let's take a minute to breath and think...

[defendthejust1]

okay, let me be neutral here. okay, yeah so apparently Dog and the crew have been wrong about Andrew Luster..telling lies and such as people here claim (not saying they are right or wrong)...but what good does it do to bring up Dog and Beth's pasts? is it to shame them? is it to hurt them? THAT is what i think that is about. so..we've been shown that they are not perfect...newsflash for EVERYONE HERE....NONE...I REPEAT...NONE..OF US ARE PERFECT!. none of this Dog Bashing will help you to focus on helping to educate people about Andrew's case and life. it will only serve to cause more chaos. rise above the negativity, be good to one another (even if they wrong you...still be good to them) and let us promote peace on this board ;D

[notadogfan]

I believe these questions have already been answered by Admin., me or other supporters of Andrew Luster here in one or other of the topics and threads.

I'll get back in touch and post when I have time in the near future.

Let's just say that I never claimed to be perfect or a born again Christian, but Dawg and Hawgy have broken most of the Ten Comandments and have me beat in the bad human department.

Because of Dawgs and Hawgs continual lies about Andrew Luster and his case- and all to boost their star ratings and over-inflated egos - I think it worthy to call a spade a spade and trash their past personal lives.

I mean, if they want to bring up the dirt on someone else, and many of their dirt comments are lies too, why shouldn't others be able to delve into their pasts?

[Sherry]

Nobody's asking them to be perfect, just decent human beings. To lie like that is beyond the pale. It's just evil. As far as Beth's past...,,,, she is VICIOUS. Always has been. Always will be. She continues to gloat that an innocent man "has 121 years to go". Hellloooo!? She KNOWS Tonjia lied. And the point IS, it is in no way in THE PAST. It won't be the past as long as an innocent man sits in prison based possibly on the Crapman's lies. There is no way to educate people about the Andrew Luster case when that lie is still out there unrefuted. How can you say for sure that Judge Riley didn't decided to give him the 124 years after hearing Chapman say he had GHB and "rape kits" in Mexico? How do you know he didn't have doubts before he heard that, and that lie tilted the scales? Courts aren't supposed to be political BUT THEY ARE, especially in California. What guarantees that the judges that hear the habeus won't do the same thing? Duane had the chance to tell the truth 3 1/2 years ago. If you'll read back, you will see he was confronted with that very issue when he came to this board. For a little while it looked like he might have a concscience and actully fess up, but NO, it was too profitable to keep REPEATING the lie. Even after he was arrested, he not only didn't correct the record he continued to REPEAT the same lie he was busted on 3 1/2 years ago! It's not just our word. The Ventura Co. Star, the Mexican police, and the hotel owner all denied that anything of the kind was found in the room or on his persona.
BTW, Duane's crack use, and hypocritical abuse, exploitation, and humiliation of poor, pathetic, small-time addicts is not in the past either. He never goes after serious criminals, only small time penniless druggies. I realize you want a hero and God knows we need a hero today, but he's not it. Why are so many of his kids in jail and why would he do crack with his own son? Oh, that's right, that's not true? It's been several months now. Why didn't he sue?
When he does one thing to mitigate or repair the damage he may have done to A.L.'s habeus chances, then we'll all get together here with you and sing Koombiyah(sp?). Until then...

[defendthejust1]

sherry and notadogfan...you're not listening...what/who is on trial here? andrew luster's innocence or that Dog robbed a circle k when he was thirteen? LUSTER'S INNOCENCE! so that is why i'm calling for us to keep away from the personal attacks against Duane and the crew. if you're going to attack him...attack him using the facts (I believe that's the best way to do it). I really feel that we need to keep away from the name calling as well.

[defendthejust1]

obliqueone.blogspot.com/2006/09/boycott-max-factor.html btw that "crack" reference that you made sherry was quoted from a TABLOID! A BASELESS RAG SOLD FOR NOTHING MORE THAN MERE ENTERTAINMENT!

[Sherry]

Were you not warned to READ the News Archive on this site before posting again?!!!! Had you done so, you would KNOW that most of the media reports are outright false or inaccurate. They continually contradict each other and rely on OTHER erroneous media reports as sources. You should've noticed there is no primary source for GHB or "rape kits" being found ANYwhere except for Chapman himself.
And is that your idea of a source? Another idiotic blog blindly repeating the same misinformation? The Max Factor Co. was sold YEARS AGO! And so what if it's a tabloid? It was on the front page. Why didn't he sue if it wasn't true? The Star, the ENQUIRER, and The Globe have earned a good reputation and amassed an impressive record over the last 15 years, OFTEN trumping the NY Times and Washington Post for accuracy! They haven't had Jason Blair scandal like the Times. Why does Fox, MSNBC, and CNN always use them as a secondary source if they're not reliable? How many times have you heard them say "the Star is reporting..." and how many times did it turn out not to be true?? Sensational or not, they still have to abide by the libel/slander laws. They have some of the best editors and risk management depts. in existence. They check their facts exhaustively. That's why they are so rarely sued. I would give you a primer on critical reading and point out the fact that you can ask anything as a question and not be sued. You appear to be college age. It might not be a bad idea to take a reading course. Notice that there was no question mark in the 'Dog is a Crackhead' headline. In fact, there has never been a successful suit against The Enquirer. Most were over turned on appeal or just eventually settled to avoid further nuisance legal fees. Clint Eastwood sued them. Carol Burnett sued them. Neither successfully. Again, if it's so untrue, why doesn't Duane defend his name and sue them?

