CIRCUS MAGAZINE: A Visit with Jim in October 1970

[pixiedust]

Not to flog this to death, Alex, but we are flogging here - I agree. It wasn't my finest hour.

BUT, I do suggest that selling eight copies of a transcript to pay a $500.00 medical bill is not nearly as much of a sin towards Doors fans as selling Jim out in a work of faction (combination of fiction and fact)the way Patricia Kennealy did in her book, or in a work of fiction the way Linda Ashcroft did, or selling Jim out - period. List too long to print.

That's beside the point you are making.

Your point is the wording in the ad.

Yes, I clearly said I could see that it could lead to a misconception...but in point of fact in the transcript there were corrections written by hand by Jim. It was the first time copies of the transcript were available on the market. Those two statements are absolutely and unquestionably true.

The problem comes in the perception of how many or how little those corrections made by Jim were.
In looking back to 1994 from the recriminations and wisdom and "oh dear, I did that?" of 2011, yes, this matter should have been addressed at the time in 1994. Had I written it myself at that time - yes, I think it would have been correct to have listed that there were a few corrections.

I did not write the ad. There was no intent on my part to mislead and I'm sure there was no intent on Kerry's part to do so either. An advertising agency would probably have said, "Corrections are corrections, be they five or 500."

Again, it is a question of perception, not a question of authenticity

There were posts on The Doors Board where I was specific, in that I posted that Jim corrected the spelling on a few words and put in punctuation marks that totaled about 9 or 10 corrections in all. I also stated at another time that the corrections on the transcript itself were no more than ten. I'm sorry you can't see those posts. I wish I could produce them for you, but they disappeared along with everything else in the 2005-2006 major Doors Board crash.

Regarding your question about my speaking of Jim doing some editing.

Editing is editing whether it's one word or 100. However I was not speaking about the transcript at that point in any of those posts.

I was referring to what Jim did when the actual story was being written where he suggested changes in (1.) the order of the questions, (2.) which questions should not be included in the article, and (3.) among other things, his criticism about my Circus magazine introduction to the article.

Those edits by Jim were given verbally and had nothing to do with the transcript. Those verbal edits pertained to the article only and were given on the Sunday after the interview in the hotel room at the Hyatt, when I was writing the final copy of the article that had to be submitted to my editor/publisher in New York the next day, (Monday), my deadline day.

That Sunday editing session came about because when I first asked for the interview Jim's representation (Elektra) said Jim was not doing interviews. After several follow up requests and rejections, (between August and the middle of September 1970) I suggested to his representatives that Jim could have complete editorial control of the article, prior to my submitting it to New York where my publisher/editor would then make the final edits.

In other words, Jim could go over my final copy of the article before it was sent to New York in order to eliminate anything that could hurt his chances in his sentencing hearing. Jim agreed to do the interview on that basis. I fulfilled my side of that obligation. Jim edited the article before it was sent to Gerald Rothberg for Gerry's final edit, which was seen in the magazine's January/February issues of 1971.

Again, I'm sorry to lose any esteem you may have had for me. I am also sorry to have lost the dancing penquins.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Apr 10, 2011 20:27:19 GMT pixiedust said:

Again, it is a question of perception, not a question of authenticity

Now you hit the nail directly on the head here.
As with much in The Doors world it is indeed a question of perception but authenticity plays it's part in that perception.
And there are two important pieces of information on this advert you and Kerry used to sell this item. One of which does weaken your argument substantially as far as I can see.

Exhibit A
"Copy of original transcript which Jim personally hand corrected."
Now that says to me as a Doors fan that this item is of interest as it contains Jim's thoughts regarding the interview. I would expect to see notes written in margins and something I could easily identify as Jim Morrison. This is where the perception comes in and that perception is compounded by the really important bit at the end.

Exhibit B
"letter of authenticity signed by Salli Stevenson"
Now this tells me it is something worthwhile as why else would we need a letter of authenticity?
And this is where I get confused.
And lets be clear here.
We are not talking about an advertising agency we are talking about Doors fans who placed their trust in places like DCM and yourself.
And for me, for you to be offering a letter of authenticity then you must have been aware of the way the item was going to be advertised.
So ignorance of the layout of final advert cannot be used as a shield against the way it was presented.
The perception was to sell it on the strength of Jim Morrison's editing and the letter of authenticity says to me that this editing was more than a comma, a couple of 'a's one barely a word and a bracket. Of course it wasn't but we are talking about perception not reality.

As I have said already the number it sold is completely irrelevant.

The intention was what was important and as far as I can see the intention was to sell this on the strength of Jim's edits.
And nowhere in the advert do I see any indication that these edits were, to be the kindest I can, barely minimal.

As I said earlier I give both of you the benefit of the doubt but you can see the way this could have been perceived at the time and obviously how it can be perceived more than a decade later.

People who use Jim Morrison for profit come in all shapes and sizes Salli. And I use the word profit for it's definition of 'positive gain' in the sense that a profit does not necessarily mean monetary gain. People profit from Morrison in many ways.
As you said your attempt to profit came under the smaller category but it was an attempt to 'profit' nonetheless.
So your credibility has to suffer damage as a result.
It could be argued that webmasters and forum owners such as myself seek to 'profit' from what we do and I could not argue with such an accusation.
I ran a Doors site and have run many forums. I seek to profit from information and knowledge.
You sought to profit from both cash and esteem.
None of us can say we are completely free of the 'profit' motive.
But having said that I would stack what I do up against what you did any day of the week.

#NB As to your point about verbal editing it is indeed a fair point but this in no way at all interferes with the argument that you sold this on the back of Jim Morrison editing what you transcribed.
Did you specifically make the point that the editing was done verbally rather than by Morrison's own hand?
As you say we cannot know unless we see the posts you made on the subject but nevertheless it is highly misleading to sell this the way it was sold considering that the editing was verbal NOT actual.
Fans have been made to believe this editing by hand was more substantial. This is the way I perceived it and I was quite shocked when I saw what was actually done.
It's disappointing whichever way you slice it!

The dancing penguins may well return if I can find them as I do need to sort out some of the forum features but just need to find the time.

[pixiedust]

#NB As to your point about verbal editing it is indeed a fair point but this in no way at all interferes with the argument that you sold this on the back of Jim Morrison editing what you transcribed.
Did you specifically make the point that the editing was done verbally rather than by Morrison's own hand?
As you say we cannot know unless we see the posts you made on the subject but nevertheless it is highly misleading to sell this the way it was sold considering that the editing was verbal NOT actual.
Fans have been made to believe this editing by hand was more substantial. This is the way I perceived it and I was quite shocked when I saw what was actually done.
It's disappointing whichever way you slice it!



Read more: newdoorstalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=int&action=post&thread=811&page=3#ixzz1JLo9Znkd

Alex. I do understand your disappointment.

I was speaking of the article, not the transcript. They are two entirely separate things. Jim did no verbal editing of the transcript. He verbally edited the article, before it was sent to Gerry for final edits and publishing. Gerry never saw the transcript.

[pixiedust]

Alex, in reply to your exhibits:

What my letter says to me is Jim personally hand corrected the transcript. Jim did. It didn't say how much or how little. I agree. It should have. Again, I did not write the ad.

As I said earlier I give both of you the benefit of the doubt but you can see the way this could have been perceived at the time and obviously how it can be perceived more than a decade later.

Yes, I can. I didn't see it at the time, but I'm not much of a sales person.

Exhibit B
"letter of authenticity signed by Salli Stevenson"
Now this tells me it is something worthwhile as why else would we need a letter of authenticity? ..... ignorance of the layout of final advert cannot be used as a shield against the way it was presented.

In including the "letter of authenticity" my intent was to say that the copy of the transcript was a legitimate complete, non-edited copy of the entire original transcript. It was not a forgery or a falsification of the transcript. Jim did take pen to paper. Jim did correct it. Those corrections, minimal though they were, were still legitimate corrections made by Jim. Minimal? Yes. Meant to deceive? No.

I felt the letter of authenticity needed to be there because of all the forgeries that were starting to be made available for sale to Doors fans. I wanted them to know this was the real deal, not a forgery.

As I have said already the number it sold is completely irrelevant. The intention was what was important and as far as I can see the intention was to sell this on the strength of Jim's edits.

