Thursday, May 9, 2013

The Motive



                                          The Motive

"Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided"

                        - John Locke


We all have our own personal theory on the true motive for TLB. I used to think  the truth could be traced to relationships forged in the Laurel Canyon scene where Stars, Musicians, and common hippies were all mingling together over dope and music. Over the years I have become surer that some of them must have met in this place and time, but less sure it means anything in the big picture as far as motive for the crimes. Here are some other peoples opinions on what the motive was and was not....


"Helter-skelter was the motive for the murders. Manson borrowed that term from a Beatles song on the White Album. In England, helter-skelter is a playground ride. To Manson, helter-skelter meant a war between whites and blacks that the Beatles were in favor of. When the album first came out, in December of '68, he got a copy, and he came racing back to the ranch all excited and said, "The Beatles are telling it like it is! The s___ is coming down!" It was this war that he felt he could ignite by killing white people and blaming black militants, this war called helter-skelter."

               Vincent Bugliosi  - Interview with Time Magazine, August 2009                



"So how did the Prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, make the mistake of concluding that Helter Skelter , a black/white race war that would bring on Armageddon, was the motive for the murders of the LaBiancas and those at 10050 Cielo Drive? The most obvious reason is that Mr. Bugliosi didn’t look at the events that led up to these murders in chronological order. If you don’t study what happened in the order it happened how can you ever understand why one occurrence followed another?

  It wasn’t until the trial started that Vincent Bugliosi finally found out about the suspected murder of Bernard Crowe. This suspected murder would have an incredible effect on the actions of Charles Manson, but by the time Vincent Bugliosi discovered it he was already selling Helter Skelter to a jury.

It’s worth looking at the incident that followed – the Crowe Incident – a little closer, because it is the true beginning of the terrible panicked spiral that led to the deaths of nine innocent people."
         
                      Susan Atkins-  excerpts from " The Myth of Helter Skelter"


"There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn't have the energy or the smarts to do-ignite Helter Skelter and bring in Charlie's kingdom. There was also the need for more cash, first of all to finance our preparations for Armageddon-the same thing that had motivated the drug burn and Bernard Crowe's supposed murder, the killing of Gary Hinman, and all the proposed abductions and murders in the Chatsworth area-and also to pay $600 bail for Mary Brunner, who had been arrested earlier that day for using a stolen Sears' credit card. If she had not been in custody, Mary would most likely have been the one sent with us that night, instead of Linda, since Mary had the other valid driver's license in the Family and had already proven herself at Gary Hinman's. Beyond getting money and bringing down Helter Skelter, there was a third, less important purpose: to clear Bobby Beausoleil of the Hinman slaying by committing a similar crime while he was in jail."
       
                      Tex Watson- "Will you Die for Me?"


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Talking about the people that you've harmed, there was a greater goal in what you were -- what the Family was trying to accomplish at that time was this idea of a racial war?
INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DAVIS: And you apparently had bought into that?
INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Was -- you know, in addition to the nature of the murders themselves, have you thought about how you were able to, coming from this, again, this fairly normal background, to be able to buy into that kind of potential violence?
INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes, I've thought about it a lot, because at the time I didn't even think of it in terms of being racist. He -- it was presented as a eventual outcome, and I thought how dangerous it is to not pay very close attention to what people say. It was particularly painful for me because my sister and brother are Amerasian, and I had to live with that, with them too, and make my amends.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Commissioner, any questions?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
      
                        Leslie Van Houten- 2007 Parole Hearing transcript


“So, when Beausoleil come to me with, could I be a brother? I told him certainly, you know. So we were like in a little brotherhood together, like we didn't lie to each other. And whatever he said do, I would do. And whatever I said do, he would do.  But as far as lining up someone for some kind of helter skelter trip, you know, that's the District Attorney's motive. That's the only thing he could find for a motive to throw up on top of all that confusion he had. There was no such thing in my mind as helter skelter. Helter skelter was a song and it was a nightclub - we opened up a little after-hours nightclub to make some money and play some music and do some dancing and singing and play some stuff to make some money for dune buggies to go out in the desert. And we called the club Helter Skelter. It was a helter skelter club because we would be there and when the cops would come, we'd all melt into other dimensions because it wasn't licensed to be anything in particular. And that was kind of like a speakeasy back in the moonshine days behind the movie set.”
                         
