ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 6, 2021 20:46:04 GMT -6
He connects “Grants” with Sisman in both flowcharts. What the hell is Grants? A bar? Literal grants, as in National Endowment for the Arts? There was a bar in Times Square, Grant's Bar/Grant's Cafeteria, on 42nd and 7th...but it closed in 1974. There was the Grants department store out on Staten Island...and I've seen an ad from them circa early 1970s advertising their "wig bar". I'm inclined to think it refers to something (or someone) else. It would be nice to know when exactly those flowcharts were from...late 70s? 80s? Later on? Yeah I believe Grant's Department Store closed around '75-'76.
One flowchart might at least be '81 or after. I saw a date in the transfer print, "1981" top right on pic below.
There might be some breadcrumbs, intentional or not, spread throughout. I think I deciphered "Beasley" under one of the "Grants".
Attachments:
|
|
ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 6, 2021 20:52:12 GMT -6
I am watching some of part 4 and I gotta say I'm loving it. Yeah, we know these stories already but seriously, the footage of Maury and the extended words of Brother John are worth their weight in gold. I'm really into it. Here's Brother John's HS graduation pic.
I'm not a Terry-cultist, I respect the hell out of his work but I don't take his word on every single thing as gospel truth. But I gotta say, I had an unexpected emotional reaction to the second half of part 4.
|
|
mike23
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by mike23 on May 6, 2021 21:04:20 GMT -6
Yeah,I had a similar reaction to that part of the episode.Maury wasn't perfect by any means,but I always say if he hadn't done the work on this case its possible nobody would have.We owe him our thanks ,because if not for him we probably wouldn't be still searching for answers here in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by justiceseeker on May 6, 2021 23:53:43 GMT -6
There was a bar in Times Square, Grant's Bar/Grant's Cafeteria, on 42nd and 7th...but it closed in 1974. There was the Grants department store out on Staten Island...and I've seen an ad from them circa early 1970s advertising their "wig bar". I'm inclined to think it refers to something (or someone) else. It would be nice to know when exactly those flowcharts were from...late 70s? 80s? Later on? Yeah I believe Grant's Department Store closed around '75-'76.
One flowchart might at least be '81 or after. I saw a date in the transfer print, "1981" top right on pic below.
There might be some breadcrumbs, intentional or not, spread throughout. I think I deciphered "Beasley" under one of the "Grants".
Nice. Hadn't turned the page sideways to see what the ink transfer might've been. The third line under Camaro definitely looks like Beasley. So the question becomes, is it a reference to one thing or two...a pseudonym or nickname..."Grants" Beasley? As for the ink transfer, I see "HCny A 1981". Below that it appears to be "441 HEV"...plate number, perhaps?
|
|
Jon
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by Jon on May 7, 2021 2:26:27 GMT -6
Having watched the entire documentary now, I'm struck by how similar Zeman's approach is to Tim Reiterman's when he wrote about Jim Jones and Peoples Temple in "Raven." In both, there are numerous instances in which something interesting and potentially even vital is mentioned or shown only to be glossed over. In other instances, interesting and potentially vital things that easily *could* be shown are not. For example, Zeman obviously had full access to Maury Terry's 1997 interview with Berkowitz--so, after everything that the viewer had already seen and heard about the Process Church, it would have been very easy to show Berkowitz identifying the sketch of Ken WITHOUT any prompting from Terry. The sketch was sitting in Terry's lap, but viewers were not made aware of its significance. I appreciated the coverage of the North Dakota angle, and the interviews with authorities there. All the claptrap at the end ("Rudderless chaos, no organization, no conspiracy, etc., etc.") was precisely that.
I'll keep my thoughts about Joseph Borelli to myself.
|
|
|
Post by justiceseeker on May 7, 2021 6:37:06 GMT -6
Having watched the entire documentary now, I'm struck by how similar Zeman's approach is to Tim Reiterman's when he wrote about Jim Jones and Peoples Temple in "Raven." In both, there are numerous instances in which something interesting and potentially even vital is mentioned or shown only to be glossed over. In other instances, interesting and potentially vital things that easily *could* be shown are not. For example, Zeman obviously had full access to Maury Terry's 1997 interview with Berkowitz--so, after everything that the viewer had already seen and heard about the Process Church, it would have been very easy to show Berkowitz identifying the sketch of Ken WITHOUT any prompting from Terry. The sketch was sitting in Terry's lap, but viewers were not made aware of its significance. I appreciated the coverage of the North Dakota angle, and the interviews with authorities there. All the claptrap at the end ("Rudderless chaos, no organization, no conspiracy, etc., etc.") was precisely that. I'll keep my thoughts about Joseph Borelli to myself. I liken Joe Borrelli to the character Stan Valchek from The Wire...not too bright, but just savvy enough to play the politics game well and attain rank.
