Amanda Peterson : Amanda's mother's utter denial

Amanda's mother's utter denial

Shortly after her death, her mother, Sylvia Peterson, told Entertainment Tonight she was confident her daughter's death was not related to substance abuse, saying she had been clean or some time: "This was not, in any way, a drug thing."

You wonder why her mother would even want to put herself out there and be quoted in the first place, when it was likely her daughter's death might be related to drugs. If I were her, I would've kept quiet and stayed away from being interviewed on Entertainment Tonight.

Indeed, Amanda's death happened because of an accidental morphine overdose.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

And she said they were gardening together a few days before her death. Right.



**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I posted this on another thread:


I agree with you. But, you certainly can't blame the Mom.

(1.) She is in a state of grief at losing her 111c daughter.

(2.) She is also likely in a state of strong denial.

(3.) Plus, it is possible (very likely, in fact) that Amanda was not being honest with her family about her recent involvement with drugs.

It is not unheard of for a drug addict to lie to people, especially those very close to them (i.e., their family).

And, from the perspective of the family, they can engage in "selective ignorance", looking the other way. It's probably less painful and hurtful. And, as a general rule, people just hear what they want to hear.

Don't you agree?

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

An older mother (from another generation) could look at that photo and think/say: "Oh, my daughter is run down, not feeling well, not getting enough sleep, not eating right, etc."

They wouldn't necessarily jump to "my daughter is on drugs".

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Not in this case. Amanda had drug problems dating back to her early 90's Hollywood days. Mom and Dad were well aware of it. Amanda was once a source of pride for them, but eventually became a source of embarrassment. They didn't speak to her for a couple years because of her outrageous behavior, drug use, arrests, etc... They knew exactly what was going on. They knew if they gave her money to help her out, she would just spend it on drugs, so they stopped helping. AP had mental issues on top of it. Bipolar. Alcohol and drugs do not mix well with a bipolar disorder. Don't believe me? Check out this timeline of her run-ins with the law. Mom and Dad knew all along. Scroll down to about the seventh post down. It's very thorough:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/reply/1138328/Re-Amanda-Peterson

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Huh?

That link doesn't go anywhere?

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Thanks.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

But isn't that why most Mom's are loved so much?

They might be imperfect in their own ways, but they have your back no matter what happens.....even if you did it.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


But isn't that why most Mom's are loved so much?

They might be imperfect in their own ways, but they have your back no matter what happens.....even if you did it.


... which can, and often does, lead to enabling in situations like this ...

So, it's not necessarily always a "good" thing.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Probably just instant defense mechanism was behind those blatant lies (and the hilarious nonsense from her father about sleep apnea maybe killing her) and maybe she even thought she could suppress the A report or it wouldn't get big coverage.

Obviously Amanda was still self medicating heavily and her doctors were even enabling her.

I wonder what her heart/lung disease was? Probably related to drugs too. It's amazing she survived so long really.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I don't think they were lying. Likely, they honestly believed what they were claiming.

I think it's more a case of denial or their quite literally being ignorant and "out of the loop".

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I don't know how much of this story everyone here knows but shortly after Amanda died, her family released a photo video montage of her that they supposedly played at her funeral. While watching it, I noticed the montage had more pics of Amanda as the characters she played than personal family photos. Weirdly, there wasn't one picture of her past the mid-1990s when she left acting. None. She had kids (or just one depending on whom you believe) and a life after that but you wouldn't know it from that montage. On the sites that carried the story, other people pointed that out too. Without being too presumptuous, it seems like her family didn't even acknowledge her post acting life. Not publicly anyway which, of course, is their choice.

Her father is/was an ear, nose and throat doctor so he surely knew sleep apnea and/or mold from a house she lived in three years before she died being the cause of her death were weak at best. I think both parents were in deep denial but who could blame them? They probably went through hell with her and were trying to stem all the negative stuff that came out about her after she died. Good or bad, that's the natural response of a lot parents. It sounds like her family was rather well to do and involved in the church so perhaps they are just embarrassed or feel like they failed her.