Once Kerry suggested I could sell the transcript copies to help with my financial problems, and despite the fact that I wasn't sure it would sell, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share as much of the whole experience of that afternoon in October as I could. The only thing from that afternoon I had to share was the complete transcript. I couldn't share copies of the recorded tape. That tape belonged to The Doors. That is why, when I needed the money, I sold the complete package.

If I had wanted to sell the transcript purely on the strength of Jim's corrections, I would only have sold the relevant bits, not the entire transcript, which included a copy of a freehand picture I drew of Jim actually correcting the transcript. My intention was to try to give people something of value for their money, a complete package.

People who use Jim Morrison for profit come in all shapes and sizes Salli. And I use the word profit for it's definition of 'positive gain' in the sense that a profit does not necessarily mean monetary gain. People profit from Morrison in many ways.

I used the definition of "profit" in its monetary form. Never thought of the other types of gain.

It could be argued that webmasters and forum owners such as myself seek to 'profit' from what we do and I could not argue with such an accusation. I ran a Doors site and have run many forums. I seek to profit from information and knowledge.

Yes, and you also get to sit in judgment on people like me. Admittedly you have earned at least part of your reputation from those judgments.

You sought to profit from both cash and esteem.

I sought cash to pay a medical bill. It was a gamble and I'm not much of a gambler, so what I received was actually eight sales more than I expected to sell.

If you are talking about "profit" defined as the "esteem" of knowing Jim, since his death (and with very few exceptions) it's been a largely negative experience.

To me, a negative is not a "profit," by any definition of the term "profit."

My sense of esteem (self-esteem) comes from what I am and do. I don't expect or desire to gain esteem from something someone else does. They aren't me. I'm not them. They have their lives. I have mine.

However, as a woman associated with Jim, I have found that "esteem" is the last thing you get if you knew Jim.

In my experience, people don't like to think of women in Jim's life - even Pamela, who was the most important woman in Jim's adult life. Some of the things that have been said about Pamela Susan Courson Morrison are horrible and completely undeserved.

If you have any doubt about the esteem in which the women who knew Jim or were in his life are held, I suggest you go to the freedomman board. Enjoy the comments.

Can we now consider me properly flogged? Thank you for the ;D ;D ;D.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

In including the "letter of authenticity" my intent was to say that the copy of the transcript was a legitimate complete, non-edited copy of the entire original transcript. It was not a forgery or a falsification of the transcript. Jim did take pen to paper. Jim did correct it. Those corrections, minimal though they were, were still legitimate corrections made by Jim. Minimal? Yes. Meant to deceive? No.

I felt the letter of authenticity needed to be there because of all the forgeries that were starting to be made available for sale to Doors fans. I wanted them to know this was the real deal, not a forgery.

So was there a market in Jim Morrison forged 'a's and brackets at that time?
Sorry but this excuse does not cut it with me at all.
And your reasons for doing this are, like the number it sold, completely irrelevant.
No matter what excuse you may trawl out the letter of authenticity added weight to the item.
And 20 bucks for the transcript itself was well over the top. The Morrison corrections were what sold the item. You also added to that by a drawing of Jim doing these corrections. Also I have seen you talk about the photo of Jim correcting your work.
All this stuff stacks up against you when what was on offer was not much of anything.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

my intent was to say that the copy of the transcript was a legitimate complete, non-edited copy of the entire original transcript.

I note your detailed explanation for the package as a whole but counter it with that you said in the letter that Jim corrected the transcript THREE times.
This says clearly your intent was not as you claim it was but to emphasise Jim and the correcting aspect.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

What my letter says to me is Jim personally hand corrected the transcript. Jim did. It didn't say how much or how little. I agree. It should have. Again, I did not write the ad.

That sounds a tad along the lines of arrogance Salli. The letter said that to YOU because you KNEW there was next to no Morrison involvement at all. But to Doors fans it said a lot more which was why it was included in the selling of the item.
You may not have written the ad and you say you did not SEE it either.
Benefit of doubt given over that but you must have been AWARE of how this was going to be sold and you certainly did NOT make any attempt to correct a perception you surely knew would have been made about the sale.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

I used the definition of "profit" in its monetary form. Never thought of the other types of gain.

I did not actually say that you did I was simply making a general point there. But if you thought that from my comment fair enough, benefit of doubt once again given.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

However, as a woman associated with Jim

That's stretching it a bit far Salli. You did an interview with Jim. So did lots of people. Of course you claim that there was more interaction with him during the short time you were an acquaintance.
Again benefit of the doubt given. But like Jim's corrections your association was indeed minimal at best. You have indeed benefited from this association Doors wise in terms of being noticed on forums. But lots of lady journalists interviewed Jim such as Lizzie James and you don't see them claiming this particular position.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

Yes, and you also get to sit in judgment on people like me. Admittedly you have earned at least part of your reputation from those judgments.

Absolutely correct. I do question people like yourself because I am a Doors fan and this is Doors related. If you see that as sitting in judgment that is your prerogative. I don't see it as that but have no problem with the criticism.
Is your argument that we should simply accept anything people like you say? because in The Doors world I am afraid I am with the 'question everything' brigade.
I have to say that I have indeed noticed a bit of judgment sitting from your quarter as well over the years. So people who live in glass houses etc.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

In my experience, people don't like to think of women in Jim's life - even Pamela, who was the most important woman in Jim's adult life. Some of the things that have been said about Pamela Susan Courson Morrison are horrible and completely undeserved.

If you have any doubt about the esteem in which the women who knew Jim or were in his life are held, I suggest you go to the freedomman board. Enjoy the comments.

You are correct Pam has been badly done to this last 40 years.
Never been too bothered about the women in Jim's life myself but have been critical of Pam in the past and have been contrite about that here. She deserved better and much of what was written was malevolent.
But you cannot be classified in the same bracket as Pam or even Pat Kennealy. You are a peripheral figure at best. To claim more than that is nonsense.
This is indeed one of the problems with those on the periphery of the Morrison/Doors world and one of the reasons why some of them garner criticism.
It goes with the territory.
I can't go on the Freedom Man board as I was banned after I exposed Vince Treanor as the utter liar he is on that board.
The lies he came out with there show that it is a haven for those in The Doors world who want to settle old scores. Vince tried to settle a score with Bill Siddons. I helpfully corrected his lies for that I was removed.
As you said before people like me do sometimes 'sit in judgment' on people like you.
Unlike a lot of people we here try to deal in facts rather than histrionic claptrap.
People either associated with or who claim association with The Doors world do not impress me as such and I feel no obligation to treat any of them with reverence. Some I like, you included BTW, and some I don't.

Apr 12, 2011 23:45:09 GMT pixiedust said:

Can we now consider me properly flogged?

I did half a dozen posts ago but you keep trying to justify your position and you simply cannot.
The evidence is clear.
The reasons may be muddy but we are judged on actions not excuses. Your actions are there for all to see.
You tried to enhance the sale, what was indeed a nice enough item, on the back of Jim Morrison's participation.

[pixiedust]

I note your detailed explanation for the package as a whole but counter it with that you said in the letter that Jim corrected the transcript THREE times.

I never said that Jim corrected the transcript three times. Only once, but I can see it might be confusing, so here are the facts/dates:

The Letter reads:

"On October 13, 1970 I interviewed Jim Morrison for Circus Magazine. The next day I transcribed the tape. On October 15, 1970, Jim took pen to paper and corrected the transcript."

Timeline to make sure things are clear:

(1.) On Tuesday the 13th I interviewed Jim. We sat down with a tape recorder and talked. No corrections of any kind were made by anyone.

(2.) On Wednesday the 14th, I typed up the interview, turning it into a transcript - or interview typed onto paper. Jim was not there.

(3.) On Thursday the 15th, I finally handed the typed up transcript of what was actually said in our interview for Jim to correct. He only corrected the transcript once.

On the following Sunday Jim helped edit the article which is different from the transcript.

This says clearly your intent was not as you claim it was but to emphasise Jim and the correcting aspect, but you must have been AWARE of how this was going to be sold and you certainly did NOT make any attempt to correct a perception you surely knew would have been made about the sale.

No, I was not completely aware. Had I been, I would have changed the wording to include the actual measure of Jim's corrections.

