Post here your Elvis' pictures

Re: Denver '76

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:26 pm

Lexie1973 wrote:Finished it this weekend. Nice read. Not a very in-depth look into Elvis but still enjoyable to read. It does seem Elvis felt like a normal person around these police officers. Still it's strange that these narcs never ever saw any signs of Elvis' abuse of pills. But mr. Cantwell comes over as sincere in his book when saying he never noticed anything really concerning.


I think most level-headed people would now concede that perhaps all of Mr. Cantwell's observations need to be taken with a grain of salt. ;-)

Re: Denver '76

Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:15 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Lexie1973 wrote:Finished it this weekend. Nice read. Not a very in-depth look into Elvis but still enjoyable to read. It does seem Elvis felt like a normal person around these police officers. Still it's strange that these narcs never ever saw any signs of Elvis' abuse of pills. But mr. Cantwell comes over as sincere in his book when saying he never noticed anything really concerning.


I think most level-headed people would now concede that perhaps all of Mr. Cantwell's observations need to be taken with a grain of salt. ;-)

I think you're right ( did I really type that ??? ) but mr. Cantwell seems to be a highly respected (ex) cop. Would he really put that on the line by sugar-coating his story?

Re: Denver '76

Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:46 pm

Lexie1973 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Lexie1973 wrote:Finished it this weekend. Nice read. Not a very in-depth look into Elvis but still enjoyable to read. It does seem Elvis felt like a normal person around these police officers. Still it's strange that these narcs never ever saw any signs of Elvis' abuse of pills. But mr. Cantwell comes over as sincere in his book when saying he never noticed anything really concerning.


I think most level-headed people would now concede that perhaps all of Mr. Cantwell's observations need to be taken with a grain of salt. ;-)


I think you're right ( did I really type that ??? ) but mr. Cantwell seems to be a highly respected (ex) cop. Would he really put that on the line by sugar-coating his story?


Thanks.

Cantwell's retired now, there's really nothing at risk for him, and no one whose challenges for this small-market book will make any difference. He was probably as overwhelmed by Presley's blinding charisma as all the other Denver policemen, and the stories in the book are a by-product of that experience. And he sure liked JD "Summer." ;-)

Re: Denver '76

Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:21 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Good ol' JD Summer!



drjohncarpenter wrote:Cantwell's retired now, there's really nothing at risk for him, and no one whose challenges for this small-market book will make any difference. He was probably as overwhelmed by Presley's blinding charisma as all the other Denver policemen, and the stories in the book are a by-product of that experience. And he sure liked JD "Summer." ;-)



J.D. Sumner is mentioned at least four other times in the book (pages 102-118-130-152), and his name is always written correctly: J.D. Sumner.

"Summer" (on page 104) is clearly a typo.

Jadwin

Re: Denver '76

Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:22 am

Jadwin wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Good ol' JD Summer!



drjohncarpenter wrote:Cantwell's retired now, there's really nothing at risk for him, and no one whose challenges for this small-market book will make any difference. He was probably as overwhelmed by Presley's blinding charisma as all the other Denver policemen, and the stories in the book are a by-product of that experience. And he sure liked JD "Summer." ;-)



J.D. Sumner is mentioned at least four other times in the book (pages 102-118-130-152), and his name is always written correctly: J.D. Sumner.

"Summer" (on page 104) is clearly a typo.

Jadwin

Correctemundo Jadwin! But I think the Doc is only joking this time....

Re: Denver '76

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:00 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Lexie1973 wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Lexie1973 wrote:Finished it this weekend. Nice read. Not a very in-depth look into Elvis but still enjoyable to read. It does seem Elvis felt like a normal person around these police officers. Still it's strange that these narcs never ever saw any signs of Elvis' abuse of pills. But mr. Cantwell comes over as sincere in his book when saying he never noticed anything really concerning.


I think most level-headed people would now concede that perhaps all of Mr. Cantwell's observations need to be taken with a grain of salt. ;-)


I think you're right ( did I really type that ??? ) but mr. Cantwell seems to be a highly respected (ex) cop. Would he really put that on the line by sugar-coating his story?


Thanks.

Cantwell's retired now, there's really nothing at risk for him, and no one whose challenges for this small-market book will make any difference. He was probably as overwhelmed by Presley's blinding charisma as all the other Denver policemen, and the stories in the book are a by-product of that experience. And he sure liked JD "Summer." ;-)


I've already commented on this topic of the cops not noticing he had a drug problem earlier in this thread. Jerry Kennedy explains it a little in that book excerpt I posted above. They may have been starstruck by Elvis but I don't think they looked the other way. They honestly didn't see it and if Elvis wasn't acting drunk or drugged and slurring his words around them or looking like he's tweaking, why would they have? My Dad's friend who was also a cop and around Elvis a bit, didn't see it either and he really didn't give a sh*t who Elvis was. He wasn't impressed. Had the other cops (Kennedy, Pietrafesso and Cantwell) talked among themselves about Elvis having a problem, he would have heard about it but he didn't.

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:46 am

Why would the cops be concerned, other than for personal reasons? It's not like Elvis was taking any drugs he could get busted for. The potheads, acidheads and cokeheads... yeah, that would raise some issues, but not Elvis and his truckloads of doctor prescribed "medication".