Regardless, it's a complex situations and it's rather unfair to judge these folk for their actions. No one knows how they're going to respond to something until it happens to them.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Excellent post!

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I agree: excellent and thoughtful post.

It would be simplistic, because of her drug use, to make assumptions about what Amanda's relationship with her family was like. In terms of the photo video montage the family supposedly played at her funeral, in one sense it isn't surprising the montage concentrated on photos of her from her acting years. Obviously, I have no idea what kind of personal photos of her post-acting life the family had to choose from...or if those types of photos were left out in respect for Amanda's privacy.

From what I can gather (and it clearly doesn't take a lot of intelligence to make this deduction), Amanda wanted to live a private life after she left the film industry. Outside of a few personal appearances and the photo shoot of a few years back, she didn't really make any efforts to publicize what she was doing...I mean, she certainly wasn't out to make a few bucks or boost her recognition factor by appearing on Celebrity Rehab, or making herself available for whatever Where Are They Now segments might have come her way.

In addition, the personal photos of her post-film life that have surfaced, particularly those of her last few years, can be pretty painful to look at in terms of her physical appearance.

I suppose one bit of solace the family can take from her passing regarding whatever negative publicity has resulted is that the story itself wasn't some huge, meta-story. It had pretty much been confined over the last decade to a few infrequent, half-page mug shots in tabloid rags...and even her death hasn't really resonated much in the greater public consciousness. Probably because she's been away from the business and out of sight for so long, and partially because she wasn't a mega-star to begin with. So my hope for the family is that whatever current unpleasantness they are experiencing from even the comparatively small amount of publicity her death has generated will soon pass. Mostly because the story probably isn't going to have a long or wide shelf life in terms of TMZ-type shows.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I agree with this post.

And, here below, I am not speaking about the Peterson family personally. I am just speaking in general terms.

(A) One has to wonder what type of family dynamics had to be going on that drive a kid to be a drug addict. I am not saying it is the fault of the parents always. But, something somewhere had to go wrong. And, often, parents are either blind to the problem or actively enable the problem. It's just a lose-lose situation all around.

(B) One also has to wonder about what type of parent "allows" their underage kid to trek off to Hollywood in search of fame and fortune. Something about that just doesn't seem quite right. And, typical 1ebc ly, I suspect there has to be some level of dysfunction either on the part of the parents, the child, or both.

Just my opinion ...

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I'd agree with all of that in a general way.

It's hard for me to really say much about Amanda Peterson specifically because she seemed fairly well-adjusted as far as child actors go when she was working, inasmuch as one didn't hear stories about her back in the 1980s/early 1990s pulling a Dana Plato. Perhaps something else was going on with her in a mental/emotional sense that didn't make the papers back then. That wouldn't be surprising, because in terms of visibility she wasn't even really THAT popular back then beyond her role in CBML.

It could be that the troubles started after she left the business. I tend to gravitate toward this in a belief that because she had been in the business since she was very young she probably had troubles adjusting or finding a purpose after it was all over.

Yet so much of it is all speculation for me. I don't know anything about who she was involved with romantically after her acting career ended (or even who she was involved with before it ended, now that I think about it). I don't know what her relationship with her family was like before, during and after her acting career was over...all I feel I DO know is drawn from the pictures of her last several years that have surfaced, and the decline in her physical appearance is tough stuff to look at. It is probably simplistic to say someone must feel a significant degree of self-loathing to let themselves go like that, but that's what it comes across like to me.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Your post sort of ties into my previous post.

Although, again, I am not really talking about Amanda and the Peterson family specifically. I don't know them at all, of course. I am just speaking in general terms.

Here is the situation for a young child actor.

