words- not mine

4. I also do not believe Marlon's account because i believe Scott Cantrell's sister - an adult at the time of her recollection - that Cantrell was like a big brother to him and took care of him - but Marlon can't cop to that for risk of crossing Keith. In case you missed her words up there: "My mother resided in a neighborhood where Marlon, Anita and Keith Richards eldest child was left with a baby sitter on a daily basis. My brother coming from a broken family himself befriended Marlon, took him fishing, hung out with him, cared about him. That was his initial contact with Anita." If this is true, it sounds like Keith may have been pissed off that someone was acting like an actual father to his son while he was screwing other women and shooting up

5. In my opinion, Scott Cantrell is being demonized because it allows Keith some more sinister chest thumping- Marlon no doubt feeds off that, and adds to the idea that this kid 'had it coming' - an "idiot" Marlon calls him. This is basic- Marlon is doing what many sons do - exactly what they think their fathers expect of them

6. Scott's sister's words are very key here - what reason would she have to lie? Her family felt this way the day after the death happened - and they are on record with their suspicions - this is FIRST we've EVER heard from Keith and Marlon - and Anita has NEVER said anything - so 30 years later - they're thinking this intensely about it? With such angry detail? Where has it been til now? (How convenient. )

Who do you believe- the Cantrells or the Richards? That's what it comes down to . It seems obvious to me Keith/Marlon cooked up this version of the narrative to fit tight with the current Keith Richards branding efforts - so Scott becomes a "crazy little kid - absolute prick" (Keith) and "very dark-a really nasty kid-just an idiot" (Marlon)

I'll stick with my original thesis - that the attitude is cowardly and utterly without shame..

again - pg 386
Keith: "There's no question that losing a child is the worst thing that can ever happen..."

unless of course, he's a "prick"



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 02:00 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
snc- that supermarket shot is ironic- remember the bit i mentioned to you about how they asked her to leave market back then because she was smoking?

yes..that's the first thing i thought of...


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
LeonidP
I think memories definitely change & alter over most things, but when something has an impact, you just never forget, even remembering exact details (I remember every detail of getting hit by a car while riding my bike, or like when I was only 4, I remember my younger sister almost choking to death on a piece of hard candy and my mom turning her upside down and banging on her back until it came out).

That's not true with everyone. Everybody's different. Some remember traumatic events, others don't. I almost drowned twice when I was a kid, and I only have very vague broadstrokes of both. A tornado hit our house when when I was around four. I have no recollection of it at all. My sister, who is four years older than me, says she's still freaked out when she thinks about it. And we shared a room at that time, so we obviously had a very similar experience. Apparently, there was suction in our room that prevented us from opening the door at first, which scared the crap out of my sister. I have no memory of this at all.

I know little of Marlon other than he is a very intelligent, stable person, despite the extreme chaos of his childhood. I trust his memory, but he was still a kid. Memories 30 years ago from childhood tend to be fuzzier than memories 30 years ago from your twenties. None of us were there, and we don't know what was said or in what context. And even people with the sharpest of memories can be wrong. If all Keith knows of Scott Cantrell is from meeting him briefly, and what Marlon told him (and possibly Anita too), which apparently wasn't good, then it's understandable he wouldn't have a high opinion of him. And lord knows what sort of negative garbage crazy ass Anita may have put in the poor kid's head about Keith, who, whether Scott liked the Stones or not, was still probably an overwhelming entity to such a young person.

HB, If Keith was around Scott after Anita spent time with him/what Marlon said, there's no telling what Scott's attitude was towards Keith (and vice-versa), so maybe he did only know the kid to be a prick. That could account for the difference between Scott's pleasant demeanor the day you met him, and Keith's less than stellar opinion of him. Whether he ended up suicidal or not, based on his sister's story, I think it's obvious Scott was going through a very hard time, and 17 is still a very impressionable, formative age. The whole scene was likely overwhelming to him. Throw in Anita's probable head games, and you've got a cocktail of disaster brewing. Especially if Anita's drugs were involved. An older, crazy, drug-addled woman, having an affair with a kid whose family has fallen apart and doesn't know his place in the world, mixed together with very possible drug use. Not good.

