http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnVY37b0ME

too much acid

http://youtu.be/7mZdvFSiWQI

Sad on many levels. I wonder if anyone in The Stones camp knows about this. A quiet donation of a marker doesn't seem unreal to ask or do. Hell, if I had extra dough laying around I would do it. Just seems wrong that someone lies in an unmarked grave. Especially someone who is infamous with The Rolling Stones and Altamont.

I wonder how much it would cost?

After a little research, he now has a Headstone.

In spite of the obvious awfulness of Altamont, and Hunter's killing, a big question still remains: who was he going to fire at? The Stones (unlikely, but who can say)? The Angels? (more likely, and probably justified).

Without a doubt he was protecting himself from the angles, if that makes any sense, he could have shot 6 of them and the other 50 would've killed him.

Of course they're going to say he was going to shoot Mick and they were protecting him, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell if you believe that one.

Bingo wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Without a doubt he was protecting himself from the angles, if that makes any sense, he could have shot 6 of them and the other 50 would've killed him. Of course they're going to say he was going to shoot Mick and they were protecting him, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell if you believe that one.

Yup, that's the most likely scenerio. And, of course, Hunter was with a white girlfriend, which probably pissed off the butt-ugly, neo-Nazi filth that were (are) the Angels.

I'm guessing no charges were ever brought about for any individual Angels (Sonny Barger got some karmic payback years later).

Alan Passaro, the assailant, was arrested and charged with murder for Hunter's death, but was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense after the jury viewed the footage from the concert showing Hunter drawing the revolver and pointing it in the air.


Passaro was discovered to have drowned  in 1985; police said the death was "kind of suspicious" though foul play was never confirmed.

Shortly after Hunter's death, Altha May Anderson, Hunter's mother, requested that Altamont Raceway be turned into a public park to "prevent any more wrongful deaths at Altamont". Alameda County officials later voted to allow the Raceway to still host races, but barred future concerts and restricted the number of attendees to 3,000. Anderson later sued the Rolling Stones for $500,000. After withdrawing attempts to get the case dismissed, the band paid Anderson $10,000.

Thanks for the info, mate. Good to know there was at least an arrest, due process and a trial.
Self defense? How about the people being beaten with weighted pool cues?

And the Stones - did their lawyers really think Hunter was aiming at the stage? Dunno. But it seems pretty chickenshit to try to have the case dismissed (wrongful death, I assume) when you have the event right there on film. Could have plead 'no contest' and paid Hunter's mom the $500,000. Even back then, they could have afforded it. Don't know - what a miserable event.

Edit: OK, just checked the Wikipedia info where you likely got this info. It does seem to present the Angels as defending themselves throughout the day, and insinuates that the crowd were partly responsible for the violence (including Hunter).
That's no doubt accurate to some degree, but the film does not bear that out. Whether through selective editing on the Maysales brothers part or just happenstance, the film clearly shows the Angels as being excessively aggressive even considering their role as 'security' (I've worked security, professionally, though not armed).

Mr. Yeats wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

... Even back then, they could have afforded it...

Doubt Mick would agree with that. He would say it was around '69 that the Stones realised they were, despite having all the  trappings of success, essentially broke with the english authorities about to try to tax them out of existence or at least into "exile".

The probelm with the Altamont show - and perhaps a reason the stones tried to avoid liability - is that  no-one seemed to be ultimately responsible for putting the show on.

stonedinaustralia wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

Mr. Yeats wrote on Dec 6th, 2012 at 8:14pm: ... Even back then, they could have afforded it... Doubt Mick would agree with that. He would say it was around '69 that the Stones realised they were, despite having all the  trappings of success, essentially broke with the english authorities about to try to tax them out of existence or at least into "exile". The probelm with the Altamont show - and perhaps a reason the stones tried to avoid liability - is that  no-one seemed to be ultimately responsible for putting the show on.

Yeah, good point. Who do you point fingers at - the Dead? The Sheriff's Dept.? Mel Belli (not ours, haha!)?

Bikers ("bikies", "motorcycle enthusists" as I like to call them) tend to be aggressive and often violent sorts (I've known a few), so the Stones are at least culpable in so much as being negligently stupid in taking the Deads's advice to hire them. As is well known, the Brit bikers who were at Hyde Park for Brian's memorial were a children's sunday school group compared to their American counterparts. After touring the US several times, and especially in '69, shame on the Stones for not being aware.

Yet, according to the Dead, the Angel's had acted as security at previous shows of theirs without incident and the Stones accepted this. Imho this only illustrates once again the whole thing was a giant clusterf*&% which resulted in the exposure of the dark underbelly (and reality) of all that 60s idealism, with Hunter being the sacrifical goat to those ideals.

Well, yeah, and then you can get into the 'oh, the Dead's music and whole vibe was comparitevly mellow compared to the Stones'. And that's pretty true. So maybe the Stones were (extremely) naive.
Would the Clash have used Teds or Mods or skinheads (even the militantly anti-racist ones) to police one of their shows? No. Probably because they knew - even with seemingly good credentials, gangs are still gangs, and that tribal mindset is always a potential for over-reacting (and that goes for cops too, though they are held to much higher standards, legally and socially).
I still think the Stones screwed up in taking Garcia and Weir's advice.
The Stones weren't 'idealists' or whatever and should have seen Woodstock for the (social) fluke it was. But, as Altamont was a free show, I guess they didn't stand to make much, if any, money. So maybe they did have good intentions by letting the gig go on even after all the hassles in getting it set up. But I still think they were too emotionially removed from how events were unfolding.

Bloody hell, what on Earth do the Stones owe anyone? 43 bloody years ago!

corgi37 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 5:42am:

Bloody hell, what on Earth do the Stones owe anyone? 43 bloody years ago!

I WANNA KNOW WHAT BECAME OF THE NAKED FAT MAN?

PERKS ?


http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s209/leepullen/u1653048.jpg

The Stones don't owe anything to that idiot. Imagine how different that gig, and the course of rock and roll history, would have been if that thug got a round off at the band. I was never sympathetic to that dude. The band could have ended that night.

BILL PERKS wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 5:47am:

corgi37 wrote on Dec 7th, 2012 at 5:42am: Bloody hell, what on Earth do the Stones owe anyone? 43 bloody years ago! I WANNA KNOW WHAT BECAME OF THE NAKED FAT MAN?

Who the fuck do you think Joey really is??????!!!!!!!!

BILL PERKS wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 5:47am:

corgi37 wrote on Dec 7th, 2012 at 5:42am: Bloody hell, what on Earth do the Stones owe anyone? 43 bloody years ago! I WANNA KNOW WHAT BECAME OF THE NAKED FAT MAN?

INDEED... MY MONEY IS ON "DEAD"

Edith Grove wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 5:56am:

PERKS ? http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s209/leepullen/u1653048.jpg

LOOKS LIKE HE HAD A GREAT TIME.

yes, but he was blocking the view of MANY ! And when he finally passed out cold and fell, I bet he sent at least five with him to the doctors tent.