They "land" this "dream job". They get paid tons of money. Their "work" is not really "work" (i.e., laborious). Their work and their job is pretty much a whole heck of a lot of fun and laughs. That pays them to boot. And provides them with fame. And fortune. And people treat them like they are royalty. People fawn all over them. People bend over backwards to oblige their needs and wants. They have everything they want at their beck and call. All of this "star treatment" can easily mess with the mind of even an adult celebrity, let alone a young child in formative years.

So, from a young kid's perspective, this is all they know. They don't really know what it's like to have a "real" job. To work hard. To barely make a living, to pay all your bills. To hate the work you do. To have to deal with horrible bosses or coworkers or customers, etc. This is all a foreign world to the typical child actor.

Now, fast forward a few years. So now, all of a sudden, the child actor loses his "cuteness" and his "baby face". Various personality traits that are deemed "cute" in a little kid all of the sudden become annoying and irritating in a pre-teen or teenager. And, in short, Hollywood spits them up and chews them out. It's pretty rare that a child actor successfully transitions to adult acting.

So, now, the kid (former kid, that is) has to go out into the "real world". A world that does not pamper them and pay them exorbitant fees for doing little to no work. And it must be a culture shock.

Alongside this are many other factors that affect the person: psychological, sociological, financial, etc. All in all, it's a big mess. Most adults would not be able to handle it well, so it's exponentially hard for a young child to handle. Enter the typical problems: drugs, alcohol, suicide, jail, e 2000 tc. A downward spiral.

So, as my previous post stated, there is likely some level of dysfunction for a little kid to want to enter into this business at that young age. And, quite frankly, there is almost certainly a level of dysfunction in the parent that allows it.





Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Hollywood has never been kind and forgiving to young actresses who possess any sort of psychological vulnerability or fragility and/or who have issues with their own self-worth and self-esteem. One can go back to the days of Old Hollywood and look at the sad and troubled lives of actresses like Frances Farmer, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, and Vivien Leigh. For more recent examples, we can look at Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Murphy, and Amanda Bynes. It definitely takes a certain kind of psychological makeup or temperament within a child/teenage actor to be able to handle all of the pressures and negatives that come with Hollywood and celebrity and not let those things become toxic and destructive influences.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


Hollywood has never been kind and forgiving to young actresses who possess any sort of psychological vulnerability or fragility and/or who have issues with their own self-worth and self-esteem.


I agree with your post.

I think oftentimes people with psychological vulnerability and/or issues with self-esteem and self-worth are exactly the type of people who go to Hollywood to seek fame and fortune. They need/want someone to like them, to 5b4 give them approval, and to validate them. In their warped mind, what better solution than to have the "whole world" clapping for you, asking for your autograph and photo, telling you how wonderful and pretty you are, etc.

It's a codependent and toxic relationship. Few young stars are left unscathed.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I don't see this at all as denial but rather as part of a strategy to put the best face on the whole situation and highlight Amanda Peterson's youthful image as most of the public remembers her. In the past the Petersons were pretty good at damage control, keeping Amanda's numerous arrests out of the mainstream and entertainment media other than an occasional tabloid story or a few Internet sites that were barely noticed. But when Amanda suddenly died, the family quickly got out on the offense to control the narrative:

1. "The last day we saw Amanda" story

2. Admit that Amanda had nonspecific drug issues when she was younger but had been clean recently, then mention various medical conditions she suffered - diverting attention from the drugs and mental health scenarios

3. She had become quite religious

4. She was living alone on disability after two divorces - avoiding any other mention of post-acting relationship and family issues

Once Amanda's arrest record and mugshots got out all over the Internet via the tabloids, a few days later the memorial tribute video put together by her brother Jim Peterson (a Baptist minister in Michigan) is released on Facebook and shared on other media sites, including only pics and video footage up until the end of acting career in 1994 for the reasons stated at the beginning Soon after the story went mostly dormant until the release of the autopsy report. Even there, it does make clear that Amanda did suffer from numerous medical and mental health conditions that had her taking numerous kinds of prescription meds (including painkillers), and some NOT prescribed, most notably morphine.

As there was a plausible if wrongheaded motive (pain from a hysterectomy) for Amanda Peterson to decide to self-medicate with morphine that ended up being fatal, it was enough for the coroner to rule "accidental morphine overdose causing respiratory distress" as the official COD, the best verdict the family could have hoped for in this situation.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I think it's more likely the case that close family members are in deep denial rather than that they come together to "conspire" for a PR strategy.

Oftentimes, close family members don't see the full picture and don't get the whole story/full truth. (Obviously, this is due to the efforts of the drug addict to keep their family in the dark as much as possible).

Also, close family members want to believe the best, not the worst, about their children, even despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. They have to cling to hope, otherwise they may as well just throw their hands up in the air and disown the drug addict relative.

(As a side example, look at the family members of the plane that disappeared in Malaysia. Despite overwhelming evidence, they cling to the hope that their loved one is still alive.)

Also, oftentimes, close family members see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

I think that the emotional and psychological difficulties experienced by the close family members of a drug addict lead more to deep denial than they do to a concerted and orchestrated conspiracy at a PR strategy.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

It has been said she has an older child, a son. Maybe that's the "secret" bombshell.....?




**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I know you weren't speaking of the Peterson family specifically, but I can't help but apply those questions to them.

I always sensed Amanda quit acting because she viewed it in the same way we civilians (for lack of a better word) a summer or high school job. Or perhaps it was just something that interested her as a kid but lost its appeal when she got older. In one interview shortly after CBML came out, she complained that roles for teens were limited and one dimensional. If she were already dissatisfied at 15 or so, I can only imagine how frustrated she became at 20. I'm still of the mind that her "Hollywood years" weren't the sole or even major cause of her problems.

I don't think she had typical stage parents either. It seems like they allowed her to pursue an interest that just so happened to be in the public eye. I don't think they had any agenda past that which can't be said for a lot of parents of child entertainers. Her mom was always with her, she remained enrolled in public school in Colorado and seemingly had her priorities straight. She certainly wasn't clubbing with her mom like Lindsay Lohan.

That's what makes her life rather perplexing. She came from a good background, had a solid and supportive family (seemingly) who she wasn't supporting, had outside interests and had enough smarts to walk away instead of sticking around far too long vainly trying to relive her glory days.

I know her family isn't keen on talking, but it would be nice if someone did an in-depth article about her. The crap on a** kissy People, US Weekly and the like dwell on the arrests and drugs but something had to have been the catalyst.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Yes, it's perplexing. I agree.

Isn't her Dad a deacon or a minister or some such?

I don't know about this specific case, but there is a stereotype of what happens with "the preacher's daughter".

They are "forced" to live in such a prim and proper (restrictive) manner that, as 5b4 soon as they can, they act out in strong rebellion. Usually going overboard and over-compensating on the level of rebellion "necessary" to make their point.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Amanda's father is/was an ear, nose and throat doctor. I believe her brother is a pastor. I assume the family was religious to some degree because her father said that she had become "quite religious". I think someone on Facebook posted about Amanda claiming that after she got sober (presumably after her last arrest), she was baptized.

Re your post about the video montage released being one for public consumption, I thought of that as well.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


she was baptized.



Yes, she was baptized, along with Stella, on Easter 2014. The video is on the church's website or maybe youtube by now.



**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Thanks.

Yes, I knew there was a pastor in the mix, somewhere.

And, yes, you are right. I did hear that the father was a doctor.

Thanks.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Maybe they were too church-y and judgemental?

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I suppose her family didn't include any post acting years photos of her in the montage out of respect for her privacy, but that still seems to be a strange move IMO. I guess it also makes sense that later pictures were left out because, as you said, the pics of her from about 2000 onward were a departure from what we were used to. I don't know....I just still find it all very sad that the majority of her life was seemingly ignored and glossed over. I don't think either of her parents even acknowledgd that she had children.

