Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Tex's thoughts on the subject....

I just read an interview Tex Watson did, (Manson's Right-Hand Man Speaks Out) in which the interviewer asked him if the crimes would of happened without Manson. This is what Tex had say in regards to that particular question. He also added something else, which I find interesting. Of course, Tex was full of caca most of the time, but who knows, perhaps he was right on the mark with what he said in his answer. Read on:

Q: Would the crimes have happened without Manson's order?

Definitely not! Bugliosi, the prosecuting attorney, agrees that Manson was the catalyst. We would never have gone out on our own and killed people. It was not our idea of an exciting night. We murdered after taking on Manson's beliefs and hatred toward society, but it was nothing we wanted to do. We could've said no, but our foolish hearts were darkened. True, I had anger in my heart and released it during the crimes. I had misplaced anger, but enough to kill? -- not without many other factors, none of which excuses my actions.

Manson had the motive. It was more than just his crazy philosophy and a copycat murder. Manson was angry at Doris Day's son, Terry Melcher, for not giving him a recording contract. Terry was an acquaintance who used to live at the house where the murders took place. It's believed that Manson was at the house looking for Terry the night before the murders and was offended by the new occupants. As a result, he sent us there to kill them and to start Helter Skelter. I also believe that Manson and another family member went to the house afterward and disturbed the crime scene.





48 comments:

Max Frost said...

This is coming from a mass murder who's always been trying to get out of prison - as opposed to Manson, who has never tried to get out (he's never tried to convince a parole board).

The only believable part of his response is the underlined part about Manson and Bruce (not named) going there later.

It's always been intriguing to me how Bugliosi never made an issue about the voices heard arguing at the house at 4 am that night. From what I remember he just casually mentioned it in his book as a fact without any inquiry into it.

What kind of investigation is that? If there were people there later that night - arguing - that's a very important which should instantly generate some very important questions.

Max Frost said...

That's a very important CLUE which should instantly generate some very important questions.

Sorry.

Max Frost said...

As a follow up:

I just remembered (it's been soooo many years since I have researched this case) Manson mentioning in Nuel Emmons book about going up there later that night.

The problem with that book though is, contrary to the title, it is not in Manson's words. Emmons got all the info from Mamson and then put it all in HIS words. Anyone who's seen even one Manson interview knows he doesn't talk the way that book was written.

Also Manson dropped a hint about going there later that night in the Doug Bruckner interview. Anyone remember what he said?

Hint: something about a for-sale sign...

Charlie Higgins said...

Reading the Max Frost post prompts me to ask a question that has been bugging me for a long time. Max rightly refers to Tex as a mass murderer , which is also a title a lot of people use when talking about Manson as well as "serial killer" . Now,I know that its said that Manson never killed anybody , and this is the part where I get slightly confused. I know Manson was present when Shorty was murdered and that he was charged with his murder. Was this a separate trial ? Was Manson found guilty of murder or charged with conspiracy to murder ? I have read so many books on TLB , but when it comes to covering the death of Shorty and the trial that followed , it all gets a bit obscure ... Any detailed info on this would be well appreciated ... Cheers !

Max Frost said...

There was a seperate trial.

I think what Manson said about the Shorty murder in Emmons' book "Not in His Own Words" is accurate. I don't remember him spilling details of the murder, but he implicates his own involvement as well as several others, whom he doesn't name. It's easy to believe that a lot of those guys had it in for shorty - not just the ones who were convicted.

Matt said...

None of them are getting out, that much is for certain. Charlie won't talk about it. Ever. A hint here and there but that's it.

Bruce is the only one who received parole board endorsement but has been vetoed by two Governors. I think he still clings to hope so there's no chance he'll come clean.

Clem has been free for 27 years and is now in his 60's living well as a musician. No chance he's going to risk that.

That leaves Tex and Bobby. I doubt that Watson will ever go back on his "definitive statement", since he made those comments swearing as a born again christian. He, like the others also has his safety in prison to be concerned with.

Apparently Bobby is writing a book now. I'll buy it and read it, but he's changed his official story no less than three times. I don't expect any real revelations.

The women in prison? In my opinion they really thought igniting HS was their mission those two nights.