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:17 am

Lonely Summer wrote:Why would the cops be concerned, other than for personal reasons? It's not like Elvis was taking any drugs he could get busted for. The potheads, acidheads and cokeheads... yeah, that would raise some issues, but not Elvis and his truckloads of doctor prescribed "medication".


I guess they could have been concerned if Elvis looked and acted intoxicated. But if he did, he would probably seemed drunk and as long as he wasn't driving, I don't see how it would have involved them. And if they they thought it had something to do with pills, everything was legal and prescribed so he would have only had to explain he's on medication for illness, pain or anxiety. So apparently the cops never saw him obviously intoxicated.

This is what has always baffled me about using the drugs as an excuse for not touring Europe or Japan. The drugs were all legal and prescribed so how would it have been a problem? Plus he would have had his doctor right there with him.

This was the 70's, there wasn't the concern about prescription pills addiction like there is now.

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:21 pm

Listen to what JD has to say about the funeral in Denver, being present or not.
It's in the first part... he wanted Elvis to stay with him afterwards.

https://hotfile.com/dl/241405236/325b4e ... e.mp3.html

JD was there 100%

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:11 pm

JohanD wrote:Listen to what JD has to say about the funeral in Denver, being present or not.
It's in the first part... he wanted Elvis to stay with him afterwards.

https://hotfile.com/dl/241405236/325b4e ... e.mp3.html

JD was there 100%

I never doubted it for a minute. I'll take J.D.'s word over the Doc's anyday.

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:41 pm

Johan - is that the same interview with JD I posted on page one, where he explains Larry Strickland had to stay behind with the tour bus and equipment to ensure everything got to the next date ok? He even talks about the places where they were playing, where the Jetstar picked them up etc - every detail seems perfectly clear and reasonable, and has yet to be addressed or acklowledged by the good doctor.

Re: Denver '76

Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:58 pm

Great interview. That settles it, J.D. was there, told by the man himself.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:16 am

Joe Car wrote:Great interview. That settles it, J.D. was there, told by the man himself.


Yup, just like the man himself Johnny Cash settled the issue when he wrote that he sang on the 1956 Million Dollar Quartet jam.

You remember that, doncha?

Unfortunately, not a second of tape from 12-04-1956 has ever been found with his voice on it. ;-)

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:45 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Joe Car wrote:Great interview. That settles it, J.D. was there, told by the man himself.


Yup, just like the man himself Johnny Cash settled the issue when he wrote that he sang on the 1956 Million Dollar Quartet jam.

You remember that, doncha?

Unfortunately, not a second of tape from 12-04-1956 has ever been found with his voice on it. ;-)


Doc, you aren't going to give any validity to J.D. being there, even after this interview. So you want audio and a pic, that's your criteria.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:03 am

Joe Car wrote:Doc, you aren't going to give any validity to J.D. being there, even after this interview. So you want audio and a pic, that's your criteria.


What I have consistently maintained is that we cannot verify his presence on that day without credible evidence, such as a photograph.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:29 am

Why isn't the JD interview credible? Would anyone pretend that they had attended the funeral of a policeman if they hadn't? Ego might sometimes tempt people to place themselves at an event of great historical significance, but is it really likely that JD would regard this event as something worth lying about?

The only reason that JD's presence was doubted in the first place was because the newspaper mentioned four singers instead of five. JD inadvertently cleared that up while telling his anecdote. And yes it was inadvertent, unless we believe that a paranoid JD, mindful of the possibility that the interviewer knew only four singers attended the funeral, decided that the only way to falsely place himself at the event was to pretend that Larry wasn't there. Umm, no.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:10 am

DarrylMac wrote:Johan - is that the same interview with JD I posted on page one, where he explains Larry Strickland had to stay behind with the tour bus and equipment to ensure everything got to the next date ok? He even talks about the places where they were playing, where the Jetstar picked them up etc - every detail seems perfectly clear and reasonable, and has yet to be addressed or acklowledged by the good doctor.


Sorry, i missed that one Daryl...don't know it's the same interview since that snippet won''t play on my pc.
But by judging your review of it, it must be the same interview.
Wich leaves no doubt where JD was and who he was with.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:22 pm

Pretty obvious to all level headed people on here that J.D. was there, unless we want to call him a liar.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:20 pm

The evidence of Elvis' words at all of those August 1970 show, spoken seriously, is very worthy indeed.


That quote is taken from your "Did Elvis Record Tiger Man At Sun" thread. So, Doc, in the spirit of consistency, are you now conceding that unless there is an actual photograph of Elvis recording Tiger Man at Sun, the spoken evidence of the man himself is now worthless? That seems to be what you're saying about JD, so the same must be true in your other threads where first hand testimony is considered more than sufficient.

Re: Denver '76

Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:22 pm

TJ wrote:Why isn't the JD interview credible? Would anyone pretend that they had attended the funeral of a policeman if they hadn't? Ego might sometimes tempt people to place themselves at an event of great historical significance, but is it really likely that JD would regard this event as something worth lying about?

The only reason that JD's presence was doubted in the first place was because the newspaper mentioned four singers instead of five. JD inadvertently cleared that up while telling his anecdote. And yes it was inadvertent, unless we believe that a paranoid JD, mindful of the possibility that the interviewer knew only four singers attended the funeral, decided that the only way to falsely place himself at the event was to pretend that Larry wasn't there. Umm, no.


We all know how accurate newspapers are! :roll: