Lady wants casual sex Quinn Lady wants casual sex Quinn Register Login Contact Us

Horny girls sex in Mildred Pennsylvania


[BANCHOR]

Online: Now

About

Nothing serious, nothing permanent Just dating each others desires and having a lot of fun doing it.

Carree
Age:43
Relationship Status:Not married
Seeking:I Am Wants Couples
City:Seabrook
Hair:Long
Relation Type:Looking For Bbw Race Does Not Matter

Horny girls sex in Mildred Pennsylvania

Horny Singles In Pomfret Connecticut

I love sex and want to have it all the time. Tomorrow morning or afternoon fun w4m Attractive single AA woman, 5'6 HWP.

I'm also looking to go down.

<

Over the course of her nearly year career, she achieved fame as both a pin-up model and a dramatic actress as well as for her highly publicized personal life. She is frequently cited as a popular culture icon of Hollywood glamour.

Born to working-class parents in northern Idaho , Turner spent her early life there before her family relocated to San Francisco.

In , while still in high school, she was discovered while purchasing a soda at the Top Hat Malt Shop in Hollywood. At the age of 16, she was signed to a personal contract by Warner Bros. During the early s, Turner established herself as a leading actress and one of MGM's top performers, appearing in such films as the film noir Johnny Eager ; the musical Ziegfeld Girl ; the horror film Dr.

Hyde ; and the romantic war drama Somewhere I'll Find You , one of several films in which she starred opposite Clark Gable. Turner's reputation as a glamorous femme fatale was enhanced by her critically acclaimed performance in the film noir The Postman Always Rings Twice , a role which established her as a serious dramatic actress. Her popularity continued through the s in dramas such as The Bad and the Beautiful and Peyton Place , the latter of which she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress.

Media controversy surrounded Turner in when her daughter Cheryl Crane stabbed Turner's lover Johnny Stompanato to death in their Beverly Hills home during a domestic struggle.

Turner's next film, Imitation of Life , proved to be one of the greatest financial successes of her career, and her final starring role in Madame X earned her a David di Donatello Award for Best Foreign Actress. Turner spent most of the s and early s in semi-retirement, making her final feature film appearance in In , she accepted a much publicized and lucrative recurring guest role in the television series Falcon Crest , which afforded the series notably high ratings.

In she was diagnosed with throat cancer , of which she died in , aged The family lived in Burke, Idaho at the time of Turner's birth, [18] and relocated to nearby Wallace in , [d] where her father opened a dry cleaning service and worked in the local silver mines. The Turner family struggled financially, and relocated to San Francisco when she was six years old, after which her parents soon separated.

He was later found bludgeoned to death on the corner of Minnesota and Mariposa Streets, on the edge of San Francisco's Potrero Hill and the Dogpatch District , with his left shoe and sock missing. Due to poverty, Turner sometimes lived with family friends or acquaintances so that her mother could save money. Though baptized a Protestant at birth, [32] Turner attended mass with the Hislops, a Catholic family with whom her mother had temporarily boarded her in Stockton, California.

Turner's discovery is considered a show-business legend and part of Hollywood mythology among film and popular cultural historians. Wilkerson , publisher of The Hollywood Reporter. Turner made her feature film debut in LeRoy's They Won't Forget , [44] a crime drama in which she played a teenage murder victim. Though she only appeared onscreen for a few minutes, [45] Wilkerson wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that her performance was "worthy of more than a passing note.

Warner to allow Turner to relocate with him to MGM. Mayer helped further Turner's career by giving her roles in several youth-oriented films in the late s, such as the comedy Rich Man, Poor Girl in which she played the sister of a poor woman romanced by a wealthy man; and Dramatic School , in which she portrayed Mado, a troubled drama student.

Kildare , MGM's second entry in the Dr. Louis Post-Dispatch , in which she was characterized as "the answer to "oomph". In February , she garnered significant publicity when she eloped to Las Vegas with year-old bandleader Artie Shaw , her co-star in Dancing Co-Ed.

In , Turner appeared in her first musical film, Two Girls on Broadway , in which she received top-billing over established co-stars Joan Blondell and George Murphy. She claimed it as the first role that got her "interested in acting," [73] and the studio, impressed by her performance, marketed the film as featuring her in "the best role of the biggest picture to be released by the industry's biggest company.

As for Lana Turner, fully clad for a change, and the rest of the cast Turner was then cast in the Western Honky Tonk , the first of four films in which she would star opposite Clark Gable. Gable, but we were [just] friends," she later recalled. Metro has swathed her best assets in a toga, swears that she shall become an actress, or else. Under these adverse circumstances, stars Taylor and Turner are working under wraps. At the advent of World War II , Turner's increasing prominence in Hollywood led to her becoming a popular pin-up girl , [89] and her image appeared painted on the noses of U.

Meanwhile, publicity over Turner's remarriage to Crane led MGM to play up her image as a sex symbol in her third film with Clark Gable, Slightly Dangerous , in which she portrayed a woman who moves to New York City and poses as the long-lost daughter of a millionaire.

Indeed, there is cause for suspicion that they didn't even bother to think. She is the vamp of today as Theda Bara was of yesterday. However, she doesn't look like a vamp. She is far more deadly because she lets her audience relax. In August , Turner divorced Crane, citing his gambling and unemployment as primary reasons.

Roosevelt during the presidential election. Cain 's debut novel of the same name. I finally got tired of making movies where all I did was walk across the screen and look pretty.

I tried to persuade the studio to give me something different. But every time I went into my argument about how bad a picture was, they'd say, "well, it's making a fortune". The Postman Always Rings Twice became a major box office success, which prompted the studio to take more risks on Turner, casting her outside of the glamorous sex symbol roles she had come to be known for. But it was just what I wanted to do. In an interview, Turner said: I don't wear any make-up and my hair's a mess.

Turner's next film was the romantic drama Cass Timberlane , in which she played a young woman in love with an older congressman, a role for which Jennifer Jones , Vivien Leigh , and Virginia Grey had also been considered. In a role that allows her the gamut from tomboy to the pangs of childbirth and from being another man's woman to remorseful wife, she seldom fails to acquit herself creditably.

In August — only moments after having completed filming of Cass Timberlane — Turner agreed to appear as the female lead in the World War II-set romantic drama Homecoming , in which she was again paired with Clark Gable, portraying a female army lieutenant who falls in love an American surgeon Gable. The project was shelved for several months, and Turner told journalists in December I'm anxious to get started.

By the time this one comes out, it will be almost three years since I was last on the screen, in The Three Musketeers. I don't think it's healthy to stay off the screen that long. Imperium , released in March , was a box office flop , and had Turner starring as an American woman who is wooed by a European prince.

During this period, Turner's personal finances were in disarray, and she was facing bankruptcy. During the shoot, Turner began an affair with her co-star Fernando Lamas , which ended after Lamas physically assaulted her; the incident also resulted in him losing his contract with MGM upon the production's completion.

Imperium , despite receiving unfavorable critical reviews. Her next project was opposite Kirk Douglas in Vincente Minnelli 's The Bad and the Beautiful , a drama focusing on the rise and fall of a Hollywood film mogul, in which Turner portrayed an alcoholic movie star. In the spring of , Turner relocated to Europe for 18 months to make two films under a tax credit for American productions shot abroad. Mature, it has taken the audience through such a lengthy and tedious amount of detail that it has not only frayed all possible tension but it has aggravated patience as well.

End result of all this flamboyant polish, however, is only fair entertainment. MGM subsequently gave Turner the titular role of Diane de Poitiers in the period drama Diane , which had originally been optioned by the studio in the s for Greta Garbo.

So now I'm fucking them. After eighteen years at MGM, I'm a free agent I used to go on a bended knee to the front office and say, please give me a decent story. I'll work for nothing, just give me a good story. The last time I begged for a good story they gave me The Prodigal. In , Turner discovered she was pregnant with Barker's child, but gave birth to a stillborn baby girl seven months into the pregnancy. Stompanato became suspicious when Turner would not allow him to visit the set and, during one fight, he violently choked her.

The detectives advised Stompanato to leave and escorted him out of the house and also to the airport, where he boarded a plane back to the United States. According to testimony provided by Turner, Cheryl, who had been listening to the couple's fight behind the closed door, stabbed Stompanato in the stomach when Turner attempted to usher him out of the bedroom. Due to Turner's high profile and the fact that the killing involved her teenage daughter, the case quickly became a media sensation.

Though Turner and her daughter were exonerated of any wrongdoing, public opinion on the event was varied, with numerous publications intimating that Turner's testimony at the inquest was a performance; Life magazine published a photo of Turner testifying in court with stills of her in court room scenes from three films she had starred in.

In the suit, Stompanato's son alleged that Turner had in fact been responsible for his death, and that her daughter had taken the blame.

In the trail of negative publicity related to Stompanato's death, Turner accepted the lead role in Ross Hunter 's remake of Imitation of Life under the direction of Douglas Sirk. Released in the spring of , Imitation of Life was one of the biggest hits of the year, and the biggest of Turner's career: The growth of maturity is reflected neatly in her distinguished portrayal. Shortly before the release of Imitation of Life in the spring of , Turner was cast in a lead role in Otto Preminger 's Anatomy of a Murder , but walked off the set over a wardrobe disagreement, effectively dropping out of the production; [] [] she was replaced by Lee Remick.

In November , Turner married her fifth husband, Frederick "Fred" May, a rancher and member of the May department-store family whom she had met at a beach party in Malibu shortly after filming Imitation of Life.

In mid, Turner filmed Who's Got the Action? In , Turner had her last major starring role in the courtroom drama film Madame X , based on the play by Alexandre Bisson , in which Turner portrayed a lower-class woman who marries into a wealthy family. Dante [] falsely claimed to have been raised in Singapore and have a Ph. With few film offers coming in, Turner signed on to appear in the television series Harold Robbins' The Survivors.

Turner returned to feature films with a lead role in the British horror film Persecution , in which she played a disturbed wealthy woman tormenting her son. In the early s, Turner made a transition to theater, beginning with a production of Forty Carats , which toured to various cities on the east coast in It wasn't much of a play even when Julie Harris was doing it, and it all but disappears under the old-time Hollywood glamor of Miss Turner's star presence.

Between and , she returned to theater appearing in Murder Among Friends , a murder-mystery play which showed in various U. The Lady, the Legend, the Truth. Turner was a regular drinker [] and heavy cigarette smoker for much of her life. Upon Turner's discovery, MGM executive Mervyn LeRoy envisioned her as a replacement for the recently-deceased Jean Harlow , and began developing her image as a sex symbol. After Turner's first marriage in , columnist Louella Parsons wrote: She is the most glamorous actress since Jean Harlow.

By the s, both critics and audiences began noting parallels between Turner's rocky personal life and the roles she played. Basinger echoes similar sentiments, noting that Turner was often "cast only in roles that were symbolic of what the public knew—or thought they knew—of her life from headlines she made as a person, not as a movie character

/p>

Lana Turner - Wikipedia

Meredith testified that he knew nothing of the murder until one night when the defendant brought the subject up. The defendant said that he had been in a tree on the Moxley property the night of the murder and he masturbated while watching Martha through a window of her house. Michael further said that while he was in the tree, he saw his brother Tommy walk through the property toward the Moxley house. Michael claimed he then climbed down from the tree without his brother seeing him.

Andrew Pugh, who had been the defendant's best friend in , stated that after the murder, things changed at the Skakel residence and he did not see Michael often. When he met Michael again in , Michael wanted to renew their friendship.

Pugh told Michael he had some misgivings regarding the murder. Michael told Pugh that he did not kill Martha, but that he had been in "the tree" masturbating the night she was killed. Pugh said he knew the defendant was referring to the tree under which her body was found. During the Spring of , Skakel was at a party at Geranne Ridge's home. In a taped conversation with a friend, Ridge stated that during the course of the party the defendant admitted that the night of the murder he had been outside smoking "pot" and "doing LSD and acid and really big-time drugs, mind, you know, altering drugs.

When he found out that Tommy had sex with Martha, "he got so violent and he was so screwed up" that he hit her with the golf club. In , the defendant planned to write his autobiography with the help of author Richard Hoffmann. Skakel and Hoffman spent a few days together at the Skakel family home in Windham, during which time the defendant talked about his life.

Hoffman recorded their conversations. One section of the recordings concerned the night of the Moxley murder. The defendant told Hoffman that he went to his cousin's house that night. When he returned, he claimed he went through the house looking for various people. He stopped at the door to his sister's room and "remembered that Andrea had gone home. He reported that he went to bed, but was "horny" and decided to spy on a woman on Walsh Lane. He claimed he was drunk and "couldn't get it up" so he thought "fuck this.

Martha likes me, I'll go, I'll go get a kiss from Martha. He claimed he went to the Moxley house, climbed a tree and masturbated. As he climbed down the tree and headed for home, he stated that something told him not to go through the dark oval section in their front lawn.

He began to "chuck" rocks into the oval, saying, "Come on motherfucker, I'll kick your ass. As he ran home, Michael said he was worried that someone had seen him "jerking off. Michael described how he woke the next morning to Mrs. Moxley saying, "Michael, have you seen Martha? He stated he remembered thinking:. And I'm like, I don't know, I'm like, and I remember just having a feeling of panic. Like my worry of what I went to bed with, like may. I don't know, you know what I mean, I just had, I had a feeling of panic.

The defendant's primary contention is that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Dismiss. Defendant asserts that a murder committed in is subject to a five year statute of limitation. In so doing, defendant relies on the provision within our former statute of limitations, General Statutes Section Rev. Paradise , Conn. In addition, defendant argues that second degree murder, an offense recognized in Connecticut prior to the enactment of the penal code, was subject to a statutory time limit on prosecutions.

This, he contends, is why the parties and the court in Paradise assumed that murder was so limited, and, rather than address the applicable time limit, focused on whether an amendment to the statute of limitations should be applied retroactively.

See DB at Paradise rests on a faulty assumption. Connecticut has never recognized a time bar to the prosecution of murder. As this court held in State v. Golino , the phrase "crimes punishable by death" contained in our former statute of limitations referred to a category of offenses so atrocious as to be subject to prosecution at any point.

The amendment to the statute of limitations, which expressly exempts all class A felonies and capital felonies from repose, clarified the meaning of the original enactment. That amendment, therefore, made clear that murder had been, and remained, exempt. Further, defendant is wrong to suggest that the type of murder of which he stands convicted was subject to a statutory time limit from to It is not at all clear that second degree murder was subject to a statutory limit on prosecutions as defendant contends.

But even if it were, murder in the second degree was akin to modern day manslaughter, not murder. Under pre-penal code law, the intentional taking of human life -- of which defendant stands convicted -- was murder in the first degree, and hence indisputably outside any limitation period.

Thus, if committed at any point from colonial times to the present day, defendant's offense would be subject to prosecution without limitation. Pursuant to an arrest warrant dated January 14, , the defendant was arrested and charged with the October , murder of Martha Moxley.

The defendant moved to dismiss. He argued that the statute of limitations in effect on the date of the offense, General Statutes Section Rev. See DA at A After additional briefing, the trial court Kavanewsky, J denied the motion in a written Memorandum of Decision reproduced in DA at A The trial court gave careful consideration to a trilogy of cases from this court: Paradise, supra, State v.

Golino , Conn. The court concluded that the gravity of the offense at issue, murder, has been "historically unquestioned.

In Paradise , the defendant was arrested in for a murder. He was charged with the same version of the murder statute at issue here: General Statutes Section 53aa Rev. He claimed that his prosecution was barred under the statute of limitations. The state did not contend that the offense was exempt under the statute.

Instead, it argued that the amendment to the statute of limitations, which expressly exempts all class A felonies and capital felonies, should be applied retroactively. Thus, in Paradise , the sole issue presented was "whether or not the current criminal statute of limitations, General Statutes Section , is to be applied retroactively.

After considering cases addressing the issue of retroactivity, and the policy implications of retroactive application of criminal statutes, this court held that "criminal statutes are not to be given retroactive effect absent language clearly necessitating such a construction" and " contains no such language. Accordingly, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the murder charge Paradise faced. It is clear, therefore, that Paradise did not decide whether a murder is subject to a five year limit on prosecution.

Ellis , Conn. That assumption, arrived at "without the benefit of either a crystallization of the issue that naturally evolves out of an adversarial presentation, or the most persuasive legal authority that can be mustered in support of a position"; State v. Magnano , Conn. The term "crimes punishable by death" refers to a category of offenses which has always included the intentional killing of another.

Testing the assumption underlying Paradise requires an examination of the history, language, and precedent surrounding both our statute of limitations and our murder statute. At the time of this offense, General Statutes Section Rev. The murder statute under which defendant was convicted, General Statutes Section 53aa Rev.

Golino , this court held murder under General Statutes Section 53a Rev. At the time of the offense in Golino , Section 53a c Rev. Georgia , U. This court interpreted Furman as having invalidated Connecticut's capital sentencing statute.

Aillon , Conn. Golino claimed therefore, that because the only possible punishment for murder at that time was imprisonment, the five year limit should apply to his prosecution. In light of Furman , the question addressed in Golino was "whether, by using the phrase 'punishable by death' in Section, the legislature intended to exempt from the statute crimes which actually could be punished by death, the exemption being because of the severity of the punishment imposed, or whether it intended to exempt a specific category of crimes which, because of their heinous nature, should always be amenable to prosecution.

Golino held it was the latter, and determined that the "legislature used the phrase 'punishable by death' as a shorthand reference to a category of crimes which, because of their atrocious nature, would always be amenable to prosecution.

Golino arrived at this conclusion in reliance on the historical analysis undertaken by this court in State v. Following the dismissal of charges in Paradise , the state recharged Paradise and his co-defendants, Ellis and Worthington, with capital felony murder under General Statutes Section 53ab Rev. On appeal in State v. Ellis, supra , this court rejected Ellis' claim that because capital murder could be punished by life imprisonment rather than death the five year limit should apply.

Instead, this Court found the prosecution of Ellis et al exempt from limitation. In so doing, this Court emphasized that our statute of limitations must be read in light of its history and underlying policy:. This court does not interpret statutes in a vacuum, nor does it refuse to consider matters of known historical fact. When aid to the meaning of a statute is available, "there certainly can be no 'rule of law' which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on 'superficial examination.

A statute such as this, enacted more than one hundred sixty years ago, cannot meaningfully be interpreted "in isolation, but must be read in light of the common notions of the day and the assumptions of those who drafted [it]. And although criminal statutes are strictly construed, it is equally fundamental that the rule of strict construction does not require an interpretation which frustrates an evident legislative intent. Viewing the language of the statute through the prism of history, this court held that despite changes to the crime of murder and its punishment, it could discern no legislative intent to thereby change the allowable period of prosecution.

Ellis also interpreted the statute as classifying offenses by their maximum possible penalty for purposes of determining the applicable time period. In addition, Ellis found the legislative history of the amendment to the statute of limitations, which removed the antiquated language and stated expressly that capital crimes and class A felonies are never time barred, instructive. That history revealed that the amendment was intended to clarify, rather than change, existing law.

The court, therefore, concluded that a crime punishable by either death or imprisonment was 'punishable by death' for purposes of the statute of limitations. The prosecution of the defendants, who were charged with capital felony, was not barred. Applying Ellis and Golino to this case reveals the soundness of the trial court's decision.

Importantly, the elements of the crime of murder which this defendant faced, and those at issue in Golino , are identical: Compare General Statutes Section 53a a 1 Rev. Therefore, if the offense at issue in Golino was so atrocious as to be subject to prosecution at any point, the same must be said for this offense. The only change between the time of the Golino homicide and this offense came, not to our statute of limitations, but to our murder statute.

The Act also provided that "murder is punishable as a class A felony unless it is a capital felony and the death penalty is imposed by Section 53aa. Although PA repealed and amended the murder statute between the commission of the crime at issue in Golino and the commission of this offense, nothing in the Act's language or history suggests a change to the allowable period of prosecution for murder was intended or effectuated.

Public Act , which amended our murder statute and created the offense of capital felony, did not change the allowable period of prosecution for murder. Neither the language nor the legislative history of PA suggests our former statute of limitations should be interpreted differently than this court did in Golino. Courchesne , Conn. In determining that meaning, [a reviewing court] look[s] first to the words of the statute and its relationship to other statutes. If the meaning of the statute is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.

Community Action Agency , Conn. Because neither the text of the two statutes at issue nor the relationship between them reveals the legislature's intent plainly and unambiguously, this Court may appropriately consider extratextual evidence. Turning first to the language of PA, several sections of the Act either indicate the legislature did not intend to charge the statute of limitations, or are at least ambiguous on this point. Notably, the legislature did not say murder is punishable as a class A felony, and capital felony is punishable as either a class A felony or by sentence of death.

Instead, the legislature continued to use the term "murder" to describe a category of crimes "punishable by death. The placement of this language in Section 2 of PA and later codified in the same section as the definition of murder, General Statutes Section 53aa Rev.

Subsection 6 c of PA indicates that the "classification of each felony defined in this chapter is expressly designated in the section defining it. Importantly, the section defining capital felony, PA Section 3, does not contain a classification for that offense.

Section 4 of the Act, however, which sets forth capital sentencing procedures, states in subsection e that if the fact-finder fails to make the requisite findings for the death penalty, "the court shall impose the sentence for a class A felony.

Capital felony, therefore, like murder, is subject to two possible punishments, either as a class A felony, punishable with imprisonment, or as a capital felony punishable by death.

Two offenses may be the same for some purposes yet different for others. Here, the legislature gave murder and capital felony a common penalty classification despite the fact that their elements differ. Footnote 7 The singular classification of murder and capital felony brings the Ellis analysis to the fore. In Ellis , this court considered whether capital felony should be held to the five year limit for offenses the punishment for which "is or may be imprisonment" or whether it should be exempt as an offense punishable by death.

See General Statute Rev. At issue in Ellis , therefore, was the exact same classification language at issue here, PA, Section 2 c codified as General Statutes Section 53aa c Rev. Ellis interpreted the statute as classifying offenses by their maximum possible penalty for purposes of determining the allowable period of prosecution.

Ellis held, therefore, that although capital felony was punishable by either death or imprisonment, it remained exempt from the statute of limitations as an offense "punishable by death. A further indication that the legislature did not change the allowable period of prosecution for murder is the fact that, although PA amended several provisions of the General Statutes to reflect changes wrought by the new death penalty provisions, it did not amend the statute of limitations in General Statutes Section Footnote 9 Had the legislature intended to change the statute of limitations for murder, it is reasonable to assume it would have done so expressly.

This is especially so because to impose a limitation on the prosecution of murder would not only have broken with over years of Connecticut history; see State v. It must be expressed in unequivocal language.

No language indicating a clear break with years of Connecticut history and the established policy of nearly every state in the union is found in PA The legislative history of PA and PA makes clear that the legislature never intended to change the limitation period for murder. The genesis of PA is Furman v. In the wake of Furman , the Connecticut legislature struggled to pass capital sentencing provisions that would comply with the constitution.

Our murder statute was amended in with a view toward bringing our capital procedures into compliance with constitutional mandates. Ross , Conn. The lines drawn by the legislature in designating some murders as capital felonies were drawn to comply with Furman ; they do not reflect the legislature's diminished abhorrence for other murders. This point is made clear by the discussion surrounding a proposed amendment adding murders committed in the course of a robbery or burglary to the list of capital felonies.

The amendment was disfavored, not because that type of murder was less serious, but because of the fear that its inclusion would render the act unconstitutional. See Remarks of Rep. Importantly, when the legislature expressly addressed the issue of the allowable period of prosecution for murder, it made clear that murder was, and should remain, exempt from any limitation period.

In , the legislature amended the statute of limitations to expressly state that there is no statute of limitations for class A felonies and capital felonies. See General Statutes Section Rev. As this court noted in Ellis , the legislative history of Public Act PA , makes clear that this provision was intended to "clarify" rather than change existing law. Blasko , Conn. Accordingly, in Golino , this court viewed the amendment as a "clear indication that the pre statute of limitations was not intended to bar a prosecution for murder[.

Thus, the language and legislative history of both PA and PA make plain that the legislature did not intend to change the allowable period of prosecution for murder. The new legislation continued to classify murder as an offense punishable by imprisonment or, in certain circumstances, death. Under the teachings of Ellis and Golino , the allowable period of prosecution under our statute of limitations is determined by the maximum penalty provided, and thus, an offense punishable by either imprisonment or death is a crime punishable by death for purposes of the statute, whether or not the penalty of death is actually available in a particular prosecution.

Murder thus remained within a category of offenses so atrocious as to be subject to prosecution at any time. Defendant argues that in our legislature divided murders into two categories for purposes of our statute of limitations: Those that are punishable by death and hence exempt from repose, and those that are subject to a five year limit on prosecutions.

He contends that Connecticut had recognized a similar division among murders from until the enactment of the penal code in Specifically, he claims that when the legislature divided murder into degrees in , it created the offense of second degree murder, designated it noncapital, and subjected it to a limitation period. The implication of defendant's argument is that in creating the offense of capital felony in the legislature intended to classify murders into exempt and nonexempt categories as the legislature had supposedly done in The defendant's argument regarding second degree murder is both wrong and irrelevant.

Neither the language of the Act nor the cases interpreting it suggest it divided murder into two categories for purposes of the statute of limitations. Defendant's argument fails at each juncture. First of all, despite some dicta in Ellis and Golino to the contrary; State v.

That statute provided as follows:. All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in perpetration or in attempting to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder in the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder in the second degree; and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find such person guilty, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder in the first degree or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession, the court shall proceed, by examination of witnesses, to determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly.

Every person who shall commit murder in the second degree, shall suffer imprisonment in the Connecticut State prison during his natural life. The import of this act was explained in State v. Dowd , 19 Conn. The crime still remains, as it was at common law; and in the more aggravated cases, the person convicted is liable to the original punishment, while others, whose crimes are less aggravated, are punished with less severity.

Further, the italicized portion of this statute requires that a person be indicted and tried for murder, not murder in any particular degree. Not until conviction is the degree of the offense determined, either by a jury, or by a judge after hearing witnesses. Therefore, if the defendant's argument is correct, the appropriate period of prosecution could not be determined until after a conviction. It is axiomatic that statutes are not to be given a construction that results in absurd or unworkable results.

Burns , Conn. Defendant's construction is plainly unworkable because neither the state nor the defendant would know, prior to trial, whether the offense of murder was time-barred. The amendment is better interpreted the same way Ellis interpreted both the amendment abrogating the mandatory death sentence for first degree murder and the capital felony statute. In each instance, this court recognized that legislation designed to effectuate the state's policy with regard to capital punishment and silent on the issue of repose should not be interpreted as altering a deep-rooted understanding.

The legislature desired to ameliorate the harsh penalty of death for some persons convicted of murder, not to grant them a complete defense to their crimes. Moreover, the absence of such a defense to murder, in any degree, is supported by the absence of case law concerning it. Neither the state, nor apparently the defense, has uncovered any pre-penal code cases in which a statute of limitations defense was asserted for murder.

If such a defense existed for over years as defendant contends, one would expect to find instances in which it was asserted. An offense punishable by either death or imprisonment, as was the offense of capital felony in Ellis, and the offense of murder in , is an offense "punishable by death" for purposes of the statute of limitations.

Because second degree murder was the equivalent of modern day manslaughter, not murder, its limitation period is irrelevant. Nevertheless, even if the legislature in did bring about a change in the period of prosecution for second degree murder, this does not advance defendant's cause. Defendant argues that both murder under General Statutes Section 53aa Rev. This argument, however, ignores the teaching of Golino. Under Golino , the period of prosecution is tied to the seriousness of the offense not the actual punishment available.

The appropriate comparison, then, is between offenses of comparable culpability. Because the common law offense of second degree murder was comparable to present day manslaughter rather than murder, the determination of its period of repose does not inform the inquiry before this court.

Murder in the second degree was not defined in the statute but simply consisted of all murders not included in the category of first degree murder. At common law, which the statute did not change; State v. Jacowitz , Conn. McGuire , 84 Conn. See General Statutes Section 53a a Rev. Thus, the period of repose for second degree murder, if one existed, has no relevance to the question before this court. The only significance of a time limit for second degree murder would be to show the legislature's consistency in imposing a similar restriction on the prosecution of present day manslaughter.

It must be remembered that defendant was convicted of an intentional killing. Intentional killings such as this would always have been recognized as murder in the first degree and, hence, outside any limitation period.

Hoyt , 46 Conn. Cronin , 64 Conn. Kurz , Conn. The plainest cases of express malice are when a deliberate intention is evinced to kill a particular individual ; Commission Comments to the Penal Code re: Section 53aa explaining that the penal code eliminated the elements of malice, premeditation and deliberation from the definition of murder because the common law concepts did not clearly denote planning and preparation as long as there was sufficient time to form the intent ; Wharton's Criminal Law Section 15th Ed.

It is clear, therefore, that this offense would have been exempt from the statute of limitations if committed at any time in Connecticut's history. For this reason, defendant's reliance on a supposed statute of limitations for second degree murder affords him no advantage. This is especially so because, at the time of this crime, there was no offense of murder in the second degree and, under Golino , it is clear that the post-penal code crime of murder had no limitation. Therefore, whatever the intent of the legislature may have been in , it sheds no light on whether the legislature intended to impose a time limitation on the prosecution of murder.

As previously argued, the clearest expression of intent by the legislature indicates it intended no such change. In sum, the changes to our murder statute between the offense in Golino and this reflect a changed approach to the death penalty, mandated by Furman, not a different view of whether murder should be time barred.

Despite the changing scope of capital punishment, our legislature has always held that the intentional taking of human life is a crime so atrocious as to be subject to prosecution at any time. California , U. The holding in Stogner is limited to expired prosecutions and the reasoning employed strongly suggests that a new statute of limitations may be applied so long as the original time period has not expired.

Stogner , S. Under Stogner, therefore, there is nothing retroactive about the application of an extension of a statute of limitations so long as the original statutory period has not expired. California , S. Crowell , Conn. Applying the Amendment to our statute of limitations to this offense does not offend the Constitution, and should not offend our sense of fairness. The violation of a criminal statute does not confer upon the violator a vested right under the then existing statute of limitations.

O'Neill , P. Johnson , A. Hodgson , P. Washington , U. Sample , Cal. As Judge Learned Hand stated in Falter v. United States , 23 F. Certainly it is one thing to revive a prosecution already dead, and another to give it a longer lease on life. The question turns upon how much violence is done to our instinctive feeling of justice and fair play. For the state to assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit, and thereafter to withdraw its assurance, seems to most of us unfair and dishonest.

But while the chase is still on, it does not shock us to have it extended beyond the time first set, or if it does, the stake forgives it. Although this Court rejected a similar argument by the state in State v. Crowell , supra; the state asks this Court to reconsider and overrule the retroactivity analysis of Paradise.

Caton , Conn. The defendant alleges that the state violated the trial court's discovery orders and due process by 1 allegedly failing to disclose a composite sketch, and 2 submitting the suspect profile reports prepared in regarding Thomas Skakel and Kenneth Littleton to the court in camera rather than directly to the defense. While certain legal principles are common to both claims, the factual context is different for each.

As to the composite sketch, this court lacks an adequate record on which to decide this claim. The defendant's claim that this sketch is exculpatory rests on his assertion that it resembles Ken Littleton as he appeared in No such factual finding was ever made by the trial court.

Therefore, this court is without a record to support the defendant's claim that this evidence is favorable to the defense. Nevertheless, even if a resemblance is assumed, the findings made by the trial court defeat defendant's claim.

The trial court found that the sketch was disclosed and that it was not material under Brady. The record amply supports both findings.

As for the summary profiles, the trial court's finding that these reports, which were submitted to the court in camera during a post verdict hearing, constitute work product and were hence outside the rules of discovery is sound. Furthermore, all of the raw data from which these summaries were compiled was disclosed to the defense prior to trial. Maryland , U. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Whitley , U. Greene , U. To establish a violation under Brady and its progeny, therefore, the defendant must show that 1 the government suppressed evidence, 2 the suppressed evidence was favorable to the defendant, and 3 it was material to either guilt or punishment. Wilcox , Conn. Under Practice Book Section , the state was required to disclose in writing the existence of any exculpatory evidence or any tangible objects such as photographs which the state intended to offer or which were material to the presentation of the defense.

The state was also required to make these items available to the defendant for copying or inspection. Reports or other work product are generally not discoverable. Practice Book Section Two and a half months after the verdict, the defendant filed an Amended Motion for New Trial, alleging for the first time that the state had failed to disclose a composite sketch as required by due process and under our rules of discovery.

Appended to the defendant's motion were certain investigative reports which the state had provided the defense in the course of discovery.

See DA at AA These reports concern an encounter between a special duty police officer and a person he observed in Belle Haven the night of the murder. In a report dated October 31, , Special Officer Charles Morganti states that he spoke with a man he observed out walking at about Morganti described the man as a blond haired, six foot tall, pound white male, in his late 20's to early 30's, wearing dark rimmed glasses, a fatigue jacket and tan pants.

He stated that he saw the man walking in a northerly direction on Field Point Road. Morganti asked the man where he was going, and the man replied that he lived on Walsh Lane and was going home. Morganti stated the person then turned into Walsh Lane. Morganti further stated that he saw the same person a few minutes later walking north on the west side of Otter Rock Drive just north of Walsh Lane. A police report dated the following day indicates Morganti agreed to appear at the Detective Bureau for the purpose of preparing a composite sketch of the man he saw on October Another police report, dated November 6, , indicates that Special Officer John Duffy, who was on duty at the Field Point police booth, reported seeing Carl Wold, age 23, out walking at about 6 - 6: Duffy stated that he knows Wold to be a daily walker who lives on Walsh Lane.

The two men conversed briefly, with Wold telling Duffy that he was heading home. As a follow up to the reports concerning Morganti and Duffy, the police interviewed Carl Wold and his father. The son reported that he left his house at about 7: He reported that he had a short conversation with the officer on duty at the Field Point police booth.

He continued walking and then headed home. He stated that as he did so he was stopped by a special officer on Field Point Road just south of the intersection with Walsh Lane. The officer asked him where he was going and he told the officer he was going to his home on Walsh Lane. He stated that he walked down Walsh Lane to approximately the Ix's driveway, then turned around and walked to his house. He stated that he got home about 8 p. Wold described his clothes that evening as "Brown olive field jacket, yellow corduroy shirt, tan slacks, top sider shoes.

Wold was described as 6'1", lbs, dark brown, straight hair, medium length with silver rimmed glasses. Wold's father confirmed his son's account of his activities on October A white road stanchion had apparently been knocked over by a passing car, and Bjork saw Officer Morganti replacing it. A further investigative report indicates that Morganti was reinterviewed on October 8, by both an investigator for the state and one hired by the Skakel family.

By , Morganti's recollection of the time he saw the man out walking had changed. Although he originally reported seeing the man at about 10 p. As in , Morganti stated that he stopped the person as he was walking on Field Point Road, and the man stated that he was heading to his home on Walsh Lane. Morganti now stated, however, that at about 10 p. Both the investigator for the state and the one hired by the Skakel family went with Morganti to the area he claimed he made the second sighting.

The distance from the figure to where Morganti said he was located was about yards. The report states that when Morganti originally reported the matter he assisted in making a composite sketch of the man he saw.

The report further states: In his Amended Motion for New Trial, defendant claimed the composite sketch prepared by Morganti is exculpatory because it resembles Ken Littleton in He argued that evidence concerning the man Morganti saw could have been used to impeach Littleton's testimony as to his activities at around In support of his contention that the composite sketch resembles Ken Littleton in , the defendant submitted affidavits from two of his siblings, John and Julie Skakel, and photocopies of pictures.

Also, during the hearing on defendant's numerous post-verdict motions, the defendant marked for identification three boxes of material. Defendant's counsel, Hubert Santos, represented that he had received these materials from Michael Sherman, defendant's original trial counsel, who had received them from the state.

Santos asserted that the composite sketch was not among the over documents included in these boxes. The state responded that it did not know if the submitted boxes contained everything that the state had photocopied for the defense. Further, the state maintained that even if they did, the contents of the boxes would not represent the full extent of discovery.

The state indicated that it had also made other items available to the defense for copying or inspection. In response to a question by the court, the state further represented that the composite sketch was most likely not among the materials it photocopied for the defense, but rather was among the objects made available for inspection.

The state argued that by giving the defendant all of the reports concerning Morganti and the person he observed, and by virtue of the fact these reports reference the composite sketch made with Morganti's assistance, the defendant was provided written notice of the sketch's existence. Further, the state represented that it had invited defense counsel to inspect and copy other portions of the state's file which had not been photocopied for him.

The state further represented that the first time defense counsel requested a copy the sketch mentioned in these reports, which was shortly before sentencing, the state provided them with a copy.

The trial court found the defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial untimely. It also found that the sketch had not been suppressed. It noted that the defense had access to two reports which refer to the creation of the sketch.

The court found this enough to put the defendant on notice that it existed and was available for inspection. The court further found that the defendant's discovery request and its orders thereon did not require anything more than a right to inspect. In addition, the court found that the sketch was not material. The court stated that the sketch would not have been admissible at trial without the testimony of Morganti. Inasmuch as the defendant never called Morganti, the court found this evidence immaterial.

The trial court's finding that defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial was untimely precludes review. The state objected as to timeliness. See SA at AA The defense attempted to justify the delay by noting, inter alia , that new counsel had entered an appearance since the verdict.

However, as the trial court noted, original trial counsel, Michael Sherman, remained in the case. The trial court found no justification for the untimely attempt to amend. Defendant's trial default should preclude consideration of his late-day claims. See Practice Book Section As noted previously, defendant's claim that the composite sketch resembles Ken Littleton in rests on affidavits from two obviously interested persons, a younger brother and his sister, and a couple of poor-quality reproductions of photographs.

Because this court cannot find facts and because the trial court made no determination as to resemblance, the record does not establish that this sketch is, in fact, favorable to the defense.

Anderson , Conn. The trial court correctly found that the sketch was not suppressed and was not material. If this Court assumes the sketch resembles Ken Littleton, the trial court's findings with regard to both the supposed suppression of the sketch and its materiality are amply supported by the record.

As the court concluded, the state's disclosure provided the defendant written notice of the existence of the sketch. Moreover, an investigator hired by defendant's family interviewed Morganti in Therefore, it is clear defendant knew of the existence of the sketch prior to trial. Further, the defendant never contested the state's representations that it had made items such as this sketch available for inspection.

Therefore, although the record does not reveal whether the defendant actually saw the sketch when going through the state's file prior to trial, it was certainly available for him to inspect and copy. This is all that Brady and our rules of practice require. See Practice Book Zackson , 6 F. LeRoy , F. Payne , 63 F. The Government is not required, in other words, to facilitate the compilation of exculpatory material that, with some industry, defense counsel could marshal on their own.

Runyon , F. Further, the government is not required to "point the defense to specific documents within a larger mass of material that it has already turned over. Mulderig , F. Even if, however, the state's disclosure is considered somehow deficient, the trial court's finding of materiality must be affirmed. The fact that the defendant never requested a copy of the sketch until after the verdict is a reflection of its insignificance.

As the police reports appended to defendant's motion make clear, Special Officer Morganti and Carl Wold are reporting the same meeting, although one is apparently mistaken as to time. By comparing Morganti's description of the encounter and of the person he spoke with that night, with Wold's account of the meeting and his description of what he wore that night, it is apparent the person Morganti saw was Carl Wold.

The two accounts dovetail as to location, words spoken, and description of the walker, i. Moreover, for the two possible time periods during which Morganti relates this encounter occurred, Littleton has a reliable alibi. If the encounter occurred around 10 p. Julie Skakel also reports seeing Littleton around this time. If the encounter occurred around 8 p. In , Morganti explains that he sees the same person again between 9: Finally, if Morganti's testimony regarding the man he saw that night was of any value to the defense despite these considerations, defendant could have offered it at trial.

The fact that the defendant chose not to present any evidence regarding Morganti's encounter speaks volumes as to its lack of significance. In his Amended Motion for New Trial, newly-hired defense counsel requested copies of the summary profile reports prepared in about by inspectors within the State's Attorney's Office regarding Thomas Skakel and Kenneth Littleton. Solomon described the reports as a 'summary of. Solomon had the report concerning Ken Littleton with him while he testified.

When defense counsel asked for a copy of it, the court replied: Defendant never renewed his request for the report during trial. During the post verdict hearing on defendant's request for the reports, the state argued that the reports were not subject to discovery because they were work product.

The state explained that they were a summary of all the investigatory efforts the state had made up to or so concerning Tommy Skakel and Littleton.

The state represented that "the raw data from which they were compiled. The state submitted the reports to the court in camera. Attached to the letter was an index and a listing of all the audio and video tapes in the state's possession. In its ruling on this aspect of defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial, the court noted that defendant never renewed his request for a copy of Littleton's report during trial.

The court found that reason enough to deny defendant's post-verdict motion for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. Id; DA at A The court noted, however, that it had reviewed the Tommy Skakel and Littleton reports in camera and concluded that they were protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine. The trial court correctly concluded that the reports were not subject to discovery by the defense.

State , Conn. Practice Book Section extends the protection of the work product doctrine to the state by exempting from disclosure "[r]eports, memoranda or other internal documents made by a prosecuting authority or by law enforcement officers in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.

The trial court correctly held that these reports, which are summaries of the state's investigatory efforts with regard to Tommy Skakel and Littleton, fall within this doctrine.

As represented, all of the data contained in the reports was disclosed to the defendant pre-trial. As indicated above, defendant submitted three boxes of material during the post verdict hearing on his Amended Motion for New Trial. At the time of the hearing, the state had not had an opportunity to examine the contents of the boxes.

A recent examination by a member of the state's attorney's office has, however, confirmed the state's representation at that hearing.

The Tommy Skakel report was compiled from the reports and other documents contained in footnote 15 below. Footnote 15 All of these documents are in the boxes of material submitted by the defendant at the post-verdict hearing. The numbers refer to the state's numbers, handwritten at the top right corner of the document, and not to the labels apparently attached by the defendant. The Littleton report was compiled from the reports and other documents listed in footnote 16, below.

Footnote 16 All of these documents are contained in the boxes of material submitted by the defendant at the post-verdict hearing. See SA at A The defendant claims that the order of the Juvenile Court Dennis, J. Second, he claims the court erred in relying on Department of Children and Family regulations which prohibit the placement of anyone over 18 in a State juvenile facility.

There is no merit to either contention. First of all, because the juvenile division of Superior Court provides a forum for adjudicating the needs of children, the juvenile court was not the proper venue for deciding defendant's guilt or innocence. Further, defendant's specific claims regarding the Section report and the Department's regulations were never raised in the trial court and should not now be reviewed.

If reviewed, they are without merit. The juvenile court came to the only reasonable conclusion in transferring this case to the adult division. Because respondent was fifteen at the time of the homicide, he was initially presented in juvenile court.

After hearing evidence and arguments, the juvenile court Dennis, J. During the reasonable cause hearing, the state offered the testimony of Judith Kallen. Kallen testified that there was no facility within the Connecticut juvenile system that provides for treatment, on a custodial or noncustodial basis, for persons over She explained that the licensing regulations of the department prohibit the placement of any person over On October 20, , the juvenile court heard further evidence regarding disposition.

The defendant presented the testimony of Joseph Paquin, a supervisor in the juvenile probation department. Paquin testified that he had conducted the required investigation under General Statutes Section Rev. Paquin stated that the Department of Children and Families is unable to meet the programmatic treatment or residential needs of delinquent persons committed to their care beyond the age of Paquin concluded that there are no dispositional alternatives available for the defendant in the State of Connecticut.

Following this testimony, the juvenile court issued a Memorandum of Decision dated January 31, The court held that "there is no available suitable state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which the Juvenile Court could commit the now forty- year-old[.

The court further found that the "facilities of the adult criminal division of the Superior Court afford and provide a more effective setting for the disposition of this case, and the institutions to which the adult criminal division of the Superior Court may sentence a defendant are more suitable for the care and treatment of this respondent should he be found guilty of the murder of Martha Moxley.

Accordingly, the court ordered this case transferred to the adult criminal division of the Superior Court. The Juvenile Division of Superior Court was not the proper forum for adjudicating defendant's guilt. Before turning to the specifics of defendant's claim, the mandate of the juvenile division of Superior Court must be considered. The jurisdiction of the juvenile court in was limited to "proceedings concerning uncared-for, neglected, dependent and delinquent children within this state.

Under Section of the General Statutes, a "child" is defined as "any person under sixteen years of age.

General Statutes Sections 46b 1 , 46b a Rev. It is apparent, therefore, that because at the time of the transfer hearing the defendant was over 40, the juvenile division of Superior Court was not the proper venue for adjudicating the defendant's guilt. Defendant's age precluded the juvenile court from doing other than it did. In this respect, defendant's status is analogous to that of a present day year-old charged with murder, arson murder, capital felony or a class A or B felony.

See General Statutes Section 46b Rev. The mandatory transfer provisions for such persons means that, although the juvenile court may be the appropriate forum in which to initiate prosecution, the juvenile court's contact with the case is essentially temporary and for a limited, procedural purpose. The defendant, like a fourteen-year-old charged with an enumerated offense, "has no right to avail himself of juvenile court jurisdiction because the statute expressly precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by the juvenile court.

Neither defendant's claim that the juvenile court failed to undertake the investigation provided in General Statute Section , nor his contention that the trial court erroneously relied on regulations promulgated by the Department of Children and Families DCF , was raised below. Moreover, defendant has failed to brief these claims under either State v. Golding , Conn. Therefore, no further consideration is warranted. Christiano , Conn. Harvey , 77 Conn. Nevertheless, if considered, defendant's claims are patently without merit.

The investigation undertaken by the juvenile probation officer was appropriately tailored to the situation before the court. In view of the fact the defendant was an adult, any investigation into his "parentage and surroundings,.

In fact, the distance between the defendant's situation and the needs of a child for whom the juvenile system is designed is evident in any attempt to apply this statute to the defendant. Further, defendant's claim that the juvenile court erred in relying on DCF regulations which prohibit the placement of anyone over 18 in a juvenile facility, is unfounded.

These regulations do not "trump" the statute, as defendant claims. Rather, they appropriately accommodate the mandate of the juvenile court to adjudicate the needs and misdeeds of children, that is, those under sixteen.