In 1994 there were two completely separate Jims: (1) the "Legend" Jim, (2) Jim, the human being. I was not fully aware of the marketing value of "the legend." Human being Jim was my friend who'd died in 1971. The "legend" was someone I had yet to come to terms with in 1994 and it was hard to put the two personas together. I still have real problems with it.

That's stretching it a bit far Salli. You did an interview with Jim. So did lots of people. Of course you claim that there was more interaction with him during the short time you were an acquaintance. Again benefit of the doubt given

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. We weren't acquaintances. Between October 1970 and March 1971, Jim and I were friends.

But like Jim's corrections your association was indeed minimal at best.

Nothing minimal about it, but I know without all the facts it's hard to make an accurate judgment. Sorry.

You have indeed benefited from this association Doors wise in terms of being noticed on forums.

A benefit should be a completely positive experience, don't you agree? While I've met some lovely people and people I like (including you, Alex), I've also met some people whose concepts of Jim have conflicted severely with mine. They were not happy with me and let me and everyone else know it.

But lots of lady journalists interviewed Jim such as Lizzie James and you don't see them claiming this particular position.

Perhaps most of them had only a professional relationship? I can't speak for them. I do know that Judy Sims (Teen Set, LA Times) dated Jim for quite a while and Lizzie James said she and Jim were friends for a couple of years.

Is your argument that we should simply accept anything people like you say? because in The Doors world I am afraid I am with the 'question everything' brigade.

No, I'm not saying accept without question, but when you look at each individual's claims, don't be so quick to judge. By all means investigate, investigate, investigate.

I have to say that I have indeed noticed a bit of judgment sitting from your quarter as well over the years. So people who live in glass houses etc.

Ouch, yes! Stones outgoing! Stones incoming! Lots of black and blue marks on both sides. Score?

But you cannot be classified in the same bracket as Pam

Of course not! Completely different relationships. Jim and I talked at length about Pam. Judging from those conversations, and imho, they were destined to be together. I feel that nothing - not even their own best efforts - could or should have torn those two apart.

or even Pat Kennealy.

Patricia K. Definitely wouldn't want to be in the same position she actually was with Jim. No Way! No how! Not ever! In her book and on her blogs and facebook, Patricia has given the world a Jim that no one else who actually knew Jim has ever met or known. Linda Ashcroft largely copied Patricia's book and gave us an equally fictional version of Jim.

You are a peripheral figure at best. To claim more than that is nonsense.

There have been and are times when I have wished that "peripheral figure" was a true description.

This is indeed one of the problems with those on the periphery of the Morrison/Doors world and one of the reasons why some of them garner criticism.

Some people are misjudged as to their relative positions with Jim, because not all the information about them is available, revealed, or investigated. To not have complete 100% disclosure makes it difficult for all of you...and it makes it difficult for us as well.

It goes with the territory.

Yes, it does.

I can't go on the Freedom Man board as I was banned after I exposed Vince Treanor as the utter liar he is on that board.

Glad you did that. I was also banned, but I have no idea why.

As you said before people like me do sometimes 'sit in judgment' on people like you.... Unlike a lot of people we here try to deal in facts rather than histrionic claptrap.

That's why I like you, but it's hard to deal in facts if you don't have them all. I suspect there are more people who, like me, knew Jim and prefer to keep some facts to themselves, even if it makes them a public "peripheral" for not revealing all.

People either associated with or who claim association with The Doors world do not impress me as such and I feel no obligation to treat any of them with reverence. Some I like, you included BTW, and some I don't.

Glad to know that, Alex. I'd hate it if you treated me with reverence. - Seriously Take care - ;D ;D ;D

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

I never said that Jim corrected the transcript three times. Only once, but I can see it might be confusing, so here are the facts/dates:

It is indeed very confusing Salli. The most confusing aspect being that you did indeed say it three times. Perhaps not using exactly that phrase but that is hair splitting to a degree that is ridiculous.

As to the friends aspect. I am sure you were friendly with Morrison. He was an international figure and I am sure he was friendly with lots of people. But the idea that you can give some insight into his character with such a minimal relationship is taking things a bit far.
Many of the peripheral characters such as yourself do this.
We both know I have seen you do such things on forums.
I seem to remember once you saying that we could not know Morrison by reading books but for the life of me I have yet to see anything you have ever brought to the debate that cannot be gleaned from a book.

People seem to meet Morrison and instantly believe they were his friends.
I can understand why as he was a charismatic figure.

Debating this is less than pointless as none of us can ever prove scientifically that we are friends with anyone.
I have had many friends. Some I knew for 50 years some for 5.
I cannot prove any friendship with any of them.
It is something you either know or you don't.
As I say I do give you the benefit of the doubt over a variety of things here as we cannot give scientific proofs for aspects of interaction with others.

I won't allow my forum to become the Doors google board.
We both know what I am talking about here.
I see many of these peripheral figures such as yourself jockey for position on boards. I won't have that here. ;D


As far as dealing in facts. As you say it is hard especially when so many people use Jim Morrison for their own private fantasies.
Now I am not saying I include you in that and I am not saying I don't either.
I give you the benefit of the doubt. The same courtesy I would give anyone who came here and claimed to know Morrison.
Of course I would ask questions and not show reverence towards them which may upset them.
To that I would say 'tough'.

Of course it is hard to gain an Historical perspective of Jim Morrison and that is mainly because so few actually knew the guy.
All we Doors fan have are books and interviews but we can indeed make conclusions based on an intelligent assessment of the facts as well as the fantasies.
Some of those who claim to have been closest to Morrison seem to me to have not really understood a thing about the guy whilst I have seen fans who never met the bloke show what seemed to me to be a consummate understanding of who he was.

It is a difficult subject which is why I for one find it so fascinating.

[pixiedust]

Alex,

No one, even you, can know Jim just from books, interviews or articles in magazines, better than the people with whom Jim shared his ideas, dreams and life with on a regular basis.

No book, interview or article will ever capture more than 50% of who Jim really was. It was a non-peripheral privilege to know Jim.

Thanks for the space. Thanks for the time. Thanks for the loan of the penguins. Adios! ;D ;D ;D ;D

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Apr 15, 2011 20:59:56 GMT pixiedust said:

No one, even you, can know Jim just from books, interviews or articles in magazines, better than the people with whom Jim shared his ideas, dreams and life with on a regular basis.

No book, interview or article will ever capture more than 50% of who Jim really was. It was a non-peripheral privilege to know Jim.

I make NO claims to 'know' Jim Morrison and never have Salli.
This is why the subject interests me so much.
This can be true of ANY Historical character and the figure is probably a lot less than 50%.
Most times we are learning other peoples opinions and can only learn the subjects character from what we know they actually said rather than what we are told they said.

Apr 15, 2011 20:59:56 GMT pixiedust said:

No one can know Jim better than the people with whom Jim shared his ideas, dreams and life with on a regular basis.

This statement from you I am afraid I find the most ridiculous one you have uttered here. Not because I disagree with the sentiment as I don't. You are spot on there.
But because you yourself claim to be in that group.

In the short time you were an peripheral acquaintance of Morrison you cannot of interacted with him that much as he did have other things that are well documented that would have taken his attention during this short period.
I don't recall you claiming Jim invited you over to witness the LAW sessions, rehearsals or recordings. Nor do I remember anyone saying you came to his birthday session or the two gigs we know happened.
Obviously there are a lot of blanks during the period but even if Morrison interacted with you on a weekly basis this claim you make seems a bit far fetched.

I have seen this myself in my time in the Doors cyber space world.
Peripheral figures making grand claims like this, whether they are true or not is most times difficult if not impossible to know.
People weave fantasies around Jim Morrison and The Doors.
The people nearest to him not immune from this as Ray Manzarek himself alters reality to suit his weird fantasies about Jim Morrison.

These kinds of statement are why people such as yourself come under attack on places like Freedom Mans board.

Of course that will not happen here as I will not allow that for any member here.

It's neither here nor there to me who knew Morrison and how much but we both know people do exaggerate their position when it comes to this band.

I am sure Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger and John Densmore shared many a moment like this with Jim Morrison but often they themselves show little understanding 40 years later.

Peripheral characters such as yourself, and I keep using this word 'peripheral' Salli, interacted with Morrison throughout his life and Doors career.
Some have profited from this relationship in terms of monetary gain and esteem throughout our Doors cyber world.
You are one of those.
I do not doubt you enjoyed a friendly interaction with Jim Morrison but the statement you made I have also no doubt exaggerates this interaction.