I would rather Keith speak candidly about this incident than not at all and/or completely whitewash it. But, I don't understand why he has to speak so insultingly about Scott. He could have easily said he was only around him a little, and it wasn't pleasant. But to speak like he does about a kid, who was obviously caught in the middle of something much bigger than himself, is uncalled for. He could have been much more diplomatic, while still remaining just as honest and candid. Some private thoughts are best left private. Considering his age, and what Scott said about his father, Marlon gets a pass. But Keith was old enough to know better, then and now.

I think Keith is a bit of a prick. And a still rather immature one at that.

Just wondering. But where was his family when he was mixed up with Keith and ANita. What were the circumstances that led a 17 yr old to lead that type of lifestyle?
--

Sweetcharmedlife - if you read his sister's account which I posted above - his home was broken/dysfunctional as well - him mom had just committed suicide several months before - so it seems like a perfect storm - a lost teenager gets taken in/seduced by a beguiling woman and her gypsy lifestyle - 20 years older than him - (today she'd probably be arrested for being involved with a minor)

It was clearly the worst of all worlds - the sister claims he was shot in the *back* of the head (and living up there then - few people bought the russian roulette story - it just seemed too "neat" for many - this was discussed for years up in South Salem/Bedford etc)

But it's ancient history now - my point in the article remains - why go after this kid now with so little to back it up in the fog of that strange world they had up there? why go out of your way to destroy someone's memory like this? (to anyone here - if it seems like i'm overstating this - please just put yourselves in his families place for a moment)

Wow...that piece from Cantrell's sister is amazing. Thanks for finding it and posting it.
I believe the bit about Scott taking Marlon under his wing..fishing etc...and I believe her
about 2 guys in the black car trying to get rid of Scott too. (there's no reason to doubt her story at all)

Re: Entry & Exit wounds.....even though it might physically be possible to hold
the gun on the back of your head so that your brains come out your forehead...i have
my suspicions..not about that fact...but that it was suicide. Lots of reasons to doubt suicide.

Re: HB says "It seems obvious to me Keith/Marlon cooked up this version of the narrative to fit tight with the current Keith Richards branding efforts - so Scott becomes a "crazy little kid - absolute prick" (Keith) and "very dark-a really nasty kid-just an idiot" (Marlon)"

I agree...not only does it benefit them to have a consistent story..it benefits MARLON more
to stay in the family WILL. If Marlon had said - he treated me like a little brother etc...
contradicting his Dad. Look out Marlon! And lets face it...if your Dad tells you some neighborhood
kid is a jerk or whatever enough times....over a period of time, one might be persuaded...whether its true or not.

Would you agree that Keith HAD TO address the story to some degree because had it been
left out completely it might generate even more speculation?


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 02:21 by sweet neo con.

Quote
hbwriter
Leonid-- Marlon was telling hotel maids (according to him) to "@#$%& off" at age 8 - saying the same thing to people that tried to wake his father up - so is it too hard a leap that he wouldn't flag it if someone was threatening his father's life? (pg 383)

we're not talking "kids" here and how normal children react or behave - - we're talking Marlon Richards- a kid that was abused beyond what I'm sure most of us care to imagine - he lived in an adult world his whole life -

so yeah, i stand by what i say - if we're to rely on Marlon Richards for evidence , then let's take it all the way - (though like i said, I think he is full of crap and is making stuff to aid his father's myth - that seems to be the family business now - propping up the Riff Master)

It really comes off to me like you have some hidden agenda here. We KNOW what Marlon says that Scott said to him. Yet you are so unsure about that. But for some reason you seem so sure about how he would react if it really was said. Seriously??

You state:
===============================
Keith: "There's no question that losing a child is the worst thing that can ever happen - which is why I wrote to Eric Clapton when his son died."

Really? Does the same apply to Scott Cantrell? Guess not -
===============================

Now I am really starting to question your judgement big time. You really have some delusional expectation that Keith should feel the same about this character, who was banging his wife, and 'supposedly' told his son that he was going to shoot Keith (even if you doubt it, I am sure Keith believes him), that he should feel about his own son? Just WOW!


===============================
Leo--you ignored my question: You wrote in a previous post: "Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."

seriously??
===============================

Actually I didn't notice that before, sorry. But yes.