Three Shades Of Red-The Revolutions Of E.L. James

There is no doubt about it, Erika Leonard, the real name of author E.L. James, is big business. 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' has sold an incredible 70 million copies world-wide, setting the record as the fastest selling paperback of all time, and surpassing the Harry Potter series. This is in spite of a mixed critical reception; with the quality of the prose rated as poor.

But what is this novel about consensual BDSM and romance, between two single people, doing under 'The Dark Side'? Well, at a glance, you'd say it was an over-reaction on my part. It's the palest shade of grey and these days labelled as "cool", under the banner of 'mommy porn'. However, I just read an article by an experienced BDSM practitioner, who warned that from the perspective of a masochist:- "sadism can be painful, quite dangerous and even criminal, in the wrong hands."

Anyway, we're not here to have a moral debate, we're here to look at a 'Life Cycles' analysis of Erika Leonard, with particular reference to her three adult 'Years of Revolution' at ages 24, 36 and most recently at 48. I can assure you that Erika agreed to this examination and that we signed a mutually agreeable contract, as to just how far I could go.....only joking Erika!

Let's start with age 48 first, since that's the big kahuna. Erika was born March 7th, 1963, so she was in her age 48 'Year of Revolution' in the period March 2011 to March 2012. Here's your quiz :- "When was 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' published?" Answer :- (without going to Google) June 20, 2011. So her landmark work appeared as her new age/direction in this 'Year of Revolution'. Now a second question :- "At the top of this blog is a logo/condensed cover of 'The Life Cycles Revolution'. In the top section is a segment representing the 'Year of Revolution' with the icon of 'The Flames' in it. What color is that segment?" Answer :- (OK, so you all flicked upwards, I know). Red. Naturally enough, as it's the color of revolution. So, for me, this is the first 'shade of red' for E.L. James.

It should be noted that what I sometimes refer to as 'the miracle of the Revolution' can seem overwhelming to people as they live through it. Leonard is a good high profile example of this. She had never written a book before and only did it for her personal satisfaction. In her own words its success has been :- "completely and utterly overwhelming." She continues to live a very modest suburban existence (albeit in a new upgraded home) and she was reported to have deliberated for weeks about spending 110 Pounds on a pair of Ugg Boots.

Next question folks. Which other world-wide, overnight, 48 year old UK phenomenon is she like? Yes, you can use Google for this. Answer :- Susan Boyle, who said she was "completely gobsmacked" by her success and continued to live in her remote Scottish village. She couldn't comprehend the fuss either.

But this post is called 'Three Shades Of Red' and I'm getting sidetracked; so let's see what events happened in the life of Erika Leonard at her next shade of red, at age 36 (March,1999 to March,2000). She wasn't always a writer you see, she had a lengthy career behind the cameras as a producer with the BBC. She always had this itch to escape with a good romance novel, but didn't do much more than read for quite a while. OK, I have the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) to thank for telling me her credits as a Production Executive began in 1999, with the first of 2 episodes of the series 'Funny Turns' featuring John Inman. This appears to confirm that her central age 36 'Year of Revolution' ushered in a promotion to her career as a Production Executive. So, this is her second shade of red. What is her third? Come on, don't wait for me to tell you, go and check it out.

The year is most of 1987. Who is the most central character in Erika's life? Her inspiration and her 'absolute touchstone'. The person she relied upon heavily in writing 'Fifty Shades' and who she :- "wouldn't publish anything without getting his input first." If you get this one wrong you're going to feel a bit of a goose.

Answer :- it 's her husband Niall, a successful screenwriter, who she married in 1987. Their bonds are both romantic and career oriented and they have spent very little time apart. By way of balance, Niall does concede that Erika listens to him, but goes off and does it her way, and that he is no Christian Grey. So, her last shade of red is her greatest in my book. At 24, she begins a lifelong successful marriage, at 36 she begins a mid-life career as a successful TV Production Executive and at 48 OMG!, it's bigger than Ben Hur, as the world falls in love with 'Fifty Shades'.

I congratulate Erika on her success and hope one day, that she may come to learn about the newest, most accurate, and in fact the only testable 'theory of life'. 'Life Cycles' alone presents you with 'The Truth And The Evidence'. If you want hearsay and quackery and 'trust me I'm a guru', then go listen to someone else. Otherwise, I hope you recognise the validity of what I freely present. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Don't Give This Man An Even Break- 'Life Cycles' and John Gotti Jr.

We are going to examine some pivotal moments from the life of the mafia boss, John Gotti Jr., known as 'The Last Don'. Movies and TV give a somewhat romanticised image of gangsters. This is not Marlon Brando, Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. It is certainly not James Gandolfini, whose life we are going to compare and contrast with Gotti's in this blog. There will also be a separate post on Gandolfini in 'The Story Behind Life Cycles' www.lifecyclesstory-neil-killion.blogspot.com (you should read this blog as well, if you don't already), in a new 'Life Cycles' angle. The 'Real McCoy' is a lot less sanguine and a lot more arbitrarily violent. Mind you, Gotti did try and craft an acceptable media image and because it was difficult to make convictions stick, he also had the moniker of 'The Teflon Don'.

Let's start at the first adult, age 24, 'Year of Revolution' shall we? John Joseph Gotti Jr. was born October 27th, 1940, so the period we will examine will be Oct. 1964 to Oct. 1965. What was he up to then? He was not yet a Don, still to be a 'made man'. He had been involved in street gangs, associated with the New York mafia, since the age of 12, (his first 'Year of Revolution' new age), but after marriage and children in the early 60's, he tried to work legitimately as a truck driver and a presser. However, he soon lapsed back to crime with the Gambino Family, and was charged and spent a year in prison starting in 1965. This was his first gaol stretch and his new age at that time.

Let's quickly contrast this with James Gandolfini at 24. He had one highly significant, age 19 'Year of Broken Pathways', during which his girlfriend of 2 years was killed in a car crash. " I might not have done what I've done, without her death ", he has said. In his age 24 'Year of Revolution' (Sept. 1985 to Sept.1986 ), he was dragged along to acting class by a friend. Does this sound like the 'forces of fate' operating here? More on James in his full profile. So, one gets his first stretch in the big house and the other reluctantly starts to learn acting. New ages, totally different, but occurring at a similar time in their lives.

Now let's visit John Gotti at his age 31 'Year of Broken Pathways' and ask "what was his direction change and challenge during this time?", as we always do. Gotti had just done several years behind bars for robbery and hijacking. They released him on parole in his age 31 'Year of Broken Pathways'. Chances of him re-offending? 100%. He went straight back to the Gambino family, where he was put in charge of illegal gambling with the Bergin Hunt and Fish Club (a storefront in Queens, that was a notorious mafia hangout), and was very successful in acting as enforcer. He was brutal and he was ruthless. He reported to Carmine Fatico, who was the capo (high-ranking Mafia boss who runs 'a crew' of 'soldiers'). Fatico had just been released to parole on the grounds he couldn't associate with known felons, which resulted in Gotti becoming 'acting capo'. This was, in essence, the big promotion and his challenge was to prove to the Gambino family that he was 'up to it'. In the same period he forged links with his boss Anielo ('Neil'-never did think I'd get a namesake here) Dellacroce, who was the family underboss.

So, just as Johnny Boy was hitting his strides at 31, what happened of a similar nature to James Gandolfini? Totally different of course, but same theme. James had been in character roles, with not a great deal to show, until the release of the movie 'True Romance', where he played the woman-beating mob henchman, Virgil. This one 'put him on the map' as a malevolent actor par excellence. He played 'John Gotti' if you will. He said a major influence was a hitman, who was an old friend (he had previously worked as a club bouncer). More roles like this followed.

Now to their pivotal age 36, mid-life 'Years of Revolution'. John Gotti first. Gotti had been in 'the slammer' for murdering Irish-American gangster James McBratney (who had kidnapped and murdered Gambino's nephew). With the help of a smart lawyer, he cut a plea bargain and was paroled in just 2 years in June, 1977. You know, this brings up the post title:- you shouldn't give this guy a break. Parole? Community supervision? He was immediately initiated into the Gambino family. A 'made man'. Not just 'acting capo', but now a direct report to Dellacroce. He had "burst upon the scene".

OK, over to James now. Did he too, "burst upon the scene" at 36? They had already selected a reluctant James for the role of Tony Soprano, after seeing him in 'True Romance'. David Chase, the show's creator, knew he was the one. Also the first screened episode happened in early 1999, when James was 37. So what was the story? I'll tell it in full in the other post, but it's really the same story as the Seinfeld Show. There was a pilot episode shot, that seemed to be 'wide of the mark' in various ways. Everyone involved, Chase, Gandolfino and all, thought that was it. Get on with your careers somewhere else. Against all odds in December, 1997 (right within James's age 36 'Year of Revolution') HBO decided to produce the series. That was the moment of conception. His "bursting on the scene" moment, that would make his name.