We can argue about this forever and my opinion will not alter. The reason for that is because in the time I have been in cyber space I have yet to see anything come from you that offers any glimpse of Jim Morrison that I cannot find in the very books you dismiss, in a lot of cases rightly so, as not being able to give insight into the real Jim Morrison.
The interview which sparked this debate is one of the better ones but the most interesting question did not even come from you and Morrison that day was not talking to 'you' he was talking to three people that day.

As I said I agree completely that 'no one can know Jim Morrison better than the people with whom Jim shared his ideas, dreams and life with on a regular basis.'
But the idea you were one of them for me falls down on a number of levels.

I am sorry if you will see this as an attack on you because it isn't.
But people who make such grand claims in The Doors world must understand that we fans are not all mindless sheep and will question these claims and will even seek information regarding these claims from other sources.
I like Doors History. I seek information regarding that History.
When I find something I like to question it further and try to find clarity with regard that information.
It's very difficult as The Doors world is clouded with Myth and Misinformation.

My goal is not to 'know' The Doors or Jim Morrison but simply to 'understand' both better from an historical perspective.
I don't have any interest in being their friends but I do have a great deal of interest in understanding as much as I can about the entity they were all part of.

[darkstar3]

Salli, you make a excellent point, and have done so many times before in saying that “No one, even you, can know Jim just from books, interviews or articles in magazines, better than the people with whom Jim shared his ideas, dreams and life with on a regular basis.

No book, interview or article will ever capture more than 50% of who Jim really was. It was a non-peripheral privilege to know Jim.”

Your sediments are fair and neither Alex nor I question that you did not know Jim Morrison. It is a fact that you did and thanks to the interview that you and two other journalists did for Circus Magazine you enlightened Doors fans with another glimpse into Doors history of late October 1970.

I whole heartedly agree with your comments that no one will know Jim 100% from just reading books, magazines and articles but people within the Doors Camp have acknowledged that no one really knew Jim Morrison 100%.

I think we can both agree that a few of the books were designed in sharing information about Jim so the reader would gain an understanding of Jim through the person or persons that were interviewed in those books. I’m referring specifically to Frank Liscinadro’s books, “ A Feast Of Friends” and “An Hour For Magic.”


Of course Frank didn’t spend every day in Morrison’s company but he was around for a good portion of Jim’s life and in turn he knew and interviewed others that spent time with Jim. A lot of the interviewee’s related their remembrances not only at the beginning of Jim’s career but also towards the end of his career with the Doors. Unfortunately, I didn’t come across an interview with you in either of Frank’s books and considering your knowledge of Jim Morrison as a person and a friend of his it saddens me that a personal interview with you was not included in Franks' books.

With my limited knowledge of events this is what I have come to understand happened in the latter months of Jim’s residence in Los Angeles:

He was busy with many projects including the work on the L.A. Woman album, he performed a couple of concerts, he gave other interviews to the press among them to Bob Courish and Ben Fong Torres, he had to attend the final days of court appearances and subsequent sentencing in Miami, he recorded his poetry, he bar hopped and went on adventures with his guy friends including by not limited to Catalina Island, he got his affairs in order pending his departure for Paris by signing legal documentation, he squared away his obligations to his band mates and Elektra, he finally gave into Pamela’s wishes to leave the country and go away with her, according to Judy Huddleston he took a room at the Hyatt on Sunset where she visited him on occasion and he also took up a two month residence with Eva Gardoni Hormel at her home in West Hollywood. He was also living on and off with Pamela at an apartment on Norton Avenue. Intertwined with all of these events he found time to have a relationship with Patricia Kenneally, Janet Erwin, yourself and other women who have come forth with their remembrances on the google board, the Hollywood Hangover website and through articles that turn up in the press from time to time like the one just recently written by Jane Scott who revealed her phone conversations with Jim.

Jim was a busy guy that seemed to be spreading himself very thin during his last months in Los Angeles. It was a miracle he had time to sleep.

In reading your postings on different boards over the years where you recant your remembrances of the time you spent with Jim Morrison I have always been under the impression that according to what you remember Jim was great friends with Ray Manzarek during the time you knew him. In other words, the band members were tight during the time you knew Jim which totally contradicts other remembrances from people who knew Jim during the same period of time. Who are Doors fans suppose to believe? What is the true story in regards to Manzarek’s and Morrison's relationship during the time you knew Jim?

With all due respect to you, the only remembrances I have ever read from you or that were posted on your behalf on the google boards is the details of your October 13 1970 interview, Jim’s relationship with Patricia Kenneally and Janet Erwin, the fact that Linda Ashcroft is a liar and deceived people with her book of fiction and the fact that Patricia Butler is another liar who wrote a book of fiction.

Considering all of the contradictions and out right internet arguments and threats that these “female relationship” subjects have raised over the years it is no doubt people are confused.

One other point you are familiar with is the fact of your claim that Jim left the U.S. for Paris to escape prosecution through means of extradition in regards to his appeal to the Miami trial. Frank Liscinadro claims this is untrue that Jim went to Paris to escape the trappings of rock stardom and to start a new life writing. If uninformed Doors fans like Alex and myself are to learn anything about Jim Morrison who are we suppose to believe on the subject of Jim’s departure to Paris?

You have mentioned that during the Densmore Trial that yourself and others had inside information on the case which cast a bad light on John Densmore. So bad in fact that he would loose the case and subsequently have to pay for his actions as Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger had all the rights they needed to use the Doors name for any purpose they saw fit. I question as to why you even made these claims at all as you stated many times that you were a close friend of Jim and as such would be a person that would have known about the prior band agreements that were signed prior to Jim leaving the U.S.

I did not see yourself or anyone on the Doors forum offer any facts about the case before making such claims of certainty as to the outcome.

I'm a nobody but it didn't take me long to find out there was a agreement signed by all four band members back in 1971 that was still in effect in 2003. This document alone was one of the main factors that held weight as to the final verdict in the case.

Having said that, I wonder why you do not offer any information you know about subjects other than the ones concerning Kennally, Butler, Ashcroft or the details surrounding Jim’s death in Paris? We had an excellent discussion about this latter subject at the Densmore forum but unfortunately you would not reveal your sources for the information you proposed to us. Considering its been 40 years since Jim’s death why are you refusing to reveal your sources of information? Unless of course you were in Paris at the time of Jim’s death you must have gotten your information from others who were and all I’m asking is what people gave you information?

I know you think I’m personally attacking you right now by posing such questions. I’m not attacking you. All I am doing is asking simple questions, so simple in fact, there is no need to get defensive. It is not my intention to belittle you all I want to know is of the people who have come forward with their remembrances of Jim Morrison who are Doors fans suppose to believe? In gaining an education in Doors History are we not suppose to question the fact that contradictions were made by different people all of whom knew Jim. How are we suppose to know where the truth lies if we do not question the source from which the information comes?

[pixiedust]

Darkstar - I'm answering your post in two separate posts, because some questions seemed to relate to my views on Jim and The Doors while Jim was alive and after his death on various Doors' boards. The second reply relates to your questions regarding Jim's schedule in Los Angeles from October 1970 to March 1971 - Salli

...thanks to the interview that you and two other journalists did for Circus Magazine you enlightened Doors fans with another glimpse into Doors history of late October 1970.

On October 13, 1970, I was the only journalist present. Kurt was my photographer. Risa worked in the Press Office for Elektra. I had a migraine that day. I was grateful to have them join in and ask questions.

...I’m referring specifically to Frank Liscinadro’s books, “ A Feast Of Friends” and “An Hour For Magic.”...I didn’t come across an interview with you in either of Frank’s books.

AHFM was about a tour Jim did. FOF - after Jim died, I lost track of Kathy, Frank and Babe. If memory serves I reconnected with Frank and Kathy around the time the movie The Doors was released. Frank had finished his interview book and it was too late to do an interview for FOF. I didn't see Babe again until 1994.

....I have always been under the impression that according to what you remember Jim was great friends with Ray Manzarek during the time you knew him.

No. Janet said that. She just told me that when she was in the studio with Jim it was clear that there seemed to be a bond between Jim and Ray. Jim sat next to Ray, not next to John or Robby. That was in February or March 1971.