                       Charles Manson- 1992 Parole Hearing Transcript


“First of all you are misinformed, as is everyone misinformed, about the so called “family.”  There was no organization called “The Family”.  The Family was a term given by the media to an amorphous group of people, some of whom went to prison in 1969. We lived on a ranch in the Santa Susana Mountains called Spahn ranch, and later we lived in Death Valley. We didn’t call ourselves anything, but we made a lot of music and somebody said, “Well what do you call your group?” And somebody said “Well were the family Jams.” So over a period of time, because the media usually needs to put a label on situations, we got the name “The Family”.  But there were literally hundreds of people who came and went. Later on, you might say, there was a core of people who were very close together and stayed true to the thought that we had for stopping the war in Vietnam, and for protecting our air, our water, our trees, and our animals. We were so committed to those causes that the murders more or less evolved out of our desire to change the system.”
       
                          Sandra Good-  Radio interview 1990 W. G.R. Buffalo NY


“Manson has been proclaimed by many to be insane. The question of whether or not he is insane is a question of opinion, which cannot have a “true” right answer. However, his beliefs, which fueled his and his family’s actions between 1968 and 1975 conflicted with society’s morals, around which this country revolves."
" He also believed that he was Satan, to come to Earth and start Helter-Skelter, what he called a prophetical Armageddon.”

" Helter Skelter, revenge were part of his beliefs. Humans had corrupted the Earth and ATWA, and were ignorant about it. Manson had felt that society dumped him and he felt great rage for society, and people, and later found an anthem for his rage. When asked about his actions, many years after the murders, he had said that he is a part of everyone, that he mirrors people, because they shaped him. The Beatles’ “White Album” included songs (Helter Skelter, Revolution #9, Piggies, and others) that Manson felt documented his rage toward society. When at the ranch, he and the family listened to these songs many times over. Manson thought he had heard his name being said in one of the songs. Their thoughts about Helter Skelter, or the Armageddon, were brought out by these songs. In Revolution #9, he heard machine gun fire, the oinking of pigs, and a man saying, “rise.”

"His beliefs would later incite Helter Skelter, using his family as a type of “army.” Some people believe that he just brutalized people, that the murders were for no cause, and he was just insane. Yet, more than twenty-five years after he and his family were convicted, he still has the same beliefs and still can logically explain his actions."

“Manson’s murder case was the most extraordinary of the time period, especially taking into account the hippie era. However, the murders partially stemmed from the era as he had so many people under his control, believing every word, what he thought of turned into a reality. Oliver Stone compliments Manson when describing his interview with Geraldo Rivera, saying that Manson had the upper hand of the discussion the entire time. Intelligence is not one and the same with sanity, however, which might have explained Manson’s retaliation against society. It is of somebody’s opinion to decide whether or not they think Manson is insane. Yet, his mind and motives can explain why he acted how he did, and why society didn’t approve.”
        
         Excerpts from: The Mind and Motives of Charles Manson -An essay by Dylan Klebold     (Columbine High killer)


"So what I am trying to say here is that the Charles Manson murders that happened in 1969 were a phony "show trial" that was created to cover up the Robert Kennedy assassination that took place a year earlier in 1968. I know that is hard to believe "but true.".Earlier you found out that the DAs office in LA altered the "motive" in the Sirhan Sirhan assassination case. How much Bugliosi played a part in this we may never know but during the Tate LaBianca murder trial Bugliosi "definitely" altered the motive while he was chief prosecutor of the case. He hid the Mafia/CIA connections to the case and created a motive where "wild crazed hippies on LSD were killing people at random" Anybody that has ever studied this case can prove that these murders were anything but random. The LAPD right from the start concluded the these murders were high end drug deals gone wrong and they were right all along. This is the first time in our country that people have seen how our Intelligence community were heavily involved in the Tate LaBianca murders."