At the same time, I can understand why they're being so guarded. Nearly everyone shares every thought and image on social media today and once you put things out there, you can't take them back. In the long run, it's likely wiser to leave certain things unsaid and some things left in the family.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Maybe that montage was meant for public consumption. And, as such, included Amanda's public life and photos from that era.

Maybe they had a private, family-only ceremony or montage, more inclusive of Amanda's life, and not publicized for public consumption.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I think this is going to be very enlightening and clear up a lot of the mysteries and questions surrounding Amanda's life and death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6esfQCdeX8&feature=youtu.be. It seems very brave and courageous for the family to be willing to discuss Amanda so publicly.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


It seems very brave and courageous for the family to be willing to discuss Amanda so publicly.


You're joking right?





**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

No, I'm not joking. This is clearly a very private family who have been very reluctant to discuss their daughter's death publicly and who wanted to deal with the death of their daughter out of the public eye. There is nothing compelling them to go publicly on a TV show and go into painful detail about the life and death of someone they loved (a person who, by the way, has been out of the public spotlight for the past 20 years). I think they got sick of all the articles and headlines about their daughter's death screaming "drug overdose" with a lot of unsubstantiated speculation about her life and death. They seem to want to discuss what actually happened to Amanda in her life and explain the reasons for her mental illness and addict 2000 ions so that they can clear up all of the wild and weird rumors that have been circulating on the web about her.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


so that they can clear up all of the wild and weird rumors that have been circulating on the web about her.


Yes, it will be interesting to see what they have to say...the wild and weird rumors that have been circulating don't even come close to the true story imo.



**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

What I find so interesting about the preview of the Doctors episode is that it alludes to a secret that the family has been hiding for 30 years and a trauma that Amanda suffered then. This would have been in 1985 when she was 13 or 14, depending on what time of year it took place. Depending on what the revelation is, this is something that could send some ripples through the Hollywood community (this might in fact end up being comparable to what happened when Corey Haim died and all of the information came out about childhood abuse he suffered in Hollywood). There are a number of people who were friends with Amanda or who worked with her in the prime of her career (roughly 1985-1990) that are still quite active Hollywood players today: Neil Patrick Harris, Ethan Hawke, Meredith Salenger, Sarah Jessica Parker, Patrick Dempsey, Seth Green, etc. Who knows what impact and effect the new information we will be given about Amanda from the show will have on people who worked with Amanda and loved and cared about her during those particular years in Hollywood?

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I agree with what mattloc73 says.

The family does not "owe" the public any explanations, etc. And I am sure it's both painful and difficult for them. So, yes, they are being brave and courageous to do so.

As far as the advertisement ("teaser") for The Doctors episode: a lot of that might just be "hype" in order to attract ratings. Talking about "famil 1908 y secrets", "big revelations", "her trauma", etc. I am sure that there are some small kernels of truth in that. But those words and descriptions seem like a lot of exaggerated puffery and hype to attract viewers.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