Jim told me that he and Ray had been close in the beginning...like brothers. That was early on. At the time I knew Jim he wasn't that close to Ray.

In other words, the band members were tight during the time you knew Jim.

No, they didn't appear to be tight with Jim at all. During the rehearsal I saw, there was a distinct distance between Jim and the other Doors. Sort of chilly, except when they played "I Heard It Through the Grapevine." Then they cooked. That was in October 1970, so maybe something changed between when I saw them all together and Janet saw them. I have no idea.

...the only remembrances I have ever read from you or that were posted on your behalf on the google boards is the details of your October 13 1970 interview, Jim’s relationship with Patricia Kenneally and Janet Erwin, the fact that Linda Ashcroft is a liar and deceived people with her book of fiction and the fact that Patricia Butler is another liar who wrote a book of fiction.

That's correct. In 2002, Danny Sugerman asked me to answer questions about Jim on the Doors board. The questions that came up were about Kennealy, Ashcroft and Jim's death. If I didn't know the answer from what Jim told me personally, I could always call Danny or Kathy Lisciandro. I made that clear on the Doors Board several times over the years.

One other point...your claim that Jim left the U.S. for Paris to escape prosecution through means of extradition in regards to his appeal to the Miami trial. Frank Liscinadro claims this is untrue that Jim went to Paris to escape the trappings of rock stardom and to start a new life writing... who are we suppose to believe?

There were three basic reasons Jim went to Paris. The first two were to (1) start a new life with Pamela and possibly get married; (2) work on his writing and make films, and; (3) as of the fall of 1970 make sure that he never spent a day in jail if he lost the appeal. That conviction in Jim was strengthened after he received his sentence.

Jim's lawyers had told him he would never go to trial. He went to trial. He had been told he would never be found guilty. He was found guilty. He was told he would never go to jail. He was sentenced to eight months of hard labor in a Florida prison.

In November 1971, Jim was angry and cynical about justice in this country. He no longer trusted what his lawyers were saying about his winning the appeal. They had been wrong about the entire case so far.

Jim was afraid he might lose the appeal, so he decided to put some distance between him and the great state of Florida. Jim had already decided to go to Paris. In October, he found out that there was no extradition to the US from France for sexual crimes, so Paris was perfect for avoiding prison as well as the other reasons he had for going. If Jim lost the appeal, he figured he could stay comfortably in France with Pamela and make films and write.

I know Jim did not discuss this reason with his attorneys, despite what Stephen Davis wrote. I guess he didn't tell Frank. Tony Funches said he last saw and said his final goodbyes to Jim in September 1970 right after the Isle of Wight. AFAIK Tony would have no way of knowing about point #3.

You have mentioned that during the Densmore Trial that yourself and others had inside information on the case which cast a bad light on John Densmore. So bad in fact that he would loose the case and subsequently have to pay for his actions as Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger had all the rights they needed to use the Doors name for any purpose they saw fit...I did not see yourself or anyone on the Doors forum offer any facts about the case before making such claims of certainty as to the outcome. I question as to why you even made these claims at all as you stated many times that you were a close friend of Jim and as such would be a person that would have known about the prior band agreements that were signed prior to Jim leaving the U.S.

No, that was Janet and/or Mewsical. The first I heard about any agreement or document was on the Doors Boards during the trial.

We had an excellent discussion about...Jim's death...at the Densmore forum but unfortunately you would not reveal your sources for the information you proposed to us. Considering its been 40 years since Jim’s death why are you refusing to reveal your sources of information?

My sources about Jim's death told me "off the record" as a reporter. It's similar to legal or medical confidentiality. Unless my sources wish to tell you themselves, I cannot, even now, because I promised.

...all I want to know is of the people who have come forward with their remembrances of Jim Morrison who are Doors fans suppose to believe? In gaining an education in Doors History are we not suppose to question the fact that contradictions were made by different people all of whom knew Jim.

When people talk about Jim there are bound to be conflicts. Jim related to each person he knew slightly differently, depending on the level of trust he felt in them. Also Jim related to men differently than he related to women. He shared things with women that he wouldn't share with men and vice versa. In the Sixties and Seventies men didn't confide intense personal emotional stuff to other men, but they did tell their girlfriends or female friends. It's different now.

How are we suppose to know where the truth lies if we do not question the source from which the information comes?

I don't know. A lot of people who knew Jim won't talk to anyone anymore. Many of us have been badly burned by having our memories distorted beyond recognition or we've seen others suffer that experience.

The only thing I can suggest is to try to use some judgment, don't jump to conclusions, try to keep what everyone did say straight, and don't judge what happened then by today's standards or morals.

[pixiedust]

Here's a pretty comprehensive report of Jim's schedule from October 1970 to March 11, 1971. My sources are Jim, my work calendar/journal and notes I found in an old check book, and people with whom I spoke at the time and/or over the years since Jim died, including: Babe Hill, Kathy Lisciandro, Sharon who worked in the office at the Hyatt House, Danny Sugerman, my ex roommate Cathy who had known Jim since 1966, my friend Vera, Janet Erwin, a mutual friend of Pamela's and mine, and others who were present at the time.

Others who've shared their memories in print are Judy Huddleston, Patricia Kennealy, and Creedence Clearwater Revival's press junket held in Berkeley California.

With my limited knowledge of events this is what I have come to understand happened in the latter months of Jim’s residence in Los Angeles:

He was busy with many projects including the work on the L.A. Woman album,

From October 1970 to January 1971, AFAIK Jim was involved with three projects - his poetry, the rehearsals for the December concerts and LAW. Regarding creative work, I found Jim to be very disciplined and extremely organized; I think partly due to Kathy Lisciandro's excellent sense of organization, patience and ability to work with Jim.

...he performed a couple of concerts,

Yes, December 11 and 12 - Texas and Louisiana.

...he gave other interviews to the press among them to Bob Courish

It's Bob CHORUSH. Jim also did an interview with the CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Company. That took two to three hours. Jim seemed to like setting aside two to three hours for interviews. He had four interviews that I know of between October 1970 and March 1971 - me, CBC, Bob and Ben. I don't think that Jane Scott was an interview in 1970-71. I think that was a friendly call Jim made to her that lasted just over an hour.

...he had to attend the final days of court appearances and subsequent sentencing in Miami.

The trial and verdict were in September. I got the impression you were talking about October to March. Jim left for Miami on October 29th, was sentenced the 30th, then he and Babe drove back to LA, arriving on Nov. 18th or 19th and checked into the Chateau Marmont.

...he recorded his poetry,

For his birthday on December 8th with Frank and Kathy Lisciandro and Florentine Pabst.

...he got his affairs in order pending his departure for Paris by signing legal documentation,

Surely all the legal documents took was at the most a few hours at the office?

...he squared away his obligations to his band mates and Elektra,

Rehearsals and recording LAW fulfilled all his obligations to his band mates and Elektra.

...he finally gave into Pamela’s wishes to leave the country and go away with her,

Paris was Jim's dream way before it was Pamela's, according to Jim. Jim fell in love with Paris when he visited it in June of 1970 during a vacation, according to Leon Barnard. Jim told me he'd been there. He loved Paris. It provided a needed anonymity for him, a place for him to escape to and to start over.

...Jim was a busy guy that seemed to be spreading himself very thin during his last months in Los Angeles. It was a miracle he had time to sleep.

Yes. He was busy, but I don't think Jim spread himself any thinner than he normally did. He seemed able to pace himself well energy wise, so I assume he got enough sleep to live his life comfortably between October 1970 and March 1971.

...he bar hopped and went on adventures with his guy friends including by not limited to Catalina Island, according to Judy Huddleston he took a room at the Hyatt on Sunset where she visited him on occasion and he also took up a two month residence with Eva Gardoni Hormel at her home in West Hollywood. He was also living on and off with Pamela at an apartment on Norton Avenue. Intertwined with all of these events he found time to have a relationship with Patricia Kenneally, Janet Erwin, yourself and other women who have come forth with their remembrances on the google board, the Hollywood Hangover website and through articles that turn up in the press from time to time like the one just recently written by Jane Scott who revealed her phone conversations with Jim.

I think if you check, you'll find that most of the women on the Google boards and at the Hollywood Hangover website last saw Jim before October 1970.

Judy Huddleston said she last saw Jim at the Hyatt House on October 8th. I don't know if she saw Jim again before he left for Paris. I'd have to check her book.