"I mean you don't have to tell me what happened. I lived in the area at the time and saw the whole thing happen with my own two eyes. When I was in high school there were actually Manson girls going to my school. The rumor on campus was that the Charles Manson murders were some sort of Government operation what was being blamed on Hippies. All of the evidence seems to show that this "rumor" was true."

                 -  Excerpts from- "I was there and saw the whole thing happen"- Mark Carter as posted on Lets Roll Community Forums.

" I call it the Manson trial because nobody talks about it being Charles Watson's massacre. That's the boy who killed seven people, but the news media associates the name Charles Manson [with the killings]. He made the picture on the cover of Life; He is the man that you associate with killing Sharon Tate. Many people don't even know the name Charles Watson, because you're not supposed to know it. Right now there's a hung jury in Los Angeles on the decision of whether Charles Watson is guilty of murdering seven people. He was in the home. He did the stabbing forty times. He wrote "death to the pigs" on the door. The jury can't decide if he was guilty. My conclusions are, number one: that all of these persons involved—the major people—are agent provaceteurs. They come at a time to increase violence, to come down on a segment of our society prior to an election year to make law and order necessary to protect us from the people at large in our society. Number two: Charles Manson was a patsy. He is identical, historically, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Ray. Charles Manson killed nobody in the Sharon Tate home or in the La Bianca home. He was being charged with these murders and he didn't kill any one of those seven people. He was used. He was a person who had been in jail twenty-two of his thirty-two years of life. He was the product of our penal system. He was not a hippie or a part of the youth culture. They bought him a guitar, let his hair grow, put a leather jacket on him, gave him money, gave him a bus and credit cards, and told him to do his thing. It was like James Ray was a part of our penal system. He was in Missouri in jail, he met with certain persons, and the next day he was out and there was twenty, thirty thousand dollars of money spent. He traveled continents and everywhere. He was to be used at a certain time and place. Charles Manson was identical to James Ray, as a product of our penal system. He was used by the news media to slam down on the hippies. We could do one hour on the news control of how your brain is shaped to believe that Charles Manson made a robot out of a nice white Christian boy from Texas. Isn't this terrible? This kind of a criminal mind? He was used.

              Mae Brussell Talks about Charles Manson 1972 ( Whatsup- enjoy the journey.blogspot)

" The real motive was to get a brother, Bobby Beausoleil, out of jail by committing “copycat” murders that would convince the authorities that Beausoleil could not be guilty of the murder (of Gary Hinman) for which he had been arrested on August 6, 1969. This motive is much more realistic and has much more circumstantial support than the DA’s fantastic ‘helter skelter’ motive. It’s the real motive. There’s only one thing wrong with it from the prosecutorial point of view: It is not a personal motive for Charles Manson."

                          -  Manson ATWA(r) website


                 
              
                                     So Whats your opinion????






33 comments:

Charlie Higgins said...

I have just finished reading "The Myth Of Helter Skelter" and I reckon that it gives the clearest and most logical explanation of the events that lead to TLB. Like most people here , I have read every available book related to this case , but this one cuts to the core . The shooting of Crowe was the spark that ignited a chain of events that included the killing of Hinman in an attempt to acquire the money to fund the trip to Death valley . The events of August 9th. and 10th. where the ideas of the girls who believed that a series of copycat murders would lead to the release of "Brother Bobby".

St. Circumstance said...

I read the myth of H/S on Susan's website just before she passed. At the time James Whitehouse said it wasn't finished as Susan became to ill to finish, so I assume he completed it after her death...