So, on the one hand Gotti becomes a 'made man' and James has a twist of fate, that will make his name. Am I surprised? Keep in mind that I always planned to write up Gandolfini after studying his obituary, but I only decided two days ago to look at Gotti's bio. Oh, by the way, I have more on Gotti, but I'm running out of puff. You'll just have to wait for 'Life Cycles'-The Dark Side. I have the structure all planned out. Criminal profiles left right and centre, and gaol stories told first-hand by me. I was there as a psychologist in the 'wild and woolly' 70's. The system was run by cowboys. They had to hold a Royal Commission into it. Ah, you'll love it. You'll eat it up for breakfast. Once again, till next month:- " may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Nothing Exceeds Like Excess - Michael Scripps and The Dark Side

I have to thank Oscar Wilde for giving me the inspiration for this title. This post just happened because I read the salacious details of the Michael Scripps' case in the paper. It seemed to have just about everything in it that the 'Dark Side' stands for - greed, lust, betrayal, family in-fighting, fraud, some strippers and a porn star. It was, quite simply, a bit hard to pass up.

It also demonstrates how the wheels of justice can coincide with the 'Life Cycles' 'significant years'; something I have written about several times before. In Scripps' case, he was in his all-important age 36 'Year of Revolution', as he was being found guilty of stealing $3.6 million from his mother and mentally impaired uncle. He was recently handed a 9 year prison sentence. There is no doubt his mother, Melissa Scripps (pictured here), raised him in a chaotic and dysfunctional family setting; however the decision to defraud his mother and uncle was his alone.

So let's backtrack a bit with this. Melissa Scripps was a descendant of James E. Scripps and in the 80's she inherited an $11 million share of the empire. She also took over her elder brother David's share (said to be more than hers), because he was mildly autistic. Then things got really crazy. She spent millions on her own whims; such as flying her dogs to their second home in the Caribbean by private plane, treating relatives to first class round-the-world holidays, buying two of Princess Diana's gowns, a Napoleonic tiara and teddy bears that cost thousands of dollars. Add to this her daily marijuana habit and legal bills from her four marriages and you have millions being squandered.

Now there was a fateful day (said to be around 2002, so I can't be sure, but Michael may have been in his first adult age 24 'Year of Revolution') when Melissa, Michael and a friend were together at an Atlanta strip club and the bill for the night was $90,000. Must have drank a lot of champagne. But I must say, of all the people I would feel uncomfortable with at a strip club, my mother would rank number one. Melissa must have been fully loaded when Michael took photos of her in a compromising position with an exotic dancer. If you think about this, it's completely wacky. You're with your own mother (high on booze and pot) at a strip club and she gets into a 'compromising position' with an exoctic dancer? Then you take a photo??

Michael himself, it must be stated, had already married a college student, who worked as a stripper so he knew something of the business. So, just how this went down must be quite a story. Let's say for example, he could have set her up, as he had been concerned for some time, that she was going to 'blow his inheritance' with her reckless spending. Mind you he had his own six-figure trust fund and a $3,900 monthly allowance, but it wasn't enough. He was greedy and he could also have seen this opportunity by accident and it was too good to pass up. Whatever the reason, later on when her financial advisers question the bill, he shows them the photo and she agrees to let Michael take over her and David's finances. I think blackmail is the correct word here.

Well, it wasn't long before Michael was into the moolah, courtesy of his college pal and financial adviser Richard 'Duke' Gleeson, who he appointed to manage the funds. He spent lavishly on his romantic interests :- his first wife Anna (who was a part-time stripper), to whom he gave piles of jewels and then from 2003 it was porn star Jenna Bearden (pictured below, whose stage name was Kiki Daire). He paid for her college education and an apartment in Memphis, breast enhancement surgery and diamond earrings. He was no different to his mother really. However, mum had to find out eventually and in 2006 there was quite a scene when she did. She cut off the money supply. It was reported that the relationship of Michael and Jenna was already beginning to fracture when the money dried up and one night during an argument, he held a gun to his head and demanded she call his mother. What the upshot of all this was, was not clear, but some two years later in Michael's age 31 'Year of Broken Pathways' in 2008, his fraud of $3.6 million was settled by Merrill Lynch and his actions were reported to the FBI.

Typical of how a 'Year of Broken Pathways' unfolds Scripps tried to justify his actions. His mother knew all along he said in court, he used the money to set up a real estate business, he had become a changed man and on and on it goes. However Merril Lynch (Melissa's advisers) required that as part of the settlement she notify the FBI of his criminal actions against the estate. So, we have the genesis of 'getting his hands on the money' in his age 24 'Year of Revolution', which set in train a 7 year journey to his actions being reported to the FBI in his age 31 'Year of Broken Pathways' to his eventual sentencing and imprisonment in his age 36 'Year of Revolution' (thus beginning his new age/new era).