[defendthejust1]

I have read the news postings.

was there any video equipment that was confiscated? he says he's a porn producer so I also have to ask why when I tried to look it up on the internet (for proof he's a producer) on search engines i couldn't find any of his videos. also i have to ask why i couldn't find any listings for him on IMDB?

also sherry, could you give me a link to an article that clearly states that Chapman did crack? i've honestly tried finding that statement but i came up with nothing.

also why would he grab his indian artifacts, summer clothes, and his dog when he left his home?

also why would he feel the need for an alias? also why would he feel the need to look at real estate in another country?

I'm not trying to rile no one up here, sherry. not even you, it just seems funny to me that he would actually do all this stuff if he is innocent

[Sherry]

He made Babes N Waves I and II. No video equipment was confiscated in Mexico. I don't know about Mussel Shoals. He would've had video equipment though. He never denied making the video's of Shawna and Tonji. His defense was that they knew they were being taped. Remember Tonjia looking into the camera and asking how her hair looked?
The National Enquirer articles about the crack are on pg. 7 or 8 of the news archive. He took the artifacts and other belongings because he was fleeing the country. No mystery there. Whether or not he planned to come back, he had to make arrangements for his dog to be cared for and make sure that his belongings were secure. He WAS innocent, so why should he stay around and go to prison on false charges? I don't follow your logic that he has some obligation to subject himself to the dangers of prison in order to prove his innocence. What right do they have to do that? It seems like you're saying he cheated in a fair fight. There was nothing fair about it and he had to do what he had to do to save himself. He was afraid for his life. Prison is prison and the animals in there don't care if someone is innocent or not. Again, how does willingness to go to prison have any bearing on innocence or guilt?

[defendthejust1]

if you run during a court procedure...then you're charged with fleeing sherry. it was a stupid move and i do not support his doing that. i get why he took his dog to his mom's place...but looking for a new home in mexico? that isn't right with me. they had a hearing to see if Dog would be a potential flight risk, so did they consider Luster to be a flight risk? i guess the possibility of serving 124 years for 87 counts would have suggested that possibility. and about tonya asking how her hair looked....people have been known to do stuff like that when they were on drugs (intentionally on or unintentionally) so that argument holds no bearing with me sherry.

I know you and I are disagreeing on the subject of Andrew Luster but I do appreciate you and notadogfan for showing me respect and I hope i have conveyed to you respect that you really do deserve (not being sarcastic..this is from my heart!)

[defendthejust1]

btw..sherry....you didn't pick up on this but i was asking for a link to the source for your proof. i do not buy the national enquirer or whatever that source is because i have never really had interest in it but for this situation i'll take enough interest for educational purposes...so please post the link up here.

[stillatlarge]

stg.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=News&action=display&thread=1063857032&page=8

[defendthejust1]

okay...you know....maybe the 1995 crack story is true....but if he HAD done it in 2005....would he still have his show? i doubt it. you know...you can do all you want to try to prove to me that Dog is wrong and Luster is right...but I will not be convinced of it at this point. it's one thing to point out bad things in Dog's past (which IMHO no one but GOD ALMIGHTY has the right to do) that is fact on here...but it's another to laugh and rejoice at his downfall. I do not laugh or rejoice at anyone's downfall. I think it is horrible that it has gotten so bad for Luster (now that i am able to think clearly, I can say that and really mean it). I pray for and support both Dog and Andrew. it has been my belief for a long time that there is good in everyone

[notadogfan]

defendthejust1 said:

okay...you know....maybe the 1995 crack story is true....but if he HAD done it in 2005....would he still have his show? i doubt it. you know...you can do all you want to try to prove to me that Dog is wrong and Luster is right...but I will not be convinced of it at this point. it's one thing to point out bad things in Dog's past (which IMHO no one but GOD ALMIGHTY has the right to do) that is fact on here...but it's another to laugh and rejoice at his downfall. I do not laugh or rejoice at anyone's downfall. I think it is horrible that it has gotten so bad for Luster (now that i am able to think clearly, I can say that and really mean it). I pray for and support both Dog and Andrew. it has been my belief for a long time that there is good in everyone

I'm glad you're seeing the light somewhat regarding Dog and Andrew Luster. God works in mysterious ways. ;D

[notadogfan]

defendthejust1 said:

. I pray for and support both Dog and Andrew. it has been my belief for a long time that there is good in everyone

Good behavior and morals in everyone? Well, it's about time Dog and Beth showed some good! I haven't seen it though and even before I found this website and forum.

[Sherry]

defendthejust1 said:

okay...you know....maybe the 1995 crack story is true....but if he HAD done it in 2005....would he still have his show? i doubt it. you know...you can do all you want to try to prove to me that Dog is wrong and Luster is right...but I will not be convinced of it at this point. it's one thing to point out bad things in Dog's past (which IMHO no one but GOD ALMIGHTY has the right to do) that is fact on here...but it's another to laugh and rejoice at his downfall. I do not laugh or rejoice at anyone's downfall. I think it is horrible that it has gotten so bad for Luster (now that i am able to think clearly, I can say that and really mean it). I pray for and support both Dog and Andrew. it has been my belief for a long time that there is good in everyone

OK, again, I know you READ it. How do you read those 2 articles and HONESTLY come away with that kind of b.s.?
Linda Heigle says she has sold it to him SINCE 2005. You see what you want to see. You doubt that he would have a show?!!! Ozzie and Anna Nicole and Tom Sizemore didn't have a problem, and Lord knows they didn't do drugs Doesn't Christianity mandate honesty?