I liked it a lot as well- but Susan has changed her story so many times and you know it was coming from a place of self service. She does one section comparing herself to Linda where she asks you to compare her involvement with Linda's- IF you can concede that she didn't stab Sharon.... She says bugs called her a devil and Linda an angel- and the premise is that- in Susan's opinion there involvement is very similar. She lays out point after point trying to make this argument.

First of all that's a pretty big IF....

Second of all- regardless of her stabbing Sharon or not- she went in the house and held people against there will and physically fought with at least one or two of the victims. She stabbed Voytek in the leg which- at times- she has said herself.

I call Linda and accessory to the a crime.... Susan was an active participant. Susan was much more talk than bite to me -always was. I don't consider her capable of doing what Katie or Tex did. (She was capable of going in and helping). But she was in that house fighting with the victims. Linda was not. She can't spin that any other way...

Her main theory(This time) is that it all started with Crowe , and there will be plenty of people who will go along with that. She comes across very honest at times, but has changed her story so many times it is hard to know....

another example- she is now saying Charlie regularly put her in a certain place in a "time out" style punishment. She then adds that the men all had there private meetings right next to this room and she could hear the conversations, so that is how she knows some of the facts in the book are so....

Maybe- but I have read her first book and the transcripts from all of her parole hearings back to the first one, and she never mentioned this before that I recall....

it would have been pretty important fact if she had been secretly listening to all Charlies secret plans no??

But it is a very interesting read, and I would recommend it....

I would bet you 80% of it is good information- I think she just really wanted to go home and die with James at this point. you hear much frustration in the tone, and like Charlie Higgins says- she gets down to the basics and and I think she was maybe being honest with herself about some of the things she said as well for the first time....

She certainly realizes she made some big mistakes and wasted her life...

most of them now that they are at the end of the line seem much more reflective and sad about themselves than the people whose lives they affected....

Where is the Family member who puts out one final work where they are accepting of there fate and apologetic to all they have hurt.

As interesting as this new book by Susan is - she is still asking you for something... She seemed to be offering a trade- the final real truth for her last few months...

that trade is only fair if Susan has the real truth to offer....

Is this it???



wengr said...

I tend to believe that Atkins is correct about a confluence of motives. Imo, the common mistake here is to search for a singular motive. How can there be one motive for a string of crimes happing over time and involving what - 11 perpetrators?

Panamint Patty said...

Good point, wengr. Things are never as simple as they seem. And depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer. That doesn't mean that anyone is lying or wrong.

Panamint Patty said...

Although plenty of intentional lying certainly happened, too.

Cielodrive.Com said...

According to the Atkins/Whitehouse book...

"It wasn’t until the trial started that Vincent Bugliosi finally found out about the suspected murder of Bernard Crowe."

Where are they getting that from? It might've been an interesting theory, had there been any truth to it. Bugliosi knew about Crowe long, long before the trial.

CarolMR said...

What Tex said.

Farflung said...

Early July some money is needed for whatever, and a drug (Marijuana) scam is crafted.

Tex and TJ rip off Bernard Crowe for some $2,700 and run back to the ranch. Crowe calls the ranch since he had Tex’s girlfriend as collateral, where Manson answers the phone and uses the well worn explanation that Tex left the ranch two weeks earlier. Crowe said get the money back or you are all dead.

Manson and TJ drive to Crowe’s place, where Manson told TJ to blast Crowe and end this problem. TJ fails and Manson ends up shooting Crowe in the stomach, then running, under the assumption that Crowe was most certainly dead. Manson also assumes that Crowe is a member of the Black Panthers, probably since all black people were considered members by tweaky white people in 1969.

Late July some money is needed for whatever, and Gary Hinman is visited by the peace loving group from Spahn’s. Days of torture end with Hinman’s death and the crime scene adorned with the distinct symbol of a panther’s paw print on the wall. Hey, this was done by some Black Panthers and all of them should be arrested and questioned. Instead Beausoleil is arrested while napping in the victim’s car at the side of a highway. That’s right where I would have hidden.