Finally, in transferring this case to the adult division, the juvenile court took the only reasonable route. Under the transfer statute, the juvenile court's decision whether to transfer a child accused of murder to the adult court was dependent on three findings. Specifically, after a hearing, the court was required to find whether there was reasonable cause to believe that " 1 the child [had] committed the act for which he [was] charged, and 2 there [was] no state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which said court may commit such child which [was] suitable for his care or treatment, or 3 the safety of the community require[d] that the child [continue] under restraint for a period extending beyond his majority, and 4 the facilities of the superior court [provided] a more effective setting for disposition of the case and the institutions to which said court may sentence a defendant [were] more suitable for the care or treatment of such child.

Defendant's claims strike at the court's determinations under the second and fourth factors. As to the second, the juvenile court focused on its dispositional authority under General Statutes Section Within this statute, the court noted only two possibilities which would qualify as a commitment to a "state institution designed for the care and treatment of children.

The two possibilities noted by the court are contained in Section b and c. Subsection b provides for a commitment to the Department of Children and Youth Services, the predecessor to the current Department of Children and Families. Subsection c allows for a commitment to a mental health facility if the court finds the child to be either mentally ill or mentally deficient. The court also found the facilities of the adult division of Superior Court and its sentencing options more suitable for the care and treatment of the respondent should he be found guilty.

The standard of review for the findings made by the court in support of its transfer order is contained in General Statutes Section b Rev. Under this provision, this Court must "determine whether the juvenile court found facts without evidence or reached conclusions which cannot be reasonably derived from the facts found or the law applicable thereto or both, or has acted illegally or arbitrarily.

The defendant raises six challenges to the state's closing argument. Despite the absence of objection below, and despite the lack of intervention by the trial court to curb this allegedly outrageous argument, he claims misconduct so egregious as to compel a new trial. If the state's argument is considered as a whole, and in light of the evidence produced, it is apparent that it was proper and effective. Jarrett , 82 Conn. The issue is whether the prosecutor's conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.

In determining whether the defendant was denied a fair trial. We must view the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire trial. Rizzo , Conn. Stevenson , Conn. Lexis , June 15, Thompson , Conn.

Four of the six claims of misconduct leveled by the defendant allege that the state argued inferences not reasonably supported by the evidence. See Def's claims IV B. A review of the state's summation in light of the evidence adduced at trial, however, reveals that each of these arguments finds ample support in the record. The defendant's claim that the state argued a "false and misleading story about a forensic cover up" and made a "false allegation that the defendant masturbated on the victim's body" is based on a serious distortion by defense counsel on appeal but none from the state below.

The state appropriately argued reasonable inferences from the evidence. First, defendant misrepresents the state's argument. The state did not argue a "forensic cover up" -- neither that phrase nor that concept appears in the state's argument. Besides the nervous Alden, the rest of the cast are straight out of Stereotypes After 55 minutes of sexual hijinks, house cleaning and baseball practice!

Brian finds a room hidden behind a brick wall which contains the skeletal remains of the Family Man's family and a small fortune in money, but doesn't get a chance to tell anyone as the Family Man caves his head in with a sledgehammer. The rest of the gang bands together and, with the help of Marty's homemade weapons including a bomb stuffed with nails and an aerosol flame thrower , try to defend themselves from the maniac.

They fail, of course he's virtually indestructable , but Alden, Vickie and Weasel manage to trap the Family Man in an abandoned well in the backyard and drop a huge propane tank on him that is detonated with the late Marty's bomb.

Rest in pieces, Family Man! The violence is tame, as the camera tends to pull away just as it's about to get interesting. The best part is when Libby sets the Family Man's head on fire with the homemade flame thrower.

Rather than running around screaming in pain, he calmly reaches for a towel, puts out the flames his whole head is a charred mess and shoves Libby's face into the spinning blades of a blender. Why is it set in America in the first place? When the sheriff co-scripter Karl Johnson says the word "peckerwood" in his fake American accent, you'll either laugh or throw your hands up in the air in disbelief. How come South African filmmakers think all Americans speak with a Southern accent and isn't this supposed to take place in the Pacific Northwest anyway?

Even with his accent, Ron Smerczak is quite good as the family-hating serial killer. The problem is that director Murlowski refuses to let him go full-tilt bozo and keeps it restrained when he should be chewing up the scenery as well as the cast. You can skip this one unless you are a slasher film completist. A Raedon Home Video Release.

Trevor Edmond steals his father's high security keycard and brings his girlfriend Julie Mindy Clarke , who has an unhealthy obsession with death, to a top-secret government lab to secretly watch his father, Col. John Reynolds Kent McCord , perform an experiment where he reanimates a corpse using the poison gas Trioxin in hopes of creating the perfect undead military killing machine.

When the experiment goes horribly wrong and a couple of technicians end up dead one of them is portrayed by genre director Anthony Hickox , Col. Reynolds is immediately reassigned and must report to another base in a different state in two weeks.

When he tells Curt that they will have to move yet again being a military brat is tough , Curt rebels and takes off on hjis motorcycle with Julie as his passenger, only to end up getting into an accident where Julie slams into a telephone pole and dies. Curt gets the bright idea to bring Julie back to life using the Trioxin, so he brings her back to the lab, opens a canister of the gas and revives her.

He is not quite prepared to handle what he has just created. When Julie complains that she is "hungry", he brings her to a convenience store, where they run afoul of a Spanish gang led by Santos Mike Moroff , that ends with Julie biting one of the gang members and the store manager getting shot. This sets off a series of events where Julie begins chowing-down on the brains of several people, leading Curt and Julie to escape into the sewers, where they are befriended by a crazy coot named Riverman Basil Wallace.

Santos and his gang follow them into the sewer, while Col. Reynolds is left with the chore of cleaning-up Julie's messes and containing the infectious outbreak. Julie is able to temporarily curb her hunger by self-inflicting severe pain, so she begins piercing every inch of her body with any sharp object she can find, including nails, coil springs and shards of metal and glass.

She is not able to sate her appetite for very long, though, and soon begins putting the bite on ever yone she runs across. Just as she is about to devour Curt, Col. Reynolds saves the day and stops her with an experimental rifle that instantly freezes the infected.

Julie is brought back to the lab, where she is to be used in a new experiment conducted by Col. When Curt catches a glimpse of what is about to happen to Julie, he sets her free, which results in the entire facility going into lockdown when a horde of the infected undead are released in the melee. It all ends on a fatalistic, but fitting, note. Besides a few lapses in logic Why in the hell would they bring Curt back to the lab and let him walk around freely?

She's simply wonderful here as a girl who was clearly troubled when alive, which only makes her undead status all the more fascinating and tragic. People are gnawed, eaten, ripped apart especially Santos getting his head ripped away from his body with the spinal column still attached and shotgunned, but nothing comes close to Julie's ritualistic piercing of her entire body.

It's a thing of unflinching beauty. If you want to view all this carnage, you'll have to search for a copy of Vidmark Entertainment 's Unrated VHS tape they also put out an R-rated cut, so be careful , because the DVD put out by Lionsgate Home Entertainment is the R-rated edit that omits nearly everything I have described in this review.

Also starring James D. The only similarities between the film and its sequel are the return of Jeffrey Combs as the ghastly Dr. Vannacutt and the former insane asylum he ran, which holds the ghostly and vengeful spirits of the mental patients who died there, many at Dr.

It seems Sara was killed by Desmond and his gang because she had Dr. Vannacutt's journal, which details the location of an ancient artifact known as Baphomet's Idol, which is highly sought after by Richard and Desmond, a former student of Richard's who now works for anyone who is the highest bidder for the idol. Sara mailed the journal to Ariel, so Desmond kidnaps her and Paul and heads for the titled house, only to find Richard and his assistants already there. The journal mentions that the idol is located in a secret room somewhere in the house's basement, so everyone agrees to split-up into groups of two a horror plot device as old as film itself to go look for it.

As in the first film, the house goes into lockdown mode, so everyone is trapped inside and the killings begin. Vannacutt a well-done and gory effect after being seduced by two naked female ghosts another modern film fact: While Ariel gets psychic warnings from her dead sister and other ghosts, the killings continue, including musclebound goon Norris Gil Kolirin , who gets drawn-and-quartered by sheets! Vannacutt and the asylum's ghosts try their best to kill everyone.

Like the first film, only two make it out alive. The Baphomet Idol plotline is not only far-fetched Why would Dr. Vannacutt possess such an item in the first place and where did he get it from?

But if it's blood, guts and nudity you want, this film delivers all three in spades much moreso than the remake. I'm also happy to report that most of the gore effects are practical in nature and CGI, while still present, isn't quite as obvious as most DTV productions.

It's also apparent that this wasn't filmed in the same house as the original this is supposed to take place in Los Angeles, but was actually filmed in Bulgaria. The original house had a personality all its own, while the house here seems more like an underground bunker than a house and besides some exterior shots of the original house and one interior set that tries to copy the first film's main room complete with stained glass littering the floor and the table that had the miniature coffins that held the guns , it bears no resemblance to the original.

Still, it's a quick 81 minutes and I've seen much worse. Stay tuned after the closing credits for a final stinger, which sets-up a sequel that takes the action away from the house. A sequel which, as of this writing, has yet to be made. Unrated , and for good reason. If you are going to watch this film, stay away from the version shown on cable channel American Movie Classics AMC since they edit out almost all of the gore and all of the nudity.

I have been informed by long-time reader Michael Prymula that the Blu-Ray version of this film has several alternate scenes and endings you can choose from.

If that stuff interests you since it is not available on the DVD , that may be the route you may want to take. Yes, it's a recipe for a new disaster. This film centers on fat, pug-nosed, loud-mouthed and repugnant camp member Alan Michael Gibney , who doesn't get along with anyone, including the other kids in his cabin and camp counselor Randy Brye Cooper , who seems to take pleasure in torturing Alan It's not like Alan doesn't deserve it, though, because he's really an annoying sack of shit.

A short time later, Mickey is dunked head-first into the deep fryer by someone wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and black gloves, who then puts Mickey's body into a plastic bag and stuffs him in the trash compactor.

Is it possible that Alan is the killer? Alan has the hots for female camper Karen Erin Broderick , but fellow campers T. Christopher Shand and Bella Shahidah McIntosh , as well as stoners Weed Adam Wylie and Stan Chaz Brewer , who make Alan smoke a joint containing cow manure, are always picking on him and interrupting his romantic overtures if you want to call them that.

Later that night, the killer ties-up Weed, force-feeds him gasoline and sticks a joint in his mouth, forcing Weed to go up in flames from the inside out when the joint is lit. Is it possible Alan is the killer? Sheriff Jerry looks into the rumor that Angela Baker has escaped from the insane asylum, so he interviews Angela's brother Ricky Jonathan Tiersten, returning from the first film , who assures the sheriff that Angela is still locked up.

Alan keeps suffering humiliation after humiliation everyone at paintball uses him as a target; Michael skins all of his pet frogs; T. Then the killings really start. Frank has his head trapped in a birdcage while the killer sticks a rat in the cage to keep him company. Randy is tied to a tree and has his family jewels yanked-off with fishing line. Randy's girlfriend Linda Jackie Tohn gets a barb wire necktie. Is Alan the real killer or is it someone else?

Don't read the rest of the review if you don't want the answer. Oh my god, this is a bad film originally lensed in , but not obtaining a release until , but it's bad in the best way possible. Paul DeAngelo, one of the returning actors from the original film [he plays sympathetic counselor Ronnie here] proves he hasn't learned a lick of acting in 25 years and red herrings, but the killer is so obvious, you'll have to be blind not to spot it.