There's a timing problem with Eva Gardonyi, so I checked her interview again. She claimed that Jim arrived with two suitcases the night her husband, filmmaker Frank Gardonyi, left for Mexico and Jim "lived there with me for about a month and a half, two months." She implied that Jim came home to her every night. Eva said Jim moved in with her after Pamela had left for Europe "a few weeks before," (Pamela left at the end of September 1970 or on February 14,1971), and while Jim was recording LAW.

(Did Jim live with Eva, spending every night in her house from October 1970 to December or December through February 1971, or January through March 1971?)

In October 1970, I know for a fact that Eva wasn't around. After October 18th, Jim and Babe Hill stayed in every night at the Hyatt. Jim and Babe flew to Miami on October 29th. Jim and Babe got back from their road trip (Miami to LA) on either November 18th or 19th. They checked into the Chateau.

In November 1970, I saw Jim a couple of times in late November (dinner one night, a movie the other with Kathy and Frank Lisciandro) and I returned Jim's phone calls to me and spoke to him regularly at the Chateau. Eva may have seen Jim for a couple of nights in November, but my ex-roommate Cathy, who had known Jim since 1966, was seeing Jim several nights a week at that time. (I'm identifying Cathy as "my ex-roommate Cathy" in order to avoid any confusion with Kathy Lisciandro.)

In December my ex-roommate Cathy saw Jim twice prior to his birthday and once prior to Pamela's birthday. My ex-roommate Cathy called me on the 19th or 20th to say that Pamela had returned on December 15 and my ex-roommate Cathy wasn't going to be seeing Jim for awhile.

On December 13th or 14th, Patricia Kennealy flew in from the CCR press weekend in Berkeley California to pursue Jim. She impaled a note to Jim's desk with her knife on Monday the 14th. Pamela returned to LA on December 15th. A depressed and angry Kennealy left for New York on December 16th.

From December 16th on, Jim spent almost every single night with Pamela until she left for Paris on February 14, 1971. The few nights away from Pamela were spent with Babe Hill at the Chateau.

After Pamela left, Kennealy (who had arrived back in LA on January 31st,) again pursued Jim mercilessly from February 17th to the 20th, then finally completely defeated in her efforts to capture Jim for herself left for New York on the morning of 2/20/71 and never saw Jim alive again. (The details about Kennealy are in Tiffany Talks: Your Ballroom Days are Over, Baby, DCM 1999 Annual.)

Jim split the last three weeks of his time in Los Angeles (February 20th to March 11th) between Babe at the Chateau and some week days/nights with Janet Erwin (see Your Ballroom Days are Over, Baby soon on the DCM website). He also spent a weekend or two with a model named Sarah whose friend was dating Babe Hill. I believe Sarah was with Jim for the day and a half Catalina trip with Babe and Sarah's girlfriend. Janet last saw Jim on March 8th.

Jim left for Paris on the morning of March 11th, having missed his flight the night before because he became so involved in his conversation-dinner with Frank, Kathy, Babe and I believe Hank Zavallos said he was there as well.

The problem is, aside from Pamela, there is no solid one-and-a-half to two-month period in Jim's life between October 8, 1970 to March 11, 1971 where Jim went home faithfully to just one person every single night while he was recording LAW.

Jim was with Pamela from December 16th through February 14th and even though it wasn't every night, it was close to 99% of them.

November and bits in December were spent with my my ex-roommate Cathy. Pamela was with Jim December 15 to February 14. After Pam left, there was Kennealy (very briefly). Then Jim saw Janet regularly and Sarah briefly, until he left for Paris. I actually have a timeline on all this thanks to my sources and there doesn't seem to be any room for Eva's claim that Jim lived at her home "with me for about a month and a half, two months, " during the LAW days.

Darkstar, can you figure out where Jim's two-month residency with Eva Gardonyi happened? I've tried. I can't.

Thank you for the questions. I hope these answers can help clear things up for you. ;D ;D ;D

[darkstar3]

Apr 24, 2011 19:22:55 GMT pixiedust said:

Here's a pretty comprehensive report of Jim's schedule from October 1970 to March 11, 1971. My sources are Jim, my work calendar/journal and notes I found in an old check book, and people with whom I spoke at the time and/or over the years since Jim died, including: Babe Hill, Kathy Lisciandro, Sharon who worked in the office at the Hyatt House, Danny Sugerman, my ex roommate Cathy who had known Jim since 1966, my friend Vera, Janet Erwin, a mutual friend of Pamela's and mine, and others who were present at the time.

Others who've shared their memories in print are Judy Huddleston, Patricia Kennealy, and Creedence Clearwater Revival's press junket held in Berkeley California.

With my limited knowledge of events this is what I have come to understand happened in the latter months of Jim’s residence in Los Angeles:

He was busy with many projects including the work on the L.A. Woman album,

From October 1970 to January 1971, AFAIK Jim was involved with three projects - his poetry, the rehearsals for the December concerts and LAW. Regarding creative work, I found Jim to be very disciplined and extremely organized; I think partly due to Kathy Lisciandro's excellent sense of organization, patience and ability to work with Jim.



Yes, December 11 and 12 - Texas and Louisiana.



It's Bob CHORUSH. Jim also did an interview with the CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Company. That took two to three hours. Jim seemed to like setting aside two to three hours for interviews. He had four interviews that I know of between October 1970 and March 1971 - me, CBC, Bob and Ben. I don't think that Jane Scott was an interview in 1970-71. I think that was a friendly call Jim made to her that lasted just over an hour.



The trial and verdict were in September. I got the impression you were talking about October to March. Jim left for Miami on October 29th, was sentenced the 30th, then he and Babe drove back to LA, arriving on Nov. 18th or 19th and checked into the Chateau Marmont.



For his birthday on December 8th with Frank and Kathy Lisciandro and Florentine Pabst.



Surely all the legal documents took was at the most a few hours at the office?



Rehearsals and recording LAW fulfilled all his obligations to his band mates and Elektra.



Paris was Jim's dream way before it was Pamela's, according to Jim. Jim fell in love with Paris when he visited it in June of 1970 during a vacation, according to Leon Barnard. Jim told me he'd been there. He loved Paris. It provided a needed anonymity for him, a place for him to escape to and to start over.



Yes. He was busy, but I don't think Jim spread himself any thinner than he normally did. He seemed able to pace himself well energy wise, so I assume he got enough sleep to live his life comfortably between October 1970 and March 1971.

...he bar hopped and went on adventures with his guy friends including by not limited to Catalina Island, according to Judy Huddleston he took a room at the Hyatt on Sunset where she visited him on occasion and he also took up a two month residence with Eva Gardoni Hormel at her home in West Hollywood. He was also living on and off with Pamela at an apartment on Norton Avenue. Intertwined with all of these events he found time to have a relationship with Patricia Kenneally, Janet Erwin, yourself and other women who have come forth with their remembrances on the google board, the Hollywood Hangover website and through articles that turn up in the press from time to time like the one just recently written by Jane Scott who revealed her phone conversations with Jim.

I think if you check, you'll find that most of the women on the Google boards and at the Hollywood Hangover website last saw Jim before October 1970.

Judy Huddleston said she last saw Jim at the Hyatt House on October 8th. I don't know if she saw Jim again before he left for Paris. I'd have to check her book.

There's a timing problem with Eva Gardonyi, so I checked her interview again. She claimed that Jim arrived with two suitcases the night her husband, filmmaker Frank Gardonyi, left for Mexico and Jim "lived there with me for about a month and a half, two months." She implied that Jim came home to her every night. Eva said Jim moved in with her after Pamela had left for Europe "a few weeks before," (Pamela left at the end of September 1970 or on February 14,1971), and while Jim was recording LAW.

(Did Jim live with Eva, spending every night in her house from October 1970 to December or December through February 1971, or January through March 1971?)

In October 1970, I know for a fact that Eva wasn't around. After October 18th, Jim and Babe Hill stayed in every night at the Hyatt. Jim and Babe flew to Miami on October 29th. Jim and Babe got back from their road trip (Miami to LA) on either November 18th or 19th. They checked into the Chateau.