I had a discussion on the phone yesterday with a reader about which of the still-living free women might know the true motive. My hunch is that of all of them it would be Nancy. Paul said that she was always with Charlie and was the most militant. The person on the other end of the phone disagrees and feels none of the women knew, but all of the men mentioned here do.

La-de-la said...

Where did you get this interview? Could you provide a link, please? Would love to read the whole interview. Thanks.

DebS said...

La-de-da, the entire interview can be read here:

http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/sen-008.php

The question addressed in this post is in chapter 5. The crime.

Murmillo said...

In this text Tex does not say anything about the 'money motive'.

Did they steal money, goods or drugs in that night or not?

Matt said...

They got like $72 from Gibby Folger's purse. They left behind all kinds of valuables. Robbery could not have been the motive on 8/9/69. Not in my mind.

Trilby said...

Here's something I've always wondered about: Why was there no mescaline found in the house or cars? It's been documented Rostau delivered some a few hours earlier. 2 witnesses said Frykowski was loaded on mescaline more than once that week. Where did the mescaline go? What else might have been there that they DID get? So they basically left behind a couple small personal-use stashes. What if they were focused on something else they came for and then in their frenzy; weren't exactly thinking clearly and methodically about grabbing all the other stuff (small stashes, other cash, etc.)? Why was no mescaline found?
And Manson originally admitted to being at Cielo after the murders to Ed Sanders in 1970 via Paul Fitzgerald. I've always believed he was on the premises, I'm most curious about who was involved in the "loud argument" reported by Carlos Gill at approximately 4a. I think Manson and Davis.

Trilby said...

I agree with you about Nancy. I think Gypsy knows, also.

Unknown said...

I'm thoroughly convinced that Manson went to Cielo that night, probably with someone else (Bruce? One of the girls? I've heard both postulated). What reason would he have to even hint at it otherwise. He probably will never spew about who if anyone went with him, because I imagine whoever it was could be charged with being accessory after the fact.

Jenn

Panamint Patty said...

Hi Jenn

Max Frost said...

Noone remembers what he said in the Doug Bruckner interview?

C'mon...for-sale sign.

Anyone?

Kyle said...

"Did he go back" has always been the burning question for me. Too many things about the crime scene photos have never been explained. In my opinion, had the murders happened exactly the way it was presented at trial, the crime scene photos would show it. The only deaths that go perfectly with the story are Abigail and Steven.

What about the eyeglasses? Never accounted for. What about the steamer trunks? Supposedly not opened, just knocked over. What about the single line of blood evidence on only the bottom of one of the beams? Again, never explained.

Much more happened in that living room than we'll ever know, whether during the murders or later. Call that a conspiracy theory if you like, but the crime scene photos back me up on these points.

AustinAnn74 said...

Matt, I agree with you on the Nancy thing. I am wondering why she wasn't chosen to go along on the actual murders? I also read somewhere a long time ago that she might have been there when Shorty was butchered. She was definitely a heavy in the whole situation, that is for sure!

Max Frost said...

Kyle, you don't have to disclaim with the ol' "call it a conspiracy theory if you want" stuff.

Unfortunately the corporate media has redefined the definition of that term to the point that people don't even know what those words mean anymore. They've turned into a negative thing and have used it to collectively label whistle blowers and truth seekers.

And, wouldnt you know it, so many Americans have swallowed that pill and are now quick to react to someone attempting to uncover the truth by immediately calling them a 'conspiracy theorist.'

The ironic thing is, this redefinition is so misunderstood that people don't even notice that the so-called official version of an event is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

For instance: Tex, Sadie, Katie, and Linda drove to Cielo that night, broke into the house, and killed everyone there. THAT, by definition, is a conspiracy theory. But noone calls it that. They only call you a 'conspiracy theorist' when you attempt to get the entire true story.

Does that make any sense at all?

No but it is exactly what happens these days with everything.

It's been developed as an effective tool to get people to dismiss those who have uncovered important elements of an event which spins the investigation into a new, broader, direction.

Beware those who are quick to label someone a 'conspiracy theorist.' Because, most of the time, they have absolutely no idea what they are saying and they are simply trying to slam the door in your face without even listening to what's being said.

In response to your question about the glasses...

In the same Doug Bruckner interview I mentioned before, Manson said he gave those glasses to Patty to drop off that night.

Murmillo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kyle said...

