Busted Trousers - thanks so much - I appreciate (and for the most part) agree with each thing you said.

One tiny thing - "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."

Keith says himself he "met" him - Marlon says Keith "met" him - it doesn't seem anyway like he spent more than a moment to make his opinion - i think if he had, that would have been in the book - vs. just saying he "met" him. He would After 1978, Keith wasn't really there anyway- the stones toured - then started recording - Scott only came in there the spring of 79

also - Keith describes him as a "crazy little kid" - he was a strapping giant of *6 foot five* - i don't trust anything Keith or Marlon says on this at all - it all feels made up to me



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 03:02 by hbwriter.

Let me just say that my love for the music that Keith Richards helped to create, will be with me till the end of my time here in this world.
But, as a human being Keith Richards,to me, is just a bitter old man,who deserves no respect,the story of this kid Scott Cantrell only 17 years old ,who was shot and killed in Keith's own bed,under very unclear circumstances, and Keith 30 years later still insulting the memory of him by calling him a "prick", really makes me vomit.
l mean if some of you feel good about defending Keith. Good for you.
But, please read Scott's sister account and perhaps you may see things in a different way.
Chris, Thanks for bringing this story up, with all the hoopla about Keith and his book,and his macho grandstanding with a reporter over a show review that he didn't like, giveaways, etc.
The story of Scott Cantrell had been forgotten till now. THANK YOU.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Leonid--my "hidden agenda" must be taking on the apologists that make up excuse after excuse for this sort of crap - other than that I think I have been very forthright

and yes i find it ridiculously hypocritical to lament how tough it is to lose a child while calling another dead child an "absolute prick" - the difference is - you believe what Keith says about it - I don't - like i said - I think it's obvious he and marlon cooked up the narrative to support this ridiculous "tough guy" swagger - I don't think he cares about Anita - because she was with other guys around then as well - as i point out earlier - if there's one thing Keith hates about this kid Cantrell, it's perhaps that he acted like a father to Marlon - or at least a big brother - doing things a real father would have done - that's based on what Scott's sister said -

Keith called her brother an "absolute prick", so I can only imagine what he reserves for her - but i'm sure you're cool with that - after all, this is "Keith"

Quote
hbwriter
Leonid--my "hidden agenda" must be taking on the apologists that make up excuse after excuse for this sort of crap - other than that I think I have been very forthright

and yes i find it ridiculously hypocritical to lament how tough it is to lose a child while calling another dead child an "absolute prick" - the difference is - you believe what Keith says about it - I don't - like i said - I think it's obvious he and marlon cooked up the narrative to support this ridiculous "tough guy" swagger - I don't think he cares about Anita - because she was with other guys around then as well - as i point out earlier - if there's one thing Keith hates about this kid Cantrell, it's perhaps that he acted like a father to Marlon - or at least a big brother - doing things a real father would have done - that's based on what Scott's sister said -

Keith called her brother an "absolute prick", so I can only imagine what he reserves for her - but i'm sure you're cool with that - after all, this is "Keith"

Note that you are stating you don't believe Keith or Marlon, actually implying they were in cahoots in concocting this info for the book -- yet you seem to be so quick to believe the sister of Scott Cantrell.

Quote
hbwriter
...I'd referenced in the "Life" thread last week that I had a piece coming out that addressed something in the book that I found questionable - it's linked below
...

Amazing you didn't quote what I'd already wrote in your older thread from 2008
here page 2 on November 18, 2010, I was the first to try to get some more explanations from this sad story.

IORR

No more comments...just next time try to do it, you could have missed your own thread after all !

HMN

Quote
ROPENI
... and Keith 30 years later still insulting the memory of him by calling him a "prick", really makes me vomit.
l mean if some of you feel good about defending Keith. Good for you.

I never defended it. I am saying it doesn't bother me, and I can see it from his point of view. He was a rock star and regular user of hard drugs, with a gangster like attitude. I am amazed you expected him to react any differently.

Quote

But, please read Scott's sister account and perhaps you may see things in a different way.
Chris, Thanks for bringing this story up, with all the hoopla about Keith and his book,and his macho grandstanding with a reporter over a show review that he didn't like, giveaways, etc.
The story of Scott Cantrell had been forgotten till now. THANK YOU.

I've read it. She lost her brother, how do you think she should feel. And of course she questions what happens - no one wants to believe their relative committed suicide. Hell, even I question it, and think it was more likely that Anita shot him. Still I am not sure of the whole point here - to say Keith is not a great guy? Well of course. But we knew that without the evidence that he called this guy a 'prick' - jesus christ!