As soon as the character of Sheriff Jerry is introduced early in the film, it's quite plain to see that it is actress Felissa Rose under heavy makeup a beard and a ridiculous fake nose. The fact that Sheriff Jerry can only speak with one of those electronic voice wands supposedly because of cancer caused by smoking is another plot device that tips its hand much too early, so when Angela finally reveals her true self in the film's closing moments and she does the same scream she did in the finale of the first film, minus the penis shot , the only one who should be surprised is the family dog and it would have to be one dumb dog!

I do have to say that this film does have its perverse charms and some of the effects are very gory, but this is by no means a whole-hearted recommendation on my part. It's terrible, but it wallows in its terribleness, which makes it slightly more watchable than the average badfilm. Make sure you stay until after the closing credits to see the film's bloodiest effect. The MacDonald Farm on an island that no one else lives on is occupied by a family that can best be described as slobs and perverts, with one exception.

There's hard-drinking father Gyles MacDonald Ronald Balfour , who spits on pigs, throws buckets at chickens and takes extreme pleasure in milking the family goat every morning.

Broad , an overweight sow of a woman whose missing teeth equals her IQ. Then there's their two sons, both named Ronald Bryan Heeley and Trevor Peake , who are both so stupid, they couldn't count the fingers on one hand, even with the use of a calculator. The one exception in the MacDonald family is daughter Ronnie Samantha Perkins , who is a bit fed up with her family's crude ways When Granddad MacDonald [producer and co-scripter Tim Dennison] dies at the breakfast table [complete with several loud burps and farts], the Ronald brothers and Ma fight over his food and eventually dump his body on a rather large dung pile in the middle of their backyard and yearns to get away from this slob of a family before it is too late Dad named her Ronald, too, but she uses the name Ronnie instead.

Ronnie, who is as bright as a broken light bulb, has fallen in love with a "mainlander", much to Ma's discontent She calls Ronnie a "jezebel" for cheating on her brothers! Abbott Norman Mitchell , owns the local butcher shop Where they sell more gross items like maggots and condoms with feathers than actual meat. Lance and Ronnie are the closest people in either place that would pass for normal, although if they were to have children, they would certainly be considered retards to even the most conservative society.

Something awful happened years earlier between the MacDonald family and the mainlanders, something so bad, no one dares to talk about it, but it will never be forgotten. One day, Pa gets drunk and fucks the family goat he took her out to pasture to stud but decided he would be the better stud instead! A few months later, the goat gives birth to a mutant, which Pa wants to kill immediately, but Ronnie grows fond of it. She names him Billy and raises him as her pet, teaching him how to play fetch and giving him lots of love.

Alas, Billy is a killer at heart and escapes from Ronnie, first eating small animals like rabbits but, as he gets bigger, Billy turns his attention to larger animals and eventually humans, starting with Granddad's rotting corpse on the dung pile. Pa grows tired of Billy's constant meddling with his still, so he knocks him out, puts him in a sack and drowns him in the ocean.

Or so he thought. The rest of the film details the title of the film, as a pissed-off Billy makes life on the MacDonald's farm e-i-e-i-ouch! It's hard to grade a film like this when it is obvious director Jim Groom ROOM 36 - , who co-wrote the screenplay with Tim Dennison and Richard Mathews, wants to keep everything tongue-in-cheek, even the gore sequences.

I have to admit, I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions in spite of myself. The humor here is of the lowest common denominator, but no one does this type of humor better than the British and this film won me over strictly because it doesn't pretend to cater to intellectuals.

The various growth stages of Billy listed as "Billy T. Kid" in the credits is a hoot and a half to watch especially Billy's inventive POV shots and the gore is nasty and very well done. The sight gags, such as the entire MacDonald clan sleeping in the same bed; a torn EVIL DEAD poster on Lance's bedroom wall a definite influence on this film ; Pa lubing Ma with a bucket of lard before fucking her; Pa shotgunning a rooster for waking him up; and others too numerous to mention in this review, make this film move at a brisk pace.

As long as you don't mind toilet humor most of it literal toilet humor! Never released legitimately in the U. Something brings the dead back to life and they in turn go on to chow down and infect a group of trapped innocents.

Some are bitter disappointments, such as this one and countless others. A farmer unearths Hinzman's chained-up coffin and opens it, unleashing his living dead body, causing a series of zombie attacks which infects half the population of a small town on Halloween night.

The rest of the film consists of people being bitten some of the effects are bloody and well done or of people fighting back, shooting the zombies in the head. The couple who have survived attacks throughout the film are mistaken for zombies and shot in the head by a hunting party. I was quite surprised at the high quality of the makeup effects on display here many of the X-rated variety , but the sad fact is good effects do not make a good film.

You also need a good story, professional acting and talent behind the scenes. You'll find none of that here. There are no surprises, just telegraphed shocks that are highly unoriginal. There's an old saying that goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Wave David Scammell is working on a story about negligence at a nuclear power plant facility.

When he confronts the board of directors of the facility about recent deaths and deformed babies being born because of radioactive leaks, he is tossed into a vat of nuclear waste where he transforms into the title creation: Thinking Mike to be dead, the board decides to get rid of all the evidence, including Mike's fiance, Rochelle Kathryn Boese.

Easier said than done, as Rochelle has a toxic avenger protecting her. Rochelle joins forces with Mike's brother, Joe Randy Pearlstein , to find the truth, while Mike disposes of the people responsible for his condition. Characters are given names such as Peter Spurtz, Dick Swell and Cher Noble and the jokes and one-liners are strictly sexual in nature and you've heard them at least a hundred times before.

The acting also leaves a lot to be desired, especially from Randy Pearlstein, who emotes like he is reading his lines off of cue cards. I have the feeling the wrong person went to jail. So will you after viewing this sophormoric mess. How are these two murders connected? The police have a hard time believing Laura and Jack's story, since the man Jack killed was a well-respected lawyer in town. Laura is suddenly haunted by nightmares about the death of a little baby boy the adopted son of Sally and Sam , who was tragically killed when he grabbed Sam's pistol off the coffee table and shot himself.

Laura's roommate, Amber Jaime Whitlock , is viciously stabbed to death by a stranger who breaks into their house and when Laura comes home with Jack, the stranger attacks Laura, forcing Jack to stab him in the back, killing him Lucky for Laura that she has Jack around! It doesn't sit too well with the police, especially Sheriff Brown Peter Blitzer , that Laura and Jack have been involved in two deaths and when it's revealed that Sally and Sam's dead adopted son was actually Laura's illegitimate baby that she gave up for adoption, Sheriff Brown grows more suspicious of Laura, but he can't prove anything.

Laura goes to stay at her mother's house with a cop car parked outside for protection , but it's easy to see Laura and her Mom don't get along Mom is a religious nut who got pregnant with Laura when she was sixteen. Sally tells Laura that her dead baby was cursed yeah, the curse of being born a bastard!

Sally also tells Laura that she must find the baby's first adoptive family to learn the truth. Deputy Greer becomes possessed by the baby and is shot dead by Sheriff Brown when he tries to strangle Laura, but when the Sheriff becomes possessed by the baby from Hell immediately after Greer's death, Laura is going to have to find the first adoptive family as quickly as possible.

Laura finds them, Barbara and Hank Clemens Emily Ackerman and Doug Sobon , only to discover that they are so uber-religious, they were deemed to be unfit parents. They cursed the baby as it was taken away from them and it seems the curse stuck. Laura and Jack must find a way to lift the curse and put the baby boy to rest before anyone remotely close to Laura ends up possessed or dead. How Laura does this is one of the worst "What The Fuck?!? Especially funny is the way all those people possessed by the dead baby begin drooling from their mouths and dripping snot from their noses while making "goo-goo" and "ga-ga" noises on the badly overdubbed soundtrack.

While there are a few bloody moments a couple of gory stabbings and instances of female nudity including the obligatory shower scene , the premise is so ludicrous, it's hard to take anything seriously, which I doubt was the objective of the filmmakers. By the time we get to the outrageous finale, where Laura makes love to a possessed Jack thereby fucking her own baby! I chose to laugh, because it is obvious that director Wedig and the screenwriters were trying to makle a statement about the insanity of religion all the religious people in this film are either hypocrites or full-blown nut jobs , but they failed miserably.

What they did do was make a 72 minute unintentional comedy about a killer baby ghost. Think about that for a minute. Is a baby even mentally capable to understand the complex mechanizations that is possession? After a lecture by a professor on Egyptian and Indian rituals, male student Brad Olair Coan follows a sinister looking man Sergio Hingst , who is wearing a bowler hat and walking with a cane, to the basement of a lecture hall, where he observes a group of Indians performing a human sacrifice on a stone altar.

The sinister man tells Brad that he must find "the book", which the man holds in his deformed, green pus-oozing, hand. The man then disappears, taking the book with him, while Brad is grabbed by the sacrificed man and the Indians before they, too, disappear, leaving Brad by himself in an empty basement. Brad's friend Jim Michael Kelly wants to stage a play about how the ancient Egyptians influenced the Indians, but first he and Brad must find a way to steal an old manuscript from an elderly man Serafim Gonzalez in the school's library.

Jim sends Brad, his girlfriend Carol Carina Palatinik and friend Mickey Tiao Hoover to steal the manuscript from the library and they do, but Brad is surprised to learn that it is actually the book that the sinister man was holding in his oozing hands.

When Mickey opens the book, we watch as a naked couple make love in a bathtub while rubbing the blood of a decapitated goat's head on their bodies What The Fuck?!? During rehearsals for the play, Brad becomes distant to Carol and he refuses to make love to her Carol retorts, "Go easy, sweetheart! I might just get tired of you! Brad begins to act strangely, like eating raw meat in his bedroom of his alcoholic mother's home and worshipping at a makeshift altar that contains candles, a goat's head again?

When Brad almost strangles a girl during rehearsal in front of the play's sponsors, they pull their sponsorship, which infuriates Jim.

Brad begins to have nightmares of the naked couple in the bathtub and of his face breaking out in gooey pustules. The elderly librarian has the police return the stolen book to him, but a now totally possessed Brad whose skin has broken out in boils and green ooze drips from his mouth steals the book back again and goes on a murder spree, killing Jim by drowning him in a bathtub and ripping out his eyes and a streetwalker who worked as an extra on the play he stabs her repeatedly in the stomach and then some huge wheel appears out of nowhere and runs her over!

Brad begins murdering everyone involved with the play, while we discover that the sinister man was actually Jim's Uncle Parker, who was once the leader of a cult that practiced human sacrifice before he and his cult were killed. Uncle Parker is using Brad to bring him back to life, while the elderly librarian tries to help Mickey and Carol, the last survivors of the play, to defeat the evil in Brad.

Can they do it before it is too late? If you thought the films of Jose Mojica Marins a. While the film is gory as hell, including a knife impalement in the mouth, disembowelments by hammer, a wind machine chopping a guy to pieces after Brad throws acid in his face, a spike driven into a woman's chin, a spear impalement and all of Brad's victims returning to life as zombies, the rest of the film is a bloody mess, as the dubbing and dialogue are simply horrendous while most of the actors look as though they are speaking English, the actual dubbing sounds like it was recorded inside of a tin can and the story makes about as much sense as a fever dream.

Add to it editing that is downright hectic and acting that can best be described as amateurish both Leo Robinson as the head police officer and Mara Husemann as Brad's drunk mother are so bad they become mesmerizing in their awfulness and what you end up with is a film that can best be described as a gorehound's delight, but very little else.

It's weird, I'll give it that, but weirdness without purpose loses its appeal mighty fast. After a late night recording session, lead singer Billy Harper Tray Loren begins killing the technicians and groupies slit throat, impalement on coat hooks and is caught and executed after killing 25 people. Two years pass and former backup singer and now lead singer Lynn Starling Donna Scoggins , whose testimony led to Billy's execution, has reformed the band, renamed it Headmistress and they are about to headline a huge rock tour.