Max, I completely agree with your conspiracy theorist rationale. It's sad to me in this day and age to not be able to ask questions about things without being labeled as crazy. Come on. This isn't the 1940's or 1950's anymore where the public buys "official" stories hook, line, and sinker. Or is it?

I'm intrigued about this Doug Bruckner interview. Do you have a link to the video or transcript? I'd love to read it.

Murmillo said...

@Matt:

Who knows if drugs have been stolen!? ;-)

@everybody:

In the other cases (Hinman, LaBianca) near to that event Manson also visited the murder scene. He mostly came later to that site.

This is a clear modus operandi.

Kyle said...

@Murmillo,

Exactly. The Tate murders were beyond anything Charlie had been associated with previously (as per public record), so in my mind, there's absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't have gone gone back to see firsthand what had been done. The canyon supports the logistics in that he would have been able to clearly see from a safe distance if any law enforcement had shown up.

To play my own devil's advocate, the one thing I don't understand is the guest house. Charlie knew from previous trips to Cielo that it was there. Whether he knew if it was occupied or not, I don't know. In a way, it seems too risky to think that he would have gone back not knowing, and Tex would surely have told him they didn't check it out.

Max Frost said...

Kyle,
Yes it is sad and no it isn't the '40s or '50s anymore and yes more and more people are waking up to the grand deception that has held the minds of this country hostage for so many decades.

The biggest obstacle, as I see it, is people have taken for granted that they have a media. They turn on their favorite phony news station whether it's FOX, CNN, or MSNBC and they assume, without question, that they are being informed. I love it when I hear someone say "well I'll tune into all the different stations so I can hear both sides." Both sides of what? The same coin?

The mainstream media today is told what to report on a daily basis. There aren't any investigative reporters out on the field, investigating and asking the REAL hard questions. They are just corporate mouth pieces pretending to report the news. Anyone who is unaware of this is still in the dark. Follow the money. Learn about who owns what and where their funds are being plugged into. Do the math and connect the dots.

The Bruckner interview is from 1991 I think and I don't think it's online but you can get it from http://www.aes-nihil.com/

Max Frost said...

Ahh yeah the guesthouse. I like the way you're mind works. I have a bit of a theory about that (and have had for 20 years) but I'm saving it for an article I'll be writing about Garretson in the near future.

Kyle said...

@Max,

I love your posts because they are accurate and informed. I'm a big fan of scientific method, and I think it directly applies to our conversation. Ask the questions, form your own hypothesis, and then try to prove yourself wrong. If you can't, maybe there's a little more to the story.

I'm looking forward to reading your article on the guest house. Something about the proximity and Bill Garretson in general have never made much sense to me.

Max Frost said...

Thanks a lot Kyle.

Yea I think it's safe to say the Garretson/Guesthouse thing has forever bothered everyone who has analyzed this case.

With the exception of the "Judicial Genius" Bugliosi.

Kyle said...

Max,

To follow up on your original post, the argument at 4:00 a.m. witnessed by Carlos Gill has always been a bone of contention for me. I know he was fourteen at the time, but one could most likely conclude that he had his faculties about him (no evidence to the contrary) and that he knew it was around 4:00 a.m. as opposed to 12:30-1:00 a.m. I've never been to the crime scene, and the acoustics might very well have been playing tricks that night. I just think his story warranted further investigation. The LAPD definitely bungled this one.

Unknown said...

Didn't PK tell Tex that she had checked out the guest house and had found no one there?

Jenn

Max Frost said...

She told Dianne Sawyer in '94 that she was on her way to the guesthouse but a voice told her it was wrong so she turned around and went back to the main house.

Trilby said...