I read Cantrell's sister's account and while I have sympathy for her situation it sure is full of questionable statements that dont make a lot of sense..

"Note that you are stating you don't believe Keith or Marlon, actually implying they were in cahoots in concocting this info for the book -- yet you seem to be so quick to believe the sister of Scott Cantrell."
---
Leonid -
Not so quick at all- I came to that after reading over everything multiple times and after careful consideration - (Keith - he was "a crazy little guy" - he was 6 5 for crying out loud - like a football player!) An my point, since you ask, was to call attention to this, arguably the most vile slander in the book BECAUSE NOT ONE PERSON IN THE MEDIA HAS DONE THAT YET - so obsessed is everyone with bowing before the self-proclaimed "Riff Master" - God forbid anyone challenge him on attack.

did you not see this point by point defense of my argument today after getting challenged by you and a few other people - in my opinion, a common sense reading of this situation leads one to trust the Cantrell family more than the Richards family - (let me guess - you believe Keith's story about Muddy Waterson the ladder - L-- don't you see? He makes stuff to fit his narrative - many legends do it)

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)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 02:57 by hbwriter.

Quote
scottkeef
I read Cantrell's sister's account and while I have sympathy for her situation it sure is full of questionable statements that dont make a lot of sense..

can you be more specific please.

your username is quite ironic.


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

LeoniP wrote:"He was a rock star and regular user of hard drugs, with a gangster like attitude.",
And of course that gave him then and now the right to step over everyone... Ok, l see your point.......

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

honestman--i wasn't even aware you'd refreshed that thread. wished i'd been paying attention!

Quote
hbwriter
"Note that you are stating you don't believe Keith or Marlon, actually implying they were in cahoots in concocting this info for the book -- yet you seem to be so quick to believe the sister of Scott Cantrell."
---
Leonid -
Not so quick at all- I came to that after reading over everything multiple times and after careful consideration - (Keith - he was "a crazy little guy" - he was 6 5 for crying out loud - like a football player!)

did you not see this point by point defense of my argument today after getting challenged by you and a few other people - in my opinion, a common sense reading of this situation leads one to trust the Cantrell family more than the Richards family - (let me guess - you believe Keith's story about Muddy Waterson the ladder - L-- don't you see? He makes stuff to fit his narrative - many legends do it)

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)

That's a bit too much there, I am getting tired. I will summarize. You keep seeming to try to pit this as who to believe, Richards or Cantrells -- where does this even come from? Her brother is dead. Possibly suicide. Possibly murder. She is very upset. She thinks her brother was a great guy, and I am sure he was in her memory, but certainly that is questionable. She thinks he wouldn't commit suicide. So how does what Keith or Marlon say, whether truthful or not, that he wasn't a great guy, have anything to do with whether it was a suicide or not? It doesn't, so why is there a debate on who to believe? Furthermore, you continue to discard completely what they say, for a multitude of reasons as you state, all which I see as conjecture, yet you are so sure of it. How? Like I said, you have some underlying agenda -- for how much you seem to be harping on this, I can only conclude that you feel Keith didn't react the way you had hoped when you were younger, maybe you wanted to be invited in and listen to a session or whatever - and now it's time for payback. Since you seem to be making many stretches on what to believe, I think I will also conclude that this is your agenda, even with no proof.

Quote
ROPENI
LeoniP wrote:"He was a rock star and regular user of hard drugs, with a gangster like attitude.",
And of course that gave him then and now the right to step over everyone... Ok, l see your point.......

I don't even know what you're talking about, sorry.

Quote
hbwriter
honestman--i wasn't even aware you'd refreshed that thread. wished i'd been paying attention!

It's OK HB, it happens to myself too

HMN

" I can only conclude that you feel Keith didn't react the way you had hoped when you were younger, maybe you wanted to be invited in and listen to a session or whatever - and now it's time for payback."
--
L--come on, we're adults here - (and for the record - I've since met the rolling stones - so that should dispel your childish assumption - though part of me wants to believe that's a joke - it's just that lame)

i guess it's just hard for you to understand how such a callous view will bother some people - like it bothered me - that's it, plain and simple. And when people like you push back with excuses, it leads to these protracted debates - i honestly thought most folks here would say yeah, i love keith, love the book - but man - that was wrong.

But I was wrong - and the apologists started coming out - you're the one that wrote: " I am saying it doesn't bother me, and I can see it from his point of view-He was a rock star and regular user of hard drugs, with a gangster like attitude."