In November 1970, I saw Jim a couple of times in late November (dinner one night, a movie the other with Kathy and Frank Lisciandro) and I returned Jim's phone calls to me and spoke to him regularly at the Chateau. Eva may have seen Jim for a couple of nights in November, but my ex-roommate Cathy, who had known Jim since 1966, was seeing Jim several nights a week at that time. (I'm identifying Cathy as "my ex-roommate Cathy" in order to avoid any confusion with Kathy Lisciandro.)

In December my ex-roommate Cathy saw Jim twice prior to his birthday and once prior to Pamela's birthday. My ex-roommate Cathy called me on the 19th or 20th to say that Pamela had returned on December 15 and my ex-roommate Cathy wasn't going to be seeing Jim for awhile.

On December 13th or 14th, Patricia Kennealy flew in from the CCR press weekend in Berkeley California to pursue Jim. She impaled a note to Jim's desk with her knife on Monday the 14th. Pamela returned to LA on December 15th. A depressed and angry Kennealy left for New York on December 16th.

From December 16th on, Jim spent almost every single night with Pamela until she left for Paris on February 14, 1971. The few nights away from Pamela were spent with Babe Hill at the Chateau.

After Pamela left, Kennealy (who had arrived back in LA on January 31st,) again pursued Jim mercilessly from February 17th to the 20th, then finally completely defeated in her efforts to capture Jim for herself left for New York on the morning of 2/20/71 and never saw Jim alive again. (The details about Kennealy are in Tiffany Talks: Your Ballroom Days are Over, Baby, DCM 1999 Annual.)

Jim split the last three weeks of his time in Los Angeles (February 20th to March 11th) between Babe at the Chateau and some week days/nights with Janet Erwin (see Your Ballroom Days are Over, Baby soon on the DCM website). He also spent a weekend or two with a model named Sarah whose friend was dating Babe Hill. I believe Sarah was with Jim for the day and a half Catalina trip with Babe and Sarah's girlfriend. Janet last saw Jim on March 8th.

Jim left for Paris on the morning of March 11th, having missed his flight the night before because he became so involved in his conversation-dinner with Frank, Kathy, Babe and I believe Hank Zavallos said he was there as well.

The problem is, aside from Pamela, there is no solid one-and-a-half to two-month period in Jim's life between October 8, 1970 to March 11, 1971 where Jim went home faithfully to just one person every single night while he was recording LAW.

Jim was with Pamela from December 16th through February 14th and even though it wasn't every night, it was close to 99% of them.

November and bits in December were spent with my my ex-roommate Cathy. Pamela was with Jim December 15 to February 14. After Pam left, there was Kennealy (very briefly). Then Jim saw Janet regularly and Sarah briefly, until he left for Paris. I actually have a timeline on all this thanks to my sources and there doesn't seem to be any room for Eva's claim that Jim lived at her home "with me for about a month and a half, two months, " during the LAW days.

Darkstar, can you figure out where Jim's two-month residency with Eva Gardonyi happened? I've tried. I can't.

Thank you for the questions. I hope these answers can help clear things up for you. ;D ;D ;D

Thank you for answers. They are most appreciated.

Crawdaddy Magazine has an article about Jim spending his time on October 29 1970 with Clarence White on a flight from LAX to MIA.
newdoorstalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=calendarview&thread=1352

I was under the impression that Kennealy confronted Pamela in Diane's apartment when Kennealy flew out to L.A. (to be honest I have a hard time trusting anything Kennealy has said). I read Janet's story in the DCM back in '99 (I was a subscriber and have the magazine). From reading that article I came away with the understanding that after Jim used Janet to get rid of Kennealy (which sent Kennealy back to New York in a rage of jealously) he went on with making plans to depart for Paris with Pamela and at the same time he had a lot of other things going on after Kennealy's departure. Judy Huddleston claims he was seeing her at the Hyatt at the same time. From all the information out there it seems he was bouncing from place to place just before he departed for Paris. To me it doesn't seem he had enough hours in the day to do everything I have read from different sources. He was doing cocaine at the time so maybe that had an effect on his stamina but you can only stay awake for so long.

"Attracted by the chance to talk intelligently about something other than the music scene, Jim Morrison agreed to a "literary" interview with Tony Thomas of the Canadian Broadcasting Company. The interview took place at The Doors office in Los Angeles on May 27, 1970 and was partially aired on radio in Canada, but was never published.

More here:
newdoorstalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=calendarview&thread=641

I got the Eva Gardonyi information from an interview she gave to Frank Liscinadro in his "Feast Of Friends" book. There is no specific date but the interview does point to the fact that Morrison was with her during the rehearsals and recording of the L.A. Woman album. I suppose the only way to find out more information is to re-interview Eva but I have never seen any mention of her other than Frank's book so I would not know where to begin tracking her down.

A majority of the questions posed stemmed from your name being used as collateral on many postings on different message boards over the years. The postings I came across were supposedly in-directly answered by you but posted by a friends of yours.

Your answers on this forum help to clear up the misconceptions made by others but it doesn't take away from the fact that those postings are still out there and as such the confusion of facts is still being diluted as fans still have access to read those uncensored and unregulated boards where your name was used.

Did you really give permission for friends of yours to use your name to back their claims on different boards?

[pixiedust]

Thank you for answers. They are most appreciated.

Crawdaddy Magazine has an article about Jim spending his time on October 29 1970 with Clarence White on a flight from LAX to MIA.
newdoorstalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=calendarview&thread=1352

Jim and Babe Hill flew to Miami on the 29th, as I posted in the last post. They had an early flight somewhere around 9 am on the 29th. I was not aware that Max was on the plane with Jim. I find Dinky's report a little strange, since I know Babe was on the plane with Jim, I had seen the tickets the night before (28th). Babe and Jim were attached at the hip in October 1970, so I find it odd that Jim would have been in the lounge by himself, since Babe was also on the same flight.

I was under the impression that Kennealy confronted Pamela in Diane's apartment when Kennealy flew out to L.A. (to be honest I have a hard time trusting anything Kennealy has said).

Kennealy's discussion with Pamela would have been on December 15, 1970 after Pamela returned from Europe, because Patricia returned to New York on the morning of December 16, 1970.

I read Janet's story in the DCM back in '99 (I was a subscriber and have the magazine). From reading that article I came away with the understanding that after Jim used Janet to get rid of Kennealy (which sent Kennealy back to New York in a rage of jealously)

According to Janet and an East Coast friend of Kennealy's, Kennealy returned to New York in an extremely depressed mood in February 1970. Jim had once again told her they had absolutely no future. Jim thought he had made it clear to Kennealy that he was through with her in August 1970, October 1970, December 1970 and for the final time in February 1971. She obsessively stalked him in real life and later in her book, where she called it a love affair and marriage. Jim had quite a different opinion of their "relationship." ;D

I'm not sure that one could accurately say that Jim used Janet to get rid of Patricia. Imo Jim saw Janet and was immediately attracted to her. If Jim had a "type," than Pamela and Janet were the epitome of it - short, red haired, thin and delicate features...and fiesty.

He went on with making plans to depart for Paris with Pamela and at the same time he had a lot of other things going on after Kennealy's departure. Judy Huddleston claims he was seeing her at the Hyatt at the same time.

No, the last time Judy saw Jim at the Hyatt was on October 8 1970.

From all the information out there it seems he was bouncing from place to place just before he departed for Paris. To me it doesn't seem he had enough hours in the day to do everything I have read from different sources. He was doing cocaine at the time so maybe that had an effect on his stamina but you can only stay awake for so long.

I never saw him do cocaine and I don't think Jim was bouncing.

If my post of Jim's schedule is unclear, I would be happy to try and find the timeline I had to put together when I did the Ashcroft article for DCM, if you think it would make things clear for everyone as to how Jim actually spent October 1970 to his departure for Paris on March 11, 1971.

"Attracted by the chance to talk intelligently about something other than the music scene, Jim Morrison agreed to a "literary" interview with Tony Thomas of the Canadian Broadcasting Company. The interview took place at The Doors office in Los Angeles on May 27, 1970 and was partially aired on radio in Canada, but was never published.
More here:
newdoorstalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=calendarview&thread=641

When I named the interviews I was aware of after October 1970, I included the CBC interview because I had heard that the CBC wanted to do a follow up interview covering Jim after he was sentenced, his feelings, plans, etc. AFAIK the discussions for a follow up were after the earlier 1970 interview which aired on the CBC in May.