This is exactly the same criminal 'Life Cycles' case history model, as the more infamous Jordan Belfort:- the self-styled 'Wolf of Wall Street'. How so, I hear you ask? Well, it's all in 'The Life Cycles Revolution'. Evidence so stark, so predictive of the theory, that it would convince the greatest skeptic/rationalist. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Ronnie Biggs and The Disappearing Revolution

Hello again. I've already assumed Ronnie's character on Facebook, so I feel as if I've written this article before I start. Now, unless you're under 25 or don't listen to the news, you probably know something of the famous great train robber Ronnie Biggs, who spent years on the run in Rio and got himself quite a media profile. Some saw him as a sort of modern-day Robin Hood and others did not like the way he seemed to get away with his crimes, but he was always colourful.

What I want to do is feature him in 'Life Cycles-The Dark Side' and ask what happened in his important age 36 'Year of Revolution'? Ronald Arthur Biggs was born August 8th, 1929, so we will be looking at the period Aug, 1965 to Aug, 1966. In July, 1965, Biggs and three others escaped from Wandsworth Prison in a daring break, organised by underworld friends. He and fellow robber Eric Flower are hidden in various UK locations between July and Oct. His new age/direction took shape in October, when he was put on a boat to Antwerp and then driven to Paris. Can you see how Biggs was not really in control of these plans? The centrality of this one year in the lives of so many, combined with not being fully in control of outcomes are the defining characteristics of 'Life Cycles' theory. But you knew that already?!

Now back to Uncle Ronnie. He, along with Flower, were also to be largely guinea pigs in extensive plastic surgery operations, designed to change their appearance. It is understood this was a first-ever use of this surgery for escaped felons. This was quite painful and took them two months to recuperate. On Dec.22nd, his wife Charmain joined him for a celebration dinner in Paris, as shown in the TV series, Mrs. Biggs, and then he flew to Sydney under the name of writer, Terrence Furminger. He had now effectively disappeared and the next step was to get Charmain and the kids into Australia, as the UK police were understandably staking them out.

Biggs and Flower set up home in Botany Bay, Sydney, but when their mail is intercepted in March they move to Adelaide. In June, 1966, Charmain and family arrive in Darwin. She is now Mrs. Margaret Furminger. So Ronnie's age 36 'Year of Revolution' sees the beginning of a new age/direction as a new identity trying to act normally in Australia. Many adventures follow this, of course, but it is of interest that Ronnie eventually returned to UK of his own volition, because he needed medical treatment, in May, 2001, after a series of debilitating strokes. He was on the run for 36 years. In August, at the beginning of Bigg's age 72 'Year of Revolution', his lawyers file appeal papers for early release on medical grounds. So this time his new age/direction is about getting out of gaol through appeal. This did happen, interestingly, some seven years later, in Bigg's age 79 'Year of Broken Pathways', and in about a month's time Bigg's will be 84 and most probably in his last 'Year of Revolution'. What will be in store? The answer, as always, is somewhat unknown and we'll simply have to wait.

Crime did not pay either for Ronnie. Although the gang stole a total of 44 million pounds sterling in today's terms, each of the 16 members received an equal share of 147,000 pounds, all of which was used to pay for the escape, plastic surgery and false passports. He arrived in Australia basically flat broke and had to find work. Oh yes, one other highlight for you. When Ronnie was in his age 48 'Year of Revolution' he teams up with the Sex Pistols in Rio to record "No-one Is Innocent (A Punk Prayer)" with Biggs singing lead vocal. Always a colourful villain was Ronnie. Till next month :- may the cycles always bring you good fortune.

Just How Foxy Is Knoxy? 'Life Cycles' and Amanda Knox.

Much has been written on this now high-profile case. Around a dozen books, including the most recent by Amanda herself, for which Harper Collins reportedly paid $3.8 million as an advance in a bidding war of the six main publishers. I guess this illustrates as well as anything what the traditional publishing industry is all about. For all that, I'm told the Publishers Weekly review was underwhelming and only 36,000 copies have been sold, with refusal to publish in UK, Italy or Germany for fear of libel. That's why people usually go to the web for their information. You don't know what treasures are buried waiting for you to discover. Now I must point out, I'm not going to determine Amanda's ultimate guilt or innocence, that is supposedly up to the courts, although they haven't got a definitive answer either and the DNA evidence has been corrupted. I guess the one who could point the finger, Meredith Kercher, is unable to and this case seems mired in changed stories and self-justifications.