So that excuses what he wrote in the last year?

And of course your other gem - "Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."

That says a lot more about you then it does about me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 04:27 by hbwriter.

Quote
LeonidP
so why is there a debate on who to believe?

because their attitude and what they say matters...especially when foul play was
suspected....and Anita was initially accused of manslaughter (i think).

if he was just a kid that hung around and was a non-factor......there's no reason to
call a kid whose life ended tragically a "prick" (30 yrs later). But apparently
SC is still under Keith's skin.....so there must be more to it.

In summary...there are appropriate ways for humans to react..and inappropriate ways.
Keith's was really inappropriate for lots of reasons.

Quote
LeonidP
I can only conclude that you feel Keith didn't react the way you had hoped when you were younger, maybe you wanted to be invited in and listen to a session or whatever - and now it's time for payback. Since you seem to be making many stretches on what to believe, I think I will also conclude that this is your agenda, even with no proof.

that's just ridiculous. HB has simply compiled information about a suspiciously unresolved event
in Stones history....which just so happened to (sort of) indirectly touch his life.


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

Quote
sweet neo con
... He couldn't
just say "it's a sad story.....he was in the wrong place at the wrong time"?
...

Yep, I've got exactly the same feeling when I've read it. The big mistake of LIFE, IMO , at least for me.

HMN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 03:44 by Honestman.

You guys are bringing up some fascinating stuff, disturbing actually.
I remember reading about this incident shortly after the fact. At 13, I discovered the Stones in mid-79 and the whole Studio 54 thing was more entertaining to me. This incident was just weird to me and vague, It was my first impression of Anita before I had read the books, and this was pre-Sanchez, I think. It just went along with Keith and Anita's darker persona and I assumed the young man had just gotten mixed up with drugs, the "wrong crowd" etc....
But this is intriguing, especially the implications of possible foul play.,..
It's definately a Stones chapter that remains clouded. I haven't read the book yet, only excerpts, but this is fascinating indeed. HB bringing up the more personal aspects of the tragedy is troubling for many Stones fans, but it just illustrates how Keith and ANita's lifestyle was off-the-charts crazy and dangerous. The original Rolling Stone magazine review of Sanchez book was excellent - it came out shortly after this incident. I knew very little of the Stones history at the time, but the reviewer was rather harsh toward the Stones darker impulses, and their lack of accountability for some of the shit that went on - because of drugs etc...
I was just a kid, but now, I see that the reviewer was saying same things many posters here have been saying about Keith's less admirable traits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 04:02 by stupidguy2.

Quote
hbwriter
" I can only conclude that you feel Keith didn't react the way you had hoped when you were younger, maybe you wanted to be invited in and listen to a session or whatever - and now it's time for payback."
--
In all due respect - that's kind of loopy (and for the record - I've since met the rolling stones - so that should dispel your lame assumption)

i guess it's just hard for you to understand how such a callous view will bother some people - like it bothered me - that's it, plain and simple. And when people like you push back with excuses, it leads to these protracted debates - i honestly thought most folks here would say yeah, i love keith, love the book - but man - that was wrong.

But I was wrong - and the apologists started coming out - you're the one that wrote: " I am saying it doesn't bother me, and I can see it from his point of view-He was a rock star and regular user of hard drugs, with a gangster like attitude."

So that excuses what he wrote in the last year?

And of course your other gem - "Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."

That says a lot more about you then it does about me.

Apologists? How? I said it doesn't bother me that Keith feels this way, how is that in any way apologizing? And you state this says a lot about me - again, how? I feel bad about any person that dies, no matter what age, including this cantrell kid. I certainly don't think Keith is in any way obligated to feel the same way I do, but you certainly (for some reason) seem obsessed with it.

And the lies you point out - think logically ... how is calling a 6'5" kid 'little' a lie that has any impact on anything? Does this help to exonerate Anita? Likely it's a faulty memory on Keith's part, or maybe he just met him when he was sitting down, who knows? Or is it that Keith calling him a "prick" is a lie? So Keith really thought he was a great guy, but for some reason finds the need to write that he's a prick? Does this help Anita's cause? How? It was already ruled a suicide. It seems that you are quite obsessed with this one word (prick), and can't fathom how there may be others that aren't so quite bothered by it.

I don't see any reason for Keith to feel obligated to say anything other than how he feels about this dude - if you're implying that since this kid is dead that Keith should now lie and say "what a great guy", well I wouldn't appreciate such a lie from Keith - but that's me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 04:22 by LeonidP.