Early August some money is needed for whatever (Brunner’s bail), and the Tate residence is ransacked for $70. This also needs to look like a copy cat of the Hinman scene with Black Panter-esque messages, so Beausoleil can be freed along with Brunner. The two for one effort is a hallmark of efficiency in motion.

Next night just as perverse, just like the others but a whole lot worse.

Still needing money (in spite of Kasabian’s donation days earlier), a copy cat of the copy cat killings is completed at the LaBianca home, while the B Team enters an apartment building in Venice. Similar mayhem is brought upon the LaBiancas with the chain of copy cat crimes being broken in a dark stairwell near the beach. Oh well, close enough.

Late August, just after the raid on the ranch, someone must be punished for calling the cops. A ruse, or perhaps more accurately, a perfidy is used to remove Shorty Shea from the ranch for a quarter mile journey to eternity. When the ranch is called by people looking for Shorty, Manson tells them he left a couple weeks ago, since that line worked to well with Crowe. There now, full circle.

I would say the motive was a series of fragmented rationalizations, borne and modified via escalating impulsivity, generated from a perceived lack of some resource, to be used by a larger group for ignoble purposes, under a noble banner. Or maybe I’m like that stairwell and full of crap. I dunno.

starship said...

Farflung, it just may be that simple after all.

Helter Skelter was the motivator Manson used on his minions....nothing more.

Schalke 07 said...

Good to see the saint is back !! Love reading your stuff saint, keep it up !

Cybot said...

The Helter Skelter theory is not completely bullshit. There was the idea of a revolution or armageddon in this time.

But it can be an additional reason, that they needed money and wanted to get Bobby Beausoleil out of jail.

But how did they want to get money (T. Watson)? Did they steal things in the house? Did they trade drugs there? Then both sides would have known each other!

Some are talking about satanic rituals, The Process and CIA-operations. But is there any proof?

St. Circumstance said...

Thanks Schalke !!

AustinAnn74 said...

I read Atkins's theory on the motive too. I think a lot of what she explained concerning the motives were true. Why she didn't speak up sooner is beyond me. Too bad she didn't realize that Manson was a manipulative" sponge" until it was too late. Of course, she was also bullshitting a lot in the book too. SA was a lot more involved that she led on. I have always felt that she did stab some of the victims. Tex made sure LVH got her hands dirty, so why wouldn't he have made SA too? Remember, they took more than one knife to Cielo. She didn't necessarily use her own though, since it didn't test positive for blood, which is weird.

leary7 said...

I've always wondered if I just missed something on this one.
I understand how the idiot Family girls might come up with a "copy cat" scheme, but how could anyone else give it any weight given that Bobby was arrested in Gary's car with the murder weapon in the trunk, was he not. There could have been a hundred more murders with "pig" written on the wall and Bobby would still have been convicted. Just goes to show how fried these people were.

bobby said...

Leary, BB"s first trial ended in a hung jury. Just saying.

leary7 said...

damn, fellow bobby, that is an excellent point, I had forgotten that. I am at a loss trying to think how that happened given the physical evidence. But as in most murder cases, without a confession or eyewitness a good defense lawyer can almost always create some doubt playing volleyball with the facts.

Farflung said...

Remember one of the accomplices (Mary Brunner) was granted full immunity from any prosecution regarding the murder of Gary Hinman. The first jury hung, and for the second trail, Mary Brunner refused to testify again, AND said that all of her previous testimony was nothing but lies.