A person dressed as Death corners Lynn backstage and when he takes the mask off, it turns out to be Billy, who says, "I'm back! Lynn who was under psychiatric care after witnessing Billy's first murder spree begins getting obscene phone calls from Billy "I want your hot pussy blood all over my face! Billy then kills everyone at the cabin, hides their bodies and terrorizes Lynn, leading her to accidentally stab Chris he survives.

Chris thinks Lynn is going crazy, especially when she wants to dig up Billy's body to prove he's still alive. She goes to the grave with Chris and Honey Bear Cana Cockrell and they find his rotting corpse in the coffin. So, is Lynn crazy or not? If not, who is this person killing all these people?

You will find out on the opening night of the tour. It seems that Billy had a twin brother named John and he killed all those people two years earlier.

Lynn sent the wrong man to his death. Now, John has come back and is chasing Lynn backstage, trying to tell her that he actually wrote all the songs, not Billy, and he's not happy with her performance of them neither am I. It's going to be a killer opening show. They usually co-directed all their features together, except for this one Beverly directed it alone. They both co-produced and scripted.

The acting in this one is especially sub-par, as no one here could act their way out of a paper bag, but at least Donna Scoggins gets naked often and looks good, too. The kills are rather tame and bloodless, consisting of a drowning in a hottub, a steam iron to the throat and a stabbing. The bloodiest part of the film is the concluding concert, where John dons the Death disguise, sings a song "There's A Killer On The Loose" and actually disembowels one dancer with a lance and beheads another while the audience screams with delight, thinking it's part of the stage show.

Things get surreal when John unmasks himself onstage, handcuffs himself to Lynn and the band plays on as if everything is normal! The songs aren't really that bad if you compare them to the songs in other films of this sub-genre. The film has a non-ending, as it freezes on John's face when he sings the final song "I'm Back". Proceed at your own risk. A Vestron Video Release. I was expecting a lot more from this one than what I got.

It has a novel idea that concerns four convicts, murdered 30 years ago and buried under the titled roadway, who appear when they smell blood and slaughter people with jackhammers, picks and sledgehammers.

So what is wrong with this picture? For starters, the characters are so totally unbelievable that I stared in utter amazement watching people do things that no normal person would ever dream of doing in the same situation. How's that for coincidences? Every time blood is spilled the dead ones show up to pummel, hack and jackhammer in graphic detail the hapless victims.

The whole film seems rather disjointed, like chunks of the screenplay were tossed out the window in favor of action. That would all be fair and good except the action scenes are so lazily shot with what I call "shaken camera syndrome" and edited one wooden crate explodes three times in one gunfight scene!!! Or how about when Midkiff gets drunk waiting for backup? Professionals would never do this.

On the plus side, there's the convicts themselves, a frightening concoction of burnt, cracked skin and lethal silent fury. There's also some nice desert scenery, an abandoned drive-in, some decent if somewhat quick gore and a strange final scene between Phillips and his dead father.

It's also good to see L. Jones back on the screen. He always lends an air of professionalism to everything he's in. One only hopes director Wesley picks a better script he co-wrote this one and doesn't wait another 13 years before he makes another movie. It seems he got rusty in between films. Better luck next time. It's scratchy, choppy, missing a lot of frames and the sound is mixed all wrong all the sound comes from the back speakers on a Dolby system.

He also should have warned you that the film itself is also a stinker that, besides a couple of scenes, is not worth the plastic it's pressed on. Two obnoxious couples become stuck in a hicktown after one of them accidentally shoots their SUV with a gun. They run into a farmer Robert Silverman of SCANNERS - and his retarded adopted daughter Becky who acts like a dog , who the farmer found 17 years earlier abandoned in a burlap sack, the product of an incestuous relationship.

The farmer also sells the town psychedelic eggs, laid by a special chicken which cause the eaters to experience acid trips filled with strange visuals including a mutated chicken hatching from a giant egg.

The town is absolutely hooked on the eggs and are surprised when the two couples don't order eggs with their beers when at the bar! Not much of the rest of the films makes much sense as the couples bicker and cheat on each other, two are killed one of the men smears peanut butter on his dick and has Becky lick it off until it goes too far and she ends up biting it off!

He resumed over four years later with the same cast it's obvious that some of them gained weight and lost some hair and hasn't been able to get it released until , thanks to Troma, who'll release anything.

Hauser shows up in one scene playing a parody of himself and punches a local punk out when he calls him David Hasselhoff! Warburton shows up in one scene as a patron of the local strip bar. Nobody ever accused Troma of truth in advertising. The presentation of the film is nearly unwatchable in the state it is offered here but I doubt that all the restoration in the world would make this a better film. It does try to be something different but fails on all levels.

It ruined my evening. It's actually more interesting than the film itself. Barbary Angus Scrimm; PHANTASM - drills a hole in Michelle's head to relieve the pressure when she starts to bleed profusely and he jokingly tells Michelle that in the Dark Ages, doctors performed the same procedure to release evil spirits from possessed peoples' bodies Michelle then strangely asks, "Are they gone Michelle has no recollection of the car accident, but she does see the spirit of her eyeless father at the most inopportune times, as he pleads, "Why did you hurt her and why did you kill me?

Barbary reconstructs Michelle's face with plastic surgery based on photos from her family album hospital janitor Cliff [Mike Gaglio] calls her "Bride of Mummy" because of her bandaged face and she seems to scare him more than anything else he has ever seen in this hospital and when the bandages are finally removed from her face, she is beautiful but she doesn't recognize her face in the mirror.

When the Sheriff's Department finally releases her personal effects from the accident, one of the items is an evil-looking ouija board with a satanic-shaped planchette a five-pointed star , which somehow flashes long-dormant memories into Michelle's mind as soon a s she sees it. Since Michelle has no living family, she is sent to Harmony Home, a halfway house for troubled, criminal and orphaned teens run by Mr.

Bisson informs Michelle that she use to be a good girl, but when her mother died of cancer and her father started dating again soon after, she tried to stab her father's new girlfriend with a big-assed knife Michelle has no recollection of this ever happening. Bisson allows Michelle to enter her father's house to pick up some personal items and Michelle discovers that her bedroom is decorated with all sorts of black magic items. Bisson finds a diary in her bedroom that is decorated with the satanic star and he even steals her pot stash!

Bisson likes to talk about going to strip clubs, sex and is possibly a rapist He tells his wife, "Remember, they dropped the charges.

Michelle has more nightmares about her eyeless father his body is now covered in leeches and pretty soon a black-hooded figure begins dispatching the residents of Harmony House, making the deaths look like suicide. Larry becomes rightfully concerned and picks up an important clue from Dr.

This is standard DTV horror fodder whose punch line can be guessed almost from the opening scene. Why didn't Jackie confiscate the ouija board when she removed all of Michelle's other possessions? You would think the God-fearing Jackie would have tossed it in the garbage as soon as she saw the satanic symbols. And why does Michelle decide to take a shower after just discovering the butchered bodies of Mr. Bisson, Jackie and Dutch? How stupid do you think we viewers are?

The only person who registers here is Rick Dean who died shortly after completing this film. He plays the role of Mr. Bisson as such a flawed character, you can't help but like him, even if he is a horndog. While there is a flash of female nudity and a modicum of blood and gore, SATANIC stacks up as nothing by a generic horror flick that offers nothing new to the genre, including a "surprise" ending just after an awfully choreographed catfight that leaves the film wide-open for a sequel that, thankfully, hasn't materialized yet.

The family doctor, Juan Suarez Alfonso Gaita , explains to husband Antonio Aldo Sambrell that his dead wife's movement was nothing but a muscle spasm, but Antonio who is a intravenous drug user believes his wife was trying to tell Miria her secrets.

While Antonio is shooting-up in his bedroom, his paraplegic wheelchair-bound mute brother, Ignazio Joe Davers , is watching housekeeper and soon-to-be nun Sol Mariangela Giordino masturbate in her bed. When Antonio catches Ignazio getting an eyefull, he takes out his frustrations on Sol instead, berating her for performing such lewd acts.

While Miria is lying in her bed, she hears her mother's voice calling her, so she goes down to the crypt in the cavernous basement, where she spots butler Isidro Giancarlo Del Duca geeking a chicken and she sees her dead mother's nude body open her eyes. Miria is convinced her mother wants to tell her something, but Dr.

Suarez wants to put her in a psychiatric hospital instead. Before he is able to do so, Dr. Suarez has a heart attack in the crypt when he imagines that Maria who was once his lover has come back to life And just what was the good doctor about to do with that huge hypodermic needle? The ironfisted Antonio orders Isidro to hide the doctor's body in the castle's vast dungeon crypt and warns Sol to keep her mouth shut.

Isidro is the first to die when the mummified corpse seemingly comes to life and strangles him while a possessed Miria stares into his eyes. Ignazio is the next to die when he also seemingly gets up from his wheelchair and falls into an open crypt. After Antonio shoots-up again, he imagines making love to Maria, only to realize a short time later that he's making love to his own daughter. He backs away in disgust and falls down a stairwell, killing himself.

The last one left is Sol, who goes down to the crypt, lies naked on top of Maria's body and is crushed to death when Maria gives her a dealdy bearhug. With Miria the only person left alive and the only truly innocent one , Maria can now rest in peace. Cools", ladles on the sex and sleaze, including full-frontal male and female nudity, including a scene where Sol gives Ignazio a spongebath and spends most of the time with her hands on his penis.

While it's clear that there's a lot of dark secrets in the Aguilar family The question soon becomes, "Who didn't sleep with Maria? The scene where he is wheeling his helpless brother down to the crypt to die is chilling. As the camera, mounted to the bottom of the wheelchair and pointing up, looks into the faces of both Antonio and Ignazio, Antonio calmly and slowly pushes the wheelchair down to the crypt, all the while telling his brother how he is going to die of starvation while covered in his own excrement, unable to move or scream out for help.

It's the film's standout sequence. While there's not much in the way of blood or gore, the tone of the film is relentlessly perverse, as well as sexy. At a little over 73 minutes long, it doesn't wear out it's welcome and you won't go longer than five minutes without seeing some eye-opening nudity.

What more do you want? That could explain BABY 's short running time, but whoever edited this version did a masterful job because there are no jump cuts or obvious edits. Originally released in the U.

N ot Rated , but it goes way beyond an R-Rating. Her actor brother arrives from Hollywood for her funeral. He stays at her house and meets a police detective who tells him he thinks it wasn't suicide.

Her third finger of the left hand was cut off and there wasn't a drop of blood in her body. The detective says that there have been a series of similar mutilations in the area where the victims were found clutching pieces of black cloth which dates back years.

The vampire priest brings Sis back to life and instructs her to kill her entire family. She starts with her invalid aunt and her housekeeper. Brother finds a manuscript Sis was working on entitled "High Satanic Rites" which leads him to the church where the vampire priest resides.

He learns that Satan appeared at the church hundreds of years ago and converted the priests and nuns to his side. Satan plans for the brother to marry his sister to produce an offspring that will take over the world. This awful amateurish production looks arid sounds like a porno movie without the nudity or sex.

Jumpy editing, terrible music, atrocious acting and bad makeup effects are all this film has to offer. Thankfully it is only 60 minutes long. When I rented this turkey the leader snapped off the take-up reel. Maybe someone was trying to tell me something.

I shouldn't have fixed it. Director Philip Miller is actually entepreneur Steve Millard. I doubt you have ever seen them in anything else. This one is no different. Little Douglas Whooly Alexander Brickel is hooked on a video game called Satan's Little Helper, where the onscreen computer character helps Satan by kicking dogs, running over old ladies and generally causing mayhem wherever he goes. Doug is so involved in this game that he dresses up in a Devil's costume for Halloween, the day this story takes place.