Quote
stupidguy2
This incident was just weird to me and vague, It was my first impression of Anita before I had read the books, and this was pre-Sanchez, I think. It just went along with Keith and Anita's darker persona and I assumed the young man had just gotten mixed up with drugs, the "wrong crowd" etc....

haven't read the Sanchez book since college (mid 80s)...might need to check it out again.


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

Quote
hbwriter
Busted Trousers - I appreciate (and for the most part) agree with each thing you said.

One thing - "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."

Keith says himself he "met" him - Marlon says Keith "met" him - it doesn't seem anyway like he spent more than a moment to make his opinion - i think if he had, that would have been in the book - vs. just saying he "met" him. He would After 1978, Keith wasn't really there anyway- the stones toured - then started recording - Scott only came in there the spring of 79

also - Keith describes him as a "crazy little kid" - he was a strapping giant of *6 foot five* - i don't trust anything Keith or Marlon says on this at all - it all feels made up to me

Thanks HB, and let me try and better explain what your pointing out.

That's why I said IF, and I also meant around as a general term- anything from a brief one-time meeting, to a few times. I haven't read the book, or all the articles linked in this thread, just the sister's account that you posted, so I wasn't aware that "met" was being taking so literally as probably meaning once. But even that is open to interpretation. I do agree it probably means once in this case, but you never know, especially with Keith.

As far as Keith only taking a moment to make his opinion about him, didn't you and your friends do the same thing when you met Scott? You met him briefly, he helped you with your car, and was sympathetic towards you obviously being there to try and meet Keith. Still, you were only around him one time briefly, and had a positive impression. Keith was around him however briefly, and got a negative impression. Just because your impression was positive, does that make it more valid and honest than Keith's? Regardless of the brevity of their meeting(s), Keith could have gotten a negative impression just as easily and quickly as you did a positive one. Especially if his impression was influenced and/or clouded by what he may have been told about Scott. Neither of you really knows what kind of person Scott really was, or became, during that period. I was just trying to point out that Keith could have gotten an impression opposite of yours, and equally as fast.

You don't mention it above, but on the matter of Marlon not saying something about Scott saying he was going to kill (or was it "just" shoot?) his father, I agree with you. Of all kids, you would think Marlon would have had the presence of mind even at that age to speak up. But sometimes people do things out of character.

Crazy little kid is not necessarily inaccurate when someone Keith's age is describing someone Scott's age. It's more a figure of speech in that case, than a literal description. Or at the very least, could be.

My point in all of this isn't to excuse Keith, or even definitively explain his actions. My point is that none of us knows what happened, and many of the details, and descriptions of people, are open to vast interpretations. And we all process such details differently. Scott could of taken Marlon fishing, AND been a prick to him. Or became one over time. Or not. Who knows.

This is all speculation. Obviously Keith and Marlon spoke frankly about this in the book, which is better than whitewashing or ignoring it. And yes, Keith should have been more mature and sympathetic to Scott's legacy, i.e., his family, in what he said.

But again, because he was young, I think Marlon gets a pass for what he says, even now. And Keith, because he was/is older, doesn't, especially now.

BT--again - a very thoughtful, reasonable take - thank you

i'm running off to do a talk/booksigning (and i'm dragging this into the discussion!)

but i'll say this - even if Scott had been a jerk with us - or even if in reality he was a jerk in that house (something i doubt - imagine this kid - he stumbled into this scenario --the rolling stones- anita - he's there a few months and he becomes this incorrigible "absolute prick"??)

--it wouldn't excuse what Keith said - the fact that this is his first public comment on the event and this is how he speaks of a dead teen, to me, is barely worthy of a debate as to its appropriateness.

But there are adults (and i have a bunch of nasty emails today from them!) who still hero worship, like it's high school - and seem blind to any sort of criticism of their heroes - at some point - you've gotta grow up - love the music absolutely - but come on -

seriously though, thank you for the (in my opinion) measured, mature view - it's much appreciated

Quote
hbwriter
...
--it wouldn't excuse what Keith said - the fact that this is his first public comment on the event and this is how he speaks of a dead teen, to me, is barely worthy of a debate as to its appropriateness.

No one is excusing it, or saying it's appropriate! (maybe someone, admittedly i didn't read every post). We're (or at least I am) saying that it is what it is - and Keith should write as honestly as he feels. Assuming he did that, then I'm fine with it. You are being very judgmental in every aspect of this thread - "Keith shouldn't say this", "Marlon should have reacted this way", "Keith & Marlon are lying" "if you feel this way it says a lot about you", "you've got to grow up" etc, Everyone is not going to feel the same way about things that you do - to each their own - it doesn't make your way right, just different (and vice versa).