Here’s some light reading on the subject:

Failed Murder Indictment for Brunner

I know, it is boring legal crap, but here’s a poignant and poetic passage about how the DA screwed the pooch:

“In negotiating and carrying out an agreement with target-area witnesses for immunity from prosecution in return for testimony two dangers are involved. The first is that of the treacherous witness -- who promises to testify in return for a grant of immunity from prosecution and then, having secured immunity, does not testify in the manner he said he would or refuses to testify beyond a certain point. It is a fact of life that the quality of veracity and honor among thieves and murderers leaves something to be desired, and an overly trusting district attorney may find that in granting immunity to one he could have prosecuted he has exchanged gold for brass.”

Here’s what roughly (roughly that is) went down. The DA made a deal with Brunner and failed to have the court (meaning the judge) review the conditions (if any) regarding the quantity or quality of her testimony, AND the associated repercussions (murder charges being filed) if those conditions weren’t honored. Since the judge didn’t approve the conditions of the immunity deal, and Brunner isn’t sophisticated in the ways of the legal system, the judge ruled that he had to assume that she met the basis of the bargain since there wasn’t any judicial review, and Brunner wouldn’t have the ability to knowingly burn the DA’s office. So the murder indictment filed against Mary Brunner was thrown out over a technicality. Mary lucked out until she decided to have a shoot out in Hawthorne.

Here again I’m a little confused by the judicial system. It appears that the DA only goes for the grand slams and lets all the singles and doubles slide. Beausoleil was arrested in Gary’s car and appeared to have committed car theft if nothing else, but he wasn’t charged with that crime. Along with killing Hinman, it seems that he also kidnapped him and during the course of days, engaged in what the state broadly defines as mayhem. These non-murder charges would have been enough to land him in prison for around eight years or more, but somehow evolved into non-issues.

leary7 said...

thanks Farflung for your usual comprehensive report. I am frustrated that I don't have any Manson books in the house but I should go over to Cielodrive and satisfy my curiousities.
The key piece of evidence against BB would have been the sword found in the trunk, would it have not. And I can't remember but wasn't their blood on his shoes, Hinman's blood? I probably have that wrong. And Ella Jo's testimony would have been strong. Obviously having Brunner's testimony would have built an airtight case but it still seems like a slamdunk without Mary given the physical evidence (weren't there fingerprints as well???).
I honestly had forgotten about the hung jury till Bobby mentioned it and now I am just perplexed how that happened.

orwhut said...

How many descenters does it take to hang a jury in a murder trial?

Matt said...

1

Cybot said...

You are looking for motives?

In this docu in the German TV "ManSon - Menschensohn" Sandra Good talks about the motives (her words should be understandable without German):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OovnrkxZww&list=PL9E026E94A8A94E05

Very interesting!

orwhut said...

Thanks, Matt.
Does anyone know the reason/reasons the first jury deadlocked?

DebS said...

orwhut, I was not able to find any newspaper articles online that detailed Beausoleil's first trial. It wasn't until December of 1969 when things were breaking on the Tate/LaBianca murders that the first trial was mentioned at all. Those articles just said that the it was a hung jury, 8-4, with no indication if the 8 were for or against conviction. The prosecution did not seek the death penalty in the first trial.

orwhut said...

Thanks, Deb. I've forgotten almost everything I ever read about Bobby's trials. 8-4 makes me think some lawyers earned their pay

Farflung said...

Here’s an article which hints at the reason for the deadlock in the first trial:

Beausoleil First Trial 27 May 1970

“An earlier trial last December had resulted in a hung jury because only hearsay evidence was presented implicating Beausoleil with the murder.”

The ‘hearsay’ concern would likely (guessing here) have been the testimony of Danny DeCarlo, since Brunner and Atkins were both on the scene.

orwhut said...

If the prosecution managed to slip that much hearsay in, they, must have been the ones that were working hard. Maybe a little too hard, people shouldn't be convicted on inadmissible evidence.

leary7 said...

man, that article is total crap. what lousy writing. when they say only hearsay evidence was introduced does that mean the murder weapon, blood evidence and fingerprints were not introduced. Didn't Bobby leave the bloody paw print on the wall? No evidence gleaned from that?
I mean for crapsake, you're found sleeping in the dead guy's car with the murder weapon in the trunk and his blood on your shoes (I think). How the hell does that get you an 8-4 vote. Did he have Johnny Cochran as his lawyer?