We'll see when the episode comes out. To me, it doesn't feel like hype or puffery: saying that there is a 30-year old family secret and that she suffered a trauma exactly 30 years ago feels too specific to be just "hype" to attract an audience. I also don't think that this family would go on a TV show merely for publicity purposes but rather because they are holding on to information that will paint Amanda in a much better light and put to rest many of the rumors and pieces of misinformation that are circulating out there right now. I could be completely off-base in my prediction (in which case, I'll gladly delete this post after the show airs) but my gut feeling right now is that the family will reveal that she was raped or experienced some form of sexual abuse in 1985 in Hollywood. And odds are good that the person who committed the abuse was a director, a talent agent, or Hollywood executive. If the family provides the name of the abuser, It will be because it is someone who is currently deceased. If it is someone who is currently alive, they aren't going to provide the name publicly for legal reasons.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Mattloc73 you keep on making unsubstantiated charges that supposedly happended 30 years ago in or around 1985. She continued to work until 1993 or another 8 years roughly. If her family let her work another 8 years after something like you are
talking about happened, then that looks bad on them. If they come forward with
unsubstantiated charges, then no one will ever know. The bigger story is what happened for the last atleast 20 years. Those mugshots starting in 2000 look terrible and we all feel bad for her and the family. Hopefully at least some of the truth comes out and this is just not a deflection. Amanda retired 20 years ago
and has not for all intents and purposes been employable, has had custody of two children taken from her at some point, had multiple arrests in the early to mid 2000's and then again in 2012. some of b68 those arrests involve liquor and atleast drug paraphernalia. She has two black eyes in one of the arrests and I have never seen anyone say how she got those. Just terrible. Then eventually she is found dead alone in an apartment or townhouse she is living in caused by accidental overdose. Apparently she was married twice and seems like she got no support, atleast lately from her former husband's. Her family initially was wrong about how she died. I am sure the family tried to move mountains to help her in her ordeal over the last 20 years. It does seem that she had some substance abuse problems and we have read rumors of possible depression and other illnesses. This poor woman had a rough last 20-25 years as her father stated shortly after her death. it is very sad. Hopefully they can shed some light and what happened to make her spiral seemingly in a downward trajectory for around 20 years. I can only imagine what life must have been like for her. Nobody deserves that. Atleast we know she is resting in peace.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I'm not making unsubstantiated Charges against anyone - it was merely a guess on my part as to what will be revealed on the show. It might help you to actually take the time to watch this clip about the upcoming episode of The Doctors (the 30 year old family secret and trauma is mentioned specifically by people on the show and Amanda's mother - I didn't pull that number out of thin air): https://youtu.be/h6esfQCdeX8

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


Apparently she was married twice and seems like she got no support, atleast lately from her former husband's


She was only married once. (Skutvik) Chuck was her common-law husband. He died in May of this year.



**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

he was only married once. (Skutvik) Chuck was her common-law husband. He died in May of this year.



Hide 86: multiple websites, including wikepedia, say she was married to s b68 omeone named Joseph Skutvik, and then to someone named David Hartley. It's very easy for you to look that up on Wikipedia. If you know different and she was not married to David Hatley, you should correct the Wikipedia then. I have seen reported that she did have a common law husband named chuck who passed away a few months before her. But many other articles mention two husbands: Joseph and then David.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

David Hartley doesn't exist. Hopefully the family will clear that up on the show next week. Smoke and mirrors.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

hide86, i have seen some posters say that David Hartley did not exist. If that was made up by the family, i don't think they will talk about that because I don't think they would have a good explanation as to why they made it up and it would be somewhat embarrassing. My opinion about the interview that will air on the show on Monday will be somewhat of a controlled interview. A list of questions was probably given to the interviewers and I don't think it will be a timeline of all Amanda's events that occurred 94-2015. There has been talk about and a picture of an autograph session she went to around 99-2000. One that Erin Grey was at as well. Was Amanda married to her first husband at that time? it seems like things started to take a turn for the worse around the 2000 timeframe. But I don't think the family will talk about a lot on the show and who could blame them it really is none of anyone's business.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


I don't think it will be a timeline of all Amanda's events that occurred 1994-2015.


Huh? If they are not going to discuss anything from 1994 through 2015, what on earth would even be the point of the interview?

They certainly are not going to schedule an interview in which only the years 1971 through 1994 are discussed (i.e., Amanda from age 0 to 23). And, then, completely ignore the second half of her life (1994 through 2015). That makes no sense whatsoever.


But I don't think the family will talk about a lot on the show and who could blame them it really is none of anyone's business.


Then, why would they agree to give an interview at all? What would be the point?