Quote
hbwriter

Leonid -


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

I can imagine Marlon witnessing this kid having sex with Anita...he obviously would be bothered by this...just guessing. Ya know? He starts out as Marlon's friend - then starts screwing his Mom.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 05:18 by theanchorman.

Quote
theanchorman

Quote
hbwriter

Leonid -


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

I can imagine Marlon witnessing this kid having sex with Anita...he obviously would be bothered by this...just guessing

I was thinking the same thing when I read this in the book. The relief was this part of his life was over. One less 'user' hanging around his mom. Having come from a family where my father was mixed up for a long time with booze, drugs and lots of women and saw too much too young...I get it. Nothing like what Marlon saw, but enough for me.

I get Marlon not seeming to have much sympathy for Scott Cantrell. That's easy. Just another person messing his life and his mom and his dad's life up. At 9 almost 10 you don't understand how much of addiction and destructive lifestyles are the fault of the parent. Marlon may be the son of Keith, and been very mature for his age, but he was still just a kid and remembering it through those eyes. If he says he was that afraid of Cantrell, I'm sure he was and for the reasons he says he was. It makes sense under the circumstances; if you have had a parent that was an addict it makes even more sense.

Quote
bustedtrousers

As far as Keith only taking a moment to make his opinion about him, didn't you and your friends do the same thing when you met Scott? You met him briefly, he helped you with your car, and was sympathetic towards you obviously being there to try and meet Keith. Still, you were only around him one time briefly, and had a positive impression. Keith was around him however briefly, and got a negative impression. Just because your impression was positive, does that make it more valid and honest than Keith's? Regardless of the brevity of their meeting(s), Keith could have gotten a negative impression just as easily and quickly as you did a positive one. Especially if his impression was influenced and/or clouded by what he may have been told about Scott. Neither of you really knows what kind of person Scott really was, or became, during that period. I was just trying to point out that Keith could have gotten an impression opposite of yours, and equally as fast.

to me..whether SC was actually a prick or not is almost irrelevant.
instead of dwelling on that.....dwell on how HERO WORSHIP can cloud one's mind.

the point of this entire thread is Keith callousness. 30 years after the incident
he finds time (in his autobiography) to call SC a prick and insult his family again.

had Keith really wanted this to slide under the radar there were many
other ways he could have tactfully and truthfully conveyed his story.

while doing his book promo interviews...i wonder if he stipulates NO QUESTIONS
about Cantrell. i would not be surprised.


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

Quote
sweet neo con
had Keith really wanted this to slide under the radar there were many
other ways he could have tactfully and truthfully conveyed his story.

Sometimes tactfully & truthfully cannot be done together. It seems he went for truthful, and surprise but read the rest of the book as he rarely goes for tactful.

Quote
sweet neo con
while doing his book promo interviews...i wonder if he stipulates NO QUESTIONS
about Cantrell. i would not be surprised.

Great, more jumping to conclusions - you & hbw go hand in hand.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
sweet neo con
while doing his book promo interviews...i wonder if he stipulates NO QUESTIONS
about Cantrell. i would not be surprised.

Great, more jumping to conclusions - you & hbw go hand in hand.

how is WONDERING "jumping to conclusions"???

and if Keith's intent to be "truthful" (the conclusion you jumped to) then maybe he
should be extremely truthful and give more info instead of just name-calling.


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

Quote
LeonidP
(to H You are being very judgmental in every aspect of this thread - "Keith shouldn't say this", "Marlon should have reacted this way", "Keith & Marlon are lying" "if you feel this way it says a lot about you", "you've got to grow up" etc, Everyone is not going to feel the same way about things that you do - to each their own - it doesn't make your way right, just different (and vice versa).

oh..you live in a world with no RIGHT and WRONG?? just feelings?

you don't make judgments?

here's a scenario......it's 1979.....Keith & Anita are your neighbors....would you let them
babysit your child? since you probably know their hedonistic/drug lifestyle....for the safety
of your child, you probably (hopefully) would not ask them to babysit. you have made a judgment.
is that wrong?


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

Quote
theanchorman



I can imagine Marlon witnessing this kid having sex with Anita...he obviously would be bothered by this...just guessing. Ya know? He starts out as Marlon's friend - then starts screwing his Mom.

that actually sounds possible.


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