He, along with his mother the always welcome and loopy Amanda Plummer , go to meet his collegiate sister Jenna Katheryn Winnick who is visiting their island community by ferry. Doug loves his sister and wants to marry her when he grows up leading to a funny incest remark by Plummer who is talking to a friend on the phone and especially loves going trick or treating with her. When Jenna shows up with new boyfriend Alex Stephen Graham in tow, Doug grows despondent and tries to find a way to get rid of Alex.

While walking down the street, Doug sees a serial killer in a Satan costume it's a great get-up killing a neighbor and setting the body up as a Halloween decoration. Thinking that the costumed killer is the actual Satan and that all this is play-acting, Doug bonds with the serial killer and they go off on a murder spree.

Doug thinks he is Satan's Little Helper and that everything that is happening is fake. Along the way, many mistaken identities are to be had, some funny and some downright dreadful. To give away any more of the plot would be destroying the viewer's enjoyment of this extremely black-humored film. There are a few great setpieces, one concerning a black cat it's a jolt , another relating to Doug's dad Wass Stevens when Doug realizes that this is no joke and another that takes place during an adult Halloween party in a castle where a reveler can be seen in a mask with worms coming out of it; a small salute to Wormface in SQUIRM.

Amanda Plummer really shines in her role as the mother. It's quite remarkable how much she loves her kids and accepts them unconditionally, even when her daughter brings an uninvited guest. It's also commendable that she's open about her pot use and mentions getting stoned on several occasions. She's just generally a nice person who gets caught up in one of the worst days of her life I'll never look at packing tape the same way again.

Though gory in spots, this film relies more on humor and family relationships including Alex's abusive father, who also happens to live on this island to get it's point across. There's also a great scene where the serial killer trades his Satan costume for something more appropriate after shooting himself through the palm of his hand. Left wide open for a sequel, let's hope Jeff Lieberman doesn't wait another 17 years before making his next genre film.

A Screen Media Films Release. After the death of their mother, a family begins to experience some supernatural occurrences, which may be tied to a family curse.

Teenage son Tommy Munarto Fahrul Rozi wakes up one night to discover the decomposing corpse of his mother floating outside his bedroom window, calling for him to come outside and join her. Tommy begins acting strangely, so some of his friends tell him to go to a fortuneteller for some help.

He does and the fortuneteller doesn't like what the cards tell her, so she tells Tommy to protect himself using black magic, especially whenever he sees a coffin. Wouldn't you know it, as soon as Tommy walks out of the fortuneteller's home, a hearse pulls to the side of the road and several pallbearers pull out a coffin, with the head pallbearer pointing directly at Tommy, as if to say, "Climb on in! Tommy begins performing black magic rituals in his bedroom, which worries Rita, especially when she begins receiving phone calls where a female voice asks, "Is this Tommy's house?

Dad decides the kids need a housekeeper and hires Ms. Darminah Diana Suarkom , who shows up late one night, seemingly out of nowhere. It soon becomes apparent that Ms. Darminah is the housekeeper from Hell, as she begins controlling the Munarto household, especially Tommy, who has a nightmare in which Ms. Darminah and some rubber mask-wearing Satanists sacrifice him on an altar. As the bodies begin piling up, a white witch doctor is called in to perform an exorcism on the Munarto home, but Ms.

Darminah's black powers prove to be too strong. When the bodies of the recently deceased rise from their graves and lay siege to the Munarto household, a priest enters the picture and uses the power of faith to destroy Ms. Praise be to Allah! That's not to say that this film is boring, because it's not. It's just that it lacks the non-stop weirdness that we've come to expect from films of this type. There are still plenty of atmospheric chills on view, including the nocturnal visit Mom pays to Tommy; a visit to a morgue, where Rita must identify the body of her boyfriend Herman, who was killed in a motorcycle accident caused by Ms.

Darminah; Tommy's nightmare of being sacrificed; the undead Herman who, for some reason, is now a vampire with big-ass fangs as he attacks Rita in her home; and many other sequences.

Also starring Simon Kader, I. New English subtitles are now in it's place. It's a terrific metaphor on how looks can be deceiving; especially when it pertains to people and the masks they wear to hide their inner demons. It seems someone is carving-up middle-aged wome n and carefully placing their body parts around Los Angeles In the opening, we see a woman's dismembered head lying in the middle of her dismembered hands and feet directly under the Hollywood sign , leaving the police baffled as to the killer's motive.

When the poor woman wakes up while he's cutting off her hand! HYDE - , who has just broken her leg after taking a drunken stumble down her mansion's spiral staircase.

Vic immediately ingratiates himself into the Parker household, including maid Mildred Florence Lake , whom he introduces himself to as "Laurel N. Vic soon becomes Miss Parker's closest confidant, much to the dismay of Leslie and the rest of the staff, who have been with her for years but have never been treated as well as she treats Vic.

When it's revealed that Vic's a habitual drug abuser and has frequent flashbacks about his childhood, where he watches his mother willingly being gang-banged by four sweaty men before she has her hand chopped-off by someone swinging a hatchet, it becomes quite reasonable for the viewer to assume that Vic is the serial killer on the loose.

Miss Parker's cook, Greta Virginia Wing , becomes pregnant by Vic, only to end up chopped into little pieces by someone wielding a meat cleaver. It turns out, as no surprise, that Vic is quite mad, and when Miss Parker grows suspicious of his motivations, he kills her, replaces her with a mannequin and takes over the mansion, not allowing anyone to talk to or visit "Miss Parker". As the rest of the staff also grow suspicious, Vic kills th em one-by-one until he is left alone in the mansion, where he is able to relive and reboot his childhood.

Only this time, he's in control. This swinging 60's horror film, full of hippie dialogue, fashions and freak-out sequences, not to mention some surprisingly graphic bits of gore all with that bright, almost neon, red blood that that era was so fond of , is a good time capsule of when horror films actually told a coherent if freaky story to go along with the scares.

The Old Guard, represented by Katherine Parker, who still dreams of making a comeback film she sometimes drunkenly hallucinates about it, which leads to her broken leg , not knowing that her career is nothing but a footnote to most people At one party thrown at her house by Vic, a midget offers her cocaine [She replies, "The only trips I go on are the nostalgic kind!

Miriam Hopkins this is her last film; she passed away in of a heart attack is terrific as Miss Parker, who relives her past successes with a combination of alcohol and watching her old films in a screening room in her mansion using actual footage of some of Miriam Hopkins' old films.

She even does a brief topless scene! John David Garfield the son of actor John Garfield is equally as good as the murderous, opportunistic Vic, who has yet to meet anyone he can't deceive or murder when his fragile psyche is exposed. The supporting cast of film veterans also raises this film a notch or two above the norm and help move this film to it's graphic conclusion.

I was pleasantly surprised how much I liked this film, especially since it is steeped in drug and alcohol abuse and yet turns out to be a sobering experience. If sales are good enough, they will look for a pristine 35 mm source and repress the DVD.

So what happens to the people who bought the inferior version? That's Full Moon for you. Julia's father Keith Don S. Eliah finds his dying son he snaps his neck to finish the job and demands that Keith give him Steven and Julia's baby as a trade-off.

Keith, of course, refuses and runs off Eliah and his wife Lindsay Jameson with a pistol. The Savages kidnap Peter after he digs up the Savage's dead son , cut out his tongue and offer him as trade for the baby. Keith and Steven go looking for Peter, only to have the Savage gang attack Julia and her mom Beverly Breuer , killing mom by repeatedly stabbing her with butcher knife and taking Julia and the baby hostage.

Keith catches up with them and gets staked in the stomach while being forced to watch Peter have his throat slit wide open. Steven turns out to be a coward as he watches in the woods as his family is killed and kidnapped. Even a threat by Eliah to shoot Julia in the head does not bring him out into the open. Lenny Savage Zoran Vukalic saves Julia when he says he wants her as his woman. Julia is drugged and forced to marry Lenny.

Keith begs Steven to kill him "How are you going to have the guts to save your wife and baby if you don't have the guts to finish me off? Steven kills Keith and goes out for his revenge. If you can put up with the headache-inducing graininess, you'll probably enjoy this one. This one clocks in at a small 84 minutes and a supposed longer cut exists in Canada, where it was shot. An Ardustry Home Entertainment Release. During the opening credits, we see the after-effects of a motorcycle "accident", where the male driver and female passenger are both completely naked, bloody and dead on the ground as we glimpse the back window of a black limousine going up before it pulls away.

We are then introduced to six stereotypical teens on their way to Lake Wappakanokee no kidding! They get hopelessly lost, but luckily or not they come upon limping hitch-hiker Jack Clark Tufts, who was just dropped off on the side of the road by a truck carrying a statue of Bob's Big Boy!

After having a flat tire and almost getting caught smoking weed by a State Trooper Douglas Gowland, who gives the teens a lecture on the "penny test", or how to tell when a tire has lost its tread! He continues to drive on the dirt road until it ends at a strange house that looks like it's deserted and has a weird "monument" in the yard: A wrecked black limousine sitting on a slab of concrete surrounded by four stone statues.

Rod, Tony Greg Rhodes and Peter Jerry Kernion take a closer look at the monument and notice a framed photo of a young pretty woman in the limousine's back seat, like some sort of shrine.

Helen Claudia Franjul notices someone peering out of one of the house's windows, so everyone goes to check it out Helen says, "This house is evil! Helen refuses to go into the house and walks off into the forest In a real asshole move, boyfriend Tony doesn't go after her, explaining to his friends that this is nothing but "foreplay"! They naturally decide to check out the basement first Triple What?!? Tony loses his ring trying to open one of the coffins Quadruple What?!?

Tony finally decides to go find Helen, but it's too late, as someone has slit her throat and is dragging her corpse through the forest Tony's not getting any foreplay tonight!

Jack and the rest of the group, which also includes Susan Liz Hitchler and Anne Kathleen Patane , decide to check out the house further and find that the whole house is plastered with photos of the same woman found in the back seat of the limo We also discover that Jack is wanted by the police, but we don't know what his crime is. Tony returns to the house empty-handed Peter makes a crass joke about Helen using her ample assets as a hitch-hiker, while everyone else roasts wieners in the fireplace.

When they discover a closet full of pickled human scalps, you would think that they would make a hasty retreat, right? They decide to stay until morning because it is raining outside! Finally, a man and a woman with common sense! I could write a book describing all the idiotic and bone-headed things these poor excuses for human beings do and say, but then I would be depriving you of a once-in-a-lifetime experience of pure inanity.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? These kids live in some alternate universe, where it is normal to sit in a wrecked limousine and smoke a cigarette or open a sealed casket to see if there's a body inside C'mon, everyone's doing it! Thankfully, Larraz offers us plenty of nudity including disturbing naked photos of Alfred and Amanda's victims, both male and female, that he keeps in an album and some graphic bloodletting in the final third of the film.

The reveal of what's behind the cracked wall is also quite graphic and well-photographed. It's also guaranteed to put your ass to sleep. A group of diverse, stereotypical people, including Doc Rogers Ron Berger , a psychiatrist; a widowed father and his snotty son; a elderly German couple the German guy tells the snotty kid, after the kid calls him a Kraut:

Housewives want hot sex PA Gibsonia , horny lonely woman wanting couples looking for Ladies looking casual sex Peshtigo Looking to meet a nice girl in Davis Mildred - 25 y/o female - Potlatch, USA - I am searching real dating. COM 'swingers xxx Mildred Pennsylvania PA teen old' Search, free sex videos. They are a sexy latin couple who love to fuck with anyone, and that's why they united states new zealand denmark uruguay norway anal bigcock girl friend). Relation Type: Lesbians Butch wife looking for sex. Lonely wives want nsa Local girls dtf or southbeach. Horny women in Mildred, PA.