|
|
|
Post by mannygrossman on May 7, 2021 7:10:48 GMT -6
Just finished part 4 and I have to say that I give it a thumbs up. No, Zeman didn't break any real new ground other than tantalizing us with some blacked out pics and some names. But I don't think his point was to satisfy the hardcore SOS researcher. Rather, I think his point was to raise the issue for the layman. And he slammed dunked it. I felt his treatment of Maury was fair. But where I think Josh did the best service for us is at the end where he bascially discounted The Process as being involved. This is huge! And this is extremely helpful to us who are investigating the Lake Ave aspects. IMO people who are still going down the Process road after this are doing a major disservice to the case. Ok, make some tenuous connections here and there with some minor bit players that may have once gone to a Process meeting. While you're doing that, I'll be busy interviewing people who actually knew John Carr and Maury Terry and have serious stories to tell.
|
|
gv889
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by gv889 on May 7, 2021 8:40:57 GMT -6
Was wondering about "Grant's" myself. No idea! I was watching part one of The Sons Of Sam again and you guys had brought up "Grant's"..... The part where Maury is on a call in radio show where he gets into a feisty exchange with that egomaniac pompous ass NYPD Detective Sgt Joe Coffey, that was The Bob Grant Radio Show!
|
|
ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 7, 2021 9:46:58 GMT -6
Second podcast is up:
It starts off kinda dumb but don't give up on it.
|
|
|
Post by mannygrossman on May 7, 2021 12:12:58 GMT -6
Listening now. Liked the doc, but IMO Podcasts just don't work for this type of material.
|
|
ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 7, 2021 12:37:27 GMT -6
Listening now. Liked the doc, but IMO Podcasts just don't work for this type of material. The 35:40 mark is where it gets VERY interesting.
I'm learning to appreciate Zeman's skepticism, or anybody else's for that matter, but I wish that little bombshell was in the doc.
|
|
|
Post by mannygrossman on May 7, 2021 12:54:33 GMT -6
Listening now. Liked the doc, but IMO Podcasts just don't work for this type of material. The 35:40 mark is where it gets VERY interesting.
I'm learning to appreciate Zeman's skepticism, or anybody else's for that matter, but I wish that little bombshell was in the doc.
How did you interpret that interview with Lomino? Or was it DeMasi?
|
|
ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 7, 2021 13:06:30 GMT -6
The 35:40 mark is where it gets VERY interesting.
I'm learning to appreciate Zeman's skepticism, or anybody else's for that matter, but I wish that little bombshell was in the doc.
How did you interpret that interview with Lomino? Or was it DeMasi? It's Demasi. She makes a point of describing straight hair and "weird-looking eyes". Listen close and it sounds like he's showing her a photo of a prime suspect other than Berkowitz. Apparently John owned a jacket similar to the shooters. It's all, as they say, circumstantial, but what are the odds.
Me, I have yet to see a photo of John without focusing on his weird, beady little eyes.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mannygrossman on May 7, 2021 13:16:20 GMT -6
How did you interpret that interview with Lomino? Or was it DeMasi? It's Demasi. She makes a point of describing straight hair and "weird-looking eyes". Listen close and it sounds like he's showing her a photo of a prime suspect other than Berkowitz. Apparently John owned a jacket similar to the shooters. It's all, as they say, circumstantial, but what are the odds.
Me, I have yet to see a photo of John without focusing on his weird, beady little eyes.
Yeah, me too. I took her to mean she was talking more about Carr's features rather than Berkowitz's. By the way, John was a friggin model compared to his bro Mike. I've seen some pics of Mike Carr at his own wedding and the dude was FUGLY!
|
|
ace
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by ace on May 7, 2021 13:26:22 GMT -6
It's Demasi. She makes a point of describing straight hair and "weird-looking eyes". Listen close and it sounds like he's showing her a photo of a prime suspect other than Berkowitz. Apparently John owned a jacket similar to the shooters. It's all, as they say, circumstantial, but what are the odds.
Me, I have yet to see a photo of John without focusing on his weird, beady little eyes.
Yeah, me too. I took her to mean she was talking more about Carr's features rather than Berkowitz's. By the way, John was a friggin model compared to his bro Mike. I've seen some pics of Mike Carr at his own wedding and the dude was FUGLY! Well that's intriguing. Did you manage to get a copy or see who else was in attendance?
|
|