|
#1
07-14-2010, 05:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay s Mel just cuckoo for cocoa puffs or what?
Everything I thought, seems to me that much worse, with every article I read. <!-- No Package --> Read/saw this artivle from entertainment weekly ... Mel Gibson recordings: Have you listened? by Kate Ward  Image Credit: Michael Caulfield/OG/Getty ImagesIn Mel Gibson’s film Apocalypto, audiences watched as characters were beheaded, sliced open, and violently beaten to death. Yet, I would rather watch that graphic 2006 flick a dozen times with my eyelids taped open than listen to one of the three (so far) recordings in which Mel Gibson purportedly rants against ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. (In the first, he purportedly uses the n-word; in the second, he allegedly threatens to kill Grigorieva; and in the third, he reportedly uses a racial epithet when discussing the couple’s nanny.)I am not avoiding these clips out of support for Gibson, but because there’s something so inherently disgusting about the tapes — the way the actor all-too-easily drops racial slurs and shows no shame about violence towards women — that immediately triggers a resistant response in my brain. I understand why folks like EW’s Owen Gleiberman are mesmerized by the recordings and Gibson’s self-delusion. But unlike other private celebrity conversations gone public (Alec Baldwin’s voicemail to his daughter, Christian Bale’s on-set rant), this one seems so ultimately unforgivable, vile, and downright scary that I’m not sure I could listen and then just go about my day after peeking inside such a dysfunctional — and dangerous — relationship. This is one private conversation that I don’t want to be a part of, even if I feel it’s necessary for us all to be aware of it. I imagine I’m not the only one — who else can’t bear to listen? It’s hard to imagine how the four recordings of Mel Gibson purportedly screaming obscenities, threats, and offensive epithets to ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva won’t serve as permanent IEDs to his public image. But what about the legal ramifications? The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is currently investigating Grigorieva’s domestic violence claim against the actor, which stems from an alleged incident on Jan. 6, 2010, in which he is accused of punching her in the face. In one of the audio clips (which the world appears to have accepted as authentic — Gibson has not issued a statement yet), Gibson seems to admit as much, shouting “You deserved it!” when Grigorieva mentions the incident. That could be damning evidence. But are the recordings even admissible in court? Normally, California law requires two-party consent for recording phone conversations, and it seems Grigorieva may have recorded Gibson without his knowledge. But as criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos explains, even without his consent, there is still a chance the recordings could make it into evidence. “Generally there’s a presumption that they are not admissible,” says Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder. “However, there is an exception under [penal code] 633.5, which [states that] in certain types of cases, they can be admissible. But that is a factual inquiry. A judge would have to rule on that.” The exception, he explains, only comes into play in “kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and crimes involving threats of violence.” Essentially, that means it’s up to Grigorieva’s legal team to convince a judge that the infamous rants should be admitted. But, according to defense attorney James E. Blatt, that shouldn’t be too difficult. “[The tapes] will be admissible,” he says. “If someone is calling you to to say, ‘I’m going to bury you in a rose garden, and I have the ability to do that,’ I think that’s a reasonable inference of a criminal threat.” And Gibson’s rant might fit under another exception to the penal code: annoying phone calls. “I think it’s pretty clear that most people would consider these phone calls to be annoying,” Blatt says. “That’s an understatement.”
__________________
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman." Homer 
|
|
#2
07-14-2010, 11:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Whoopi Goldberg is defending him. Speaking of celebrities with seemingly no limit to their craziness, there's Whoopi! Whoopi defends every criminal celebrity, from Michael Vick to Roman Polanski. Whoopi is an ideal candidate for retirement.
|