Now when we do a 'Life Cycles' forensic examination, we visit the 'significant years' of the protagonist. Amanda Knox gets star billing, because she has managed to polarise so many opinions, so that's what I'll be doing in this post. She was born 9th July, 1987, so she was in her first adult, age 19, 'Year of Broken Pathways' between July, 2006 and July, 2007, which is a matter of months before the actual murder. What was happening in her life then, that could be considered a direction change and an uphill challenge set to last for the rest of the years of the 12 year cycle (ie. until she turns 24)? You should note here, that this is the generic description of the theory, although you could be forgiven for thinking that it is just a personal description for Amanda.

When she was 19 she was in a rebellious phase of her young life. After attending a strict Catholic school, she wanted to break free when at the University of Washington and got herself a reputation for being a 'party girl', who liked alcohol and drugs. She was also a conscientious student by day, so friends called it a 'double life'. She rented a house on Greek Row, an area that was home to football jocks and all-male fraternity houses. Here she could escape the strict alcohol rules of university accommodation.


"She just went wild" said an acquaintance. She threw a party in June, 2007 where police had to be called and it ended up in a minor criminal conviction. It is reported that she 'hung out with the male students doing rock climbing etc.' and that she aggressively competed with other females for male attention. She wrote a story on Facebook called 'Baby Brother' in which a young woman was drugged and raped by another young woman and described the victim's pain in lurid detail. One of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is the ability to take extreme pleasure in having power over others.

After June, she couldn't wait to get an opportunity to leave the US with its strict alcohol laws and was very happy when selected as an Erasmus scholar to study in Italy. Can you see for yourselves it was the beginning of a 'slippery slope' in her life? She couldn't have been more unlike her well-behaved flatmate Meredith Kercher, who came to resent her bringing "strange men" to the house and her untidiness and general self-centred attitude.

She was reprimanded by her employer, Patrick Lumumba at the bar 'Le Chic', for being too flirty with the customers. She in turn told flatmates and her mother that she was going to quit because Lumumba was not paying her and wanted her to drink while working. It is another characteristic of a psychopath, that they are practiced liars with no sense of right or wrong. In other words they tell their audience what they believe they want to hear. Patrick Lumumba liked Meredith and may well have hired her. Is it any wonder that, at first, Amanda tried to frame Patrick for this crime. He went to gaol for a short time and lost his business as a result. Are we to gloss over this as being a result of 'confused thinking' or police interrogation? It is on record that her story changed several times to suit the occasion.


However, none of this means that she is not innocent of the charges, but it took four long years before change occurred again. At age 24 in her first adult 'Year of Revolution' her appeal was upheld and she returned to the US. Her reaction in court shows she was overwhelmed at this decision and it was a major turning point in her life and the beginning of a new age/direction. She now had a book deal and talk of a movie. She has had to 'go public' with it's release and do dozens of interviews. But this trauma will not go away. It is no secret that there would be an appeal by the prosecution. They indicated they would do this straight away. She does not exude much warmth in lead interviews like that with Diane Sawyer. This 'coolness' and sometimes inappropriate emotions she has shown throughout the trial is again indicative of a psychopathic personality. This is reflected by straw polls on the web, with a clear majority thinking she is guilty. People pick up her vibe and she doesn't naturally engender sympathy.

Recent reports suggest she is facing financial difficulty as the $1.5 mill. advance (different to the $3.8 mill. at first reported) has been swallowed up by legal fees and the cost of a PR agent, hired from the earliest possible time after the crime. Though she may never return to Italy if found guilty, because of US 'double jeopardy' laws, she will be haunted by this for years to come. She has said "I don't know what I'm going to do. The future is very unsure..." She also said she believes she will be found guilty, which will mean more costly legal process. I believe that in addition to the pro-Amanda "no definitive DNA camp", there is the inescapable view by the Italian court that Rudy Guede (the man convicted after Lumumba was let go because he had a solid alibi) could not have acted alone. So if she and her then boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito weren't involved, then who was? This was presumably sexual assault, murder and robbery, by an as yet unnamed party or parties, who presumably knew Guede. Guede knew both Amanda and Meredith and was attracted to the flirty Amanda. Sollecito's online communications show a penchant for extreme sex. Yet someone else was involved? When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense does it? Till next month:- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".