I got the Eva Gardonyi information from an interview she gave to Frank Liscinadro in his "Feast Of Friends" book. There is no specific date but the interview does point to the fact that Morrison was with her during the rehearsals and recording of the L.A. Woman album.

The timeline I did with the help of several of Jim's friends that show Jim's activities between October 1970 and March 11, 1971 does not support Eva's claims that Jim moved in with her that winter. She may have seen him for a few nights, but after carefully reviewing the timeline which was verified by several people close to Jim, I don't know where on earth she could have claimed a month and a half to two months of having Jim return to her and her house every night.

It would have been physically impossible for Jim to do what Eva claimed he did.

I suppose the only way to find out more information is to re-interview Eva but I have never seen any mention of her other than Frank's book so I would not know where to begin tracking her down.

I believe she married the owner of Hormel. Other than that I have no information. If you find her I'd love to interview her. ;D ;D

A majority of the questions posed stemmed from your name being used as collateral on many postings on different message boards over the years. The postings I came across were supposedly in-directly answered by you but posted by a friends of yours.

Your answers on this forum help to clear up the misconceptions made by others but it doesn't take away from the fact that those postings are still out there and as such the confusion of facts is still being diluted as fans still have access to read those uncensored and unregulated boards where your name was used.

Did you really give permission for friends of yours to use your name to back their claims on different boards?

I gave permission to only one person to post replies that I had approved over the phone, should the need to do so arise. That person was Janet - Mizscarlett. This was prior to 2002 before I gained access to the internet.

Anyone else who used my name to verify anything on those boards did so without my knowledge or permission.

Since 2002, Janet has replied for me a few times and Mewsical did so once or twice, again with my permission, but both have done so only on the Official Doors Board, because I was not able to access the internet due to power outages and the replies were needed immediately.

[darkstar3]

Thank you for the information. As usual it is most appreciated.

You mention the time line you did for the Ashcroft book. That would be helpful for people who haven't seen it. You did a great amount of research putting that together and it is certainly important to the discussion. I'll leave it up to you as to the format you wish to post it in.

Did the follow-up interview with the CBC ever get past the discussion stage? If there was a second interview it would be interesting to read it.

You mention Eva marrying into the Hormel family. Would that be the canned ham people? Smart girl.

I think you should do an interview with all of the female acquaintances Jim had as this subject is always interesting to some Doors fans.

As for me, other than for use in a timeline situation the relationships themselves do not interest me. To me Pamela was the one for Jim and every other female was and is not important.

Thank you for clearing up the use of your name by others on different message boards. A few years back I noticed a discussion on the google boards (it is still there), that escalated into a heated argument where Miz and couple of other posters had worked themselves into a frenzy over Morrison to where they were challenging each other to a physical fight. They were going to board planes and meet up somewhere in the country and physically fight. I remember reading these posts and wondering why women would go this far to prove their points over a man who had been dead for over 30 years. I guess some people are extremely passionate about the relationship they had with Morrison but in my opinion threats of physical violence are going a bit far, wouldn't you say?

I have to say that I cannot find anything that Kennealy has to say believable. In my opinion she is one brick short of a full load, if you know what I mean. There are other women who border on obsession with a man who's been dead for almost 40 years but PK has been crowned queen by her own admission and actions over the past 20 years.

I don't doubt your word that you never saw Jim do cocaine but there is evidence of his usage of this drug from many sources during this time in his life as I'm sure you know.

Again I want you know that I appreciate your replies and in sincerity I think you should write a book based on the information you have as I'm sure there would be a market for it. It's been 40 years since Jim's death put the information you have out there so it can be included in history.


EDIT:

I have a question that is off the topic of this thread, per say but it I would like your opinion.

On Ray Manzarek's original Bio sheet that he filled out for Elektra Records in 1966 in the category of MARRIED INFO he wrote MARRIED. Considering he wasn't married until December 21 1967 why in your opinion would he falsely answer this question in 1966?

[pixiedust]

Thank you for the information. As usual it is most appreciated.

You mention the time line you did for the Ashcroft book. That would be helpful for people who haven't seen it. You did a great amount of research putting that together and it is certainly important to the discussion. I'll leave it up to you as to the format you wish to post it in.

Darkstar, sorry I didn't answer right away but my life right now is crowded with life changing stuff that demands my complete attention, so I'll be happy to post a timeline, but it will take time, a few months possibly before I can post it all.

Did the follow-up interview with the CBC ever get past the discussion stage? If there was a second interview it would be interesting to read it.

I don't know if there was a published second interview.

You mention Eva marrying into the Hormel family. Would that be the canned ham people? Smart girl.

Yes, I understand it's that Hormel.

I think you should do an interview with all of the female acquaintances Jim had as this subject is always interesting to some Doors fans.

I think that a book like that should be written by someone who has no agenda and can be completely fair about the subject matter.

As for me, other than for use in a timeline situation the relationships themselves do not interest me. To me Pamela was the one for Jim and every other female was and is not important.

I completely agree that Pamela was the one and only for Jim, but I don't think we can judge who else among all the women Jim knew was important to Jim and who was not. I think, to be fair, there were women in Jim's life who did play an important part at different stages of his life and career. I don't go along with the reasoning that some people are more important than others. I think each person we meet plays a role in our lives that has the potential to influence it or change it. Someone you meet on the road and talk to for one hour can be just as important or light as much of a fire of inspiration as one's best friend or lover.

Thank you for clearing up the use of your name by others on different message boards.

I should mention that only a few messages were actually dictated by me or posted with my permission. Most of the messages on those boards were interactions based on immediate reactions to what was posted, and were based on what I had said in an earlier "permission" post.

A few years back I noticed a discussion on the google boards (it is still there), that escalated into a heated argument where Miz and couple of other posters had worked themselves into a frenzy over Morrison to where they were challenging each other to a physical fight. They were going to board planes and meet up somewhere in the country and physically fight. I remember reading these posts and wondering why women would go this far to prove their points over a man who had been dead for over 30 years. I guess some people are extremely passionate about the relationship they had with Morrison but in my opinion threats of physical violence are going a bit far, wouldn't you say?

I had thought that all the physical violence stuff was largely a joke, but then I didn't read it all.

Most of my posts about things in Jim's life have been related to trying to get the truth out about Jim. It has nothing to do with a passion for Jim, just a passion for the truth. I think that can be said of several women Jim knew.

I think that if you know someone is lying you want to correct those lies, IF you happen to know what the truth of the subject is. I can only go by what Jim said. He was remarkably forthcoming and honest about Pamela and several other women in his life. Some of those women have verified what Jim said about them, largely in articles, posts or books about him.

I have to say that I cannot find anything that Kennealy has to say believable. In my opinion she is one brick short of a full load, if you know what I mean. There are other women who border on obsession with a man who's been dead for almost 40 years but PK has been crowned queen by her own admission and actions over the past 20 years.

I think that there is a kernel of truth to what Kennealy has said. She did know Jim. She did date him for a very brief time. I can only say what Jim told me about her and shared about her, and judging from what Jim said to me about her, she has grossly exaggerated her relationship to him.

I don't doubt your word that you never saw Jim do cocaine but there is evidence of his usage of this drug from many sources during this time in his life as I'm sure you know.

I'm not denying that Jim used it. Babe Hill told me years later that Jim did and I believe Babe. I'm just saying I never saw Jim use it.

Again I want you know that I appreciate your replies and in sincerity I think you should write a book based on the information you have as I'm sure there would be a market for it. It's been 40 years since Jim's death put the information you have out there so it can be included in history.

I'd rather do it for free on the Doors board or this one. That way I can keep some memories for myself and still try to post the truth about things as Jim told them to me about many of the subjects we did discuss. I think that's more fair than writing a memoir.

EDIT:

I have a question that is off the topic of this thread, per say but it I would like your opinion.

On Ray Manzarek's original Bio sheet that he filled out for Elektra Records in 1966 in the category of MARRIED INFO he wrote MARRIED. Considering he wasn't married until December 21 1967 why in your opinion would he falsely answer this question in 1966?

My best guess is that Ray and Dorothy felt married to each other before they actually made it legal. I knew several couples in the day that weren't married legally who, when asked, said they were married.

[adam]

i've just read this whole thing in one long go, wow quite a thread! #bestdoorsboard