Farflung said...

I’m just as flummoxed about the Hinman trial, and the apparent (to me) excess of evidence which has Beausoleil at minimum, being an accomplice to murder. How the jury became deadlocked is still somewhat of a mystery, but I take pause at what ultimately developed in the following few months.

Bobby escaped the first trial in spite of the prosecution NOT seeking the death penalty, AND one of the State’s witnesses (Brunner) being the mother of Manson’s child, with Beausoleil testifying that Manson murdered Hinman. That takes a lot of temerity and/or balls.

By April of the next year, Beausoleil found himself convicted by another jury, for first degree murder, while widening the suspect pool to include Manson and Bruce Davis as a sort of Faustian bonus. Then the ultimate karmic bitch slap is delivered, when the same jury recommends the death penalty in deliberations lasting less than three hours.

Then irony trumps karma, when two years and three days pass, with the Supreme Court of California declaring the death penalty unconstitutional, which overrides the original sentence.

In retrospect, had Beausoleil ‘lost’ the first trial, he most likely would have long been paroled and walking amongst us today. Oo-eee-oo.

AustinAnn74 said...

I have always been under the impression that the true motives were robbery. Nothing less, nothing more....They needed money to survive, and robbing people was the only way they could get it. Oh, and also, how in the hell did Clem escape the murder charges for being in the car in front of the LaBianca's house? SA was charged and convicted, but Clem wasn't even charged. Also, Tex escaped being charged with Shorty Shea's brutal murder, yet he was one of ones who plunged a knife into Shorty....hmmmm??

adam said...

Drug burns/payback for drug burns, the need for money and vainly trying to fool the cops into thinking Bobby B couldn't have done the Hinman murder.

Murmillo said...

But in reality, Tex Watson mentions 4 motives, not 3!

The second motive is mentioned next to the first: Money.

But did they steal money? We have no information about that. Do we?
Did they steal drugs? Then there must have been drugs in the house and not only in the cars.

And how did the Manson Family know of the drug deal in the house at this evening? Did anybody inform the group?

Through the Jay Sebring-Charleen McCaffrey-Joel Rostau-Connection?

grimtraveller said...

"wengr said...

I tend to believe that Atkins is correct about a confluence of motives. Imo, the common mistake here is to search for a singular motive."

^^^^^
Wengr beautifully sums up my own conclusion on it.
Reading all the varying things that all the perps have said in various books, trials, parole hearings, interviews etc, it is pretty clear to me that there were different things going on in the different minds of those involved and in the sense that Charles Manson defined "Helter skelter" as confusion {a confusion that took in racial strife, certain mores of the counterculture, anti establishment rhetoric, robberies gone wrong, drug use on a massive scale etc} then it's not entirely wrong to say that helter skelter was the motive.
If ever there was a case filled to the brim with paradoxes it's this one.
It's also interesting that even forty + years later, every one of the perpetrators {and others like Clem & Gypsy who originally were pro Manson but who have denounced or implicated him in the crimes} puts Manson as the hub around which everything flowed. It's too easy to say they do it {or in Susan Atkins' case, did it} for selfish reasons because at this point in time, they've all been in jail for the greater part of their lives ~ just like Charlie. I'd wager that no one is looking at them and thinking "we'll give them parole now because they are saying the right things about Manson." They've been saying the things they say for years.
Sometimes, it feels like Charlie was replicating {whether consciously or unconsciously} in the lives of the co defendants what he feels happened to him.
Helter skelter indeed.

grimtraveller said...

Maybe the word "motive" isn't the best word to use in connection with helter skelter. Helter skelter was like a seed bed into and out of which flowed a number of things ~ including the murders.