Think about it. If they control the interview "too tightly", that will leave a lot of unanswered questions. Questions to which Amanda's fans want (almost demand) answers. So, if these "important" questions and issues are ignored, that does two things. (1) It makes it look even worse for the family, to offer an interview but to still "hide things". (2) When there is a vacuum of information, that vacuum is filled with rumors, innuendo, and speculation. The interview then would only exacerbate the problem, not mitigate it. What would be the point? That would seem to be contradictory to why the family is speaking in the first place.

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

I think the Petersons need to schedule an appearance on a show that will allow for callers to phone in questions. It's too bad Larry King's show is no longer on the air. LOL

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

Wow, that would be a great idea. But, I am sure that they (the family) would not go for that. And I wouldn't blame them.

Although, come to think of it ...

When they do those "call in" shows, I imagine that they still must "screen" the calls and questions that get put through. Right? So, really, what's the difference?

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial

You're exactly right here. We'll see what happens.

The aforementioned 1999 autograph session that Amanda attended was a weekend show of former 1950's-80's music and TV stars put on by Rhino Records known as RetroFe 1c84 st. It took place August 13-15, 1999 at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Erin Gray was amongst the other celebrities appearing there as the original press release shows. (link below)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rhino's+21st+Anniversary+Party+Celebrates+The+History+Of+Hip!-a055379324

Re: Amanda's mother's utter denial


To me, it doesn't feel like hype or puffery: saying that there is a 30-year old family secret and that she suffered a trauma exactly 30 years ago feels too specific to be just "hype" to attract an audience.


If you've ever watched daytime TV, you should know that the majority of those previews that promise to reveal some "explosive bombshell" are the norm. More times than not, the "never before revealed explosive information" is nothing but a clip of someone saying something out of context that isn't terribly salicious. Medical shows are the worst offenders of such crap. The Doctors was created by Dr. Phil. If you've ever seen the previews to his emotional jerkfest and then watched the episode (presumably because you're in desperate need a visual and audio ipecac), you'll see he employs this kind of bait and switch behavior. It's not too far a leap that a show he created would pull the same tactics.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the "30 year
old secret trauma" was nothing more than some run of the mill accident Amanda was in that lead to her abusing pills or some such scenario. If it were physical or sexual abuse at the hands of some Hollywood creepster, which an oddly inordinate amount of people seemingly want it to be, I think that would have come out. While I've no doubt some truly henious things happen to children in Hollywood (as they do in the rest of the world which I guess isn't near as interesting), I think the two Corey's claim that there's a pedophilia ring in Hollywood has made a lot of people think every child star has been abused and that is the cause of their issues. It's not always the result of some hideous sexual abuse, Hollywood pressures, or domineering stage parents. I grew up in a small Southern town far removed from "Hollyweird". About a quarter of the kids I went to high school with got into drugs. The fact remains that anyone is suspectible to becoming an addict.


She has two black eyes in one of the arrests and I have never seen anyone say how she got those


It's been talked about, just not in detail. I think it was a local area paper that said at that time of that arrest, she was charged with assault for fighting another woman. Presumably, two black eyes were the result of that.


If you know different and she was not married to David Hatley, you should correct the Wikipedia then.


Here's the thing about Wikipedia - it just re-reports content from news outlets that they consider to be reliable. If the reliable source is "wrong", it is wrong. Perhaps it's not the most ideal set up but it's an attempt to limit the false information and deter people with agendas. The entire project loses all credibility (of which there is little already) when alleged friends, family members or self proclaimed researchers or scholars start "correcting" or adding stuff they claim is fact.

I've been editing there for 7+ years now and I've lost count the amount of times some yahoo showed up and started adding what they say is fact. That includes nutters who believe they're married to some famous person but says the information is being supressed or some person who researched (ie read some guy's blog) the moon landing and wants to declare it as fact that the entire thing was faked. It's wholly possible David Hartley doesn't exist. In fact, I wouldn't completely discount it because there are obviously people around that knew her and were correct about a number of things that later turned out to be true. At the same time, in the context of Wikipedia, you can't simply take someone at their word.
Top