There were more questions left unanswered by that ridiculous polygraph of Garretson than answered. The Q&A and the polygraph were a joke. Garretson complicates matters by seemingly being a pathological liar. He seems incapable of giving an answer without attempting to backpeddle or outright change hos answers. And Deemer, while polygraphing the main suspect in a world-headlines mass murder, lobs softballs and fails to follow up many lines of questioning. Here's my question: Garretson admits to feeling nervous that night and that HE HAD ALL THE LIGHTS ON AND THE WINDOWS CLOSED that night in the guesthouse (during a heatwave, remember?!). Why?! And 'though we all know the murderers couldn't tell the truth for love or money, I'll also ask the rhetorical question of how any of them could claim to miss the guesthouse, all ablaze with light 50 ft. away?! There is some link between Garretson's social circle and the Spahners, I'd bet on it.
As far as Carlos Gill's timeline memory; it falls in line with timelines of various gunshots reported. The witness timeline I've always been suspicious of is Rudolf Weber's. Incidentally, wasn't he chief Steward at Hillcrest Country Club - Club of choice for many Mob-connected honchos, including Mr. Sidney Korshak... Something to keep in mind is the history of corruption in Los Angeles, & the history of cover-ups being orchestrated in that city to protect the big money of the entertainment industry machine. (Apologies for the earlier typo - "hos" for "his" - stupid smartphone won't let me insert cursor there to edit!!).

Max Frost said...

Trilby says:

"Something to keep in mind is the history of corruption in Los Angeles, & the history of cover-ups being orchestrated in that city to protect the big money of the entertainment industry machine."

Touché Trilby!

You've touched on a VERY important aspect of this case.

One of the reasons we are lacking so many answers is a direct result of exactly what you are talking about.


Trilby said...

And factor in the Mob and the BEL (international drug smugglers both, w/ varied and sundry intelligence, "Justice" Dept., & CIA connections to both of those organizations, & the Bronfmans/Canadian Mob people) w/their dealers being named in police reports... Let's look at the history of "Marapount Pictures" & Charlie Bluhdorn and "Mob Bevans" both... To also be considered is that these murders WERE committed for reasons given by Tex, et al ('though I don't believe it). A true and thorough investigation and trial posed the danger of exposing ALOT of things best left unexposed. And I am firmly convinced, the ONLY ONE powerful enough to orchestrate and co-ordinate the "fix" in this case was Sidney Korshak. I'd suggest "Supermob" by Gus Russo be required reading on this case, as well as all books on the BEL. And the FBI files on this case, available fpr order online. There's been alot of talk about the steamer trunks delivered that day. The FBI files indicate more trunks were to be delivered August 18, I think it was, routed through the port of New Orleans. What if Tex and Charlie and Bruce (aka "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight", - for those of you who've read the Jimmy Breslin book of the same name) simply mixed up the trunks? I also don't entirely buy Doyle, Harrigan, & Dawson's "innocence". What about the BEL Dealer named in a Police Report who was directly in competition with another start-up ring? And hey, let's look at Iaian Quarrier a little more closely, shall we? And Garretson/Spahners' acquaintances... And where are the missing police interview sheets?... Tune in tomorrow for another episode of "How the Cover-Up Turns".

Trilby said...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001FA23R2/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1

Trilby said...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001FA23R2/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1

Jenn said...

Max wrote: "She told Dianne Sawyer in '94 that she was on her way to the guesthouse but a voice told her it was wrong so she turned around and went back to the main house."

It seems like I remember something about that as well. But I also recall something about PK saying or the very, very odd Garretson saying something about the doorknob of the guesthouse turning slowly, but then stopping. Perhaps it was a later Garretson interview?

And concerning the guesthouse being passed over when it was all lit up: I totally agree. What's with that? AND, the was the property was situation, they basically had to walk by the guesthouse to get to the main house. Something is off there. I've always been suspicious of Garretson on several levels. He just can't tell the same story twice.

Jenn

Max Frost said...

Patty was just trying to downplay her involvent.

She's already involved in this massacre but she wants us to believe a divine voice stopped her from carrying on the massacre further and to the guesthouse.

i guess the voice didn't get in her way the next night...?

Garretson saw the doorknob turn.

Aaron said...

I don't think Garretson said that originally. It wasn't until many years later after other information came out that he said he saw the doorknob turn, that he heard screams, that he saw Abby running by the pool. I don't believe all he says.

Max Frost said...

He didn't say much of anything originally. I would say put yourself in his shoes and imagine what that must have been like.

Throw in a few other "possibilities" and it could explain his totally spooked, frozen state of mind.

starship said...

No, Jenn, the guest house was located at the far end of the property, past the pool. The killers did not have to walk past it to get to the main house.

fiona1933 said...

Ok, the HS quote says Garretson "looked up and saw the door handle (npt doorknob) was turned down, indicating someone had tried to get in"
I have always found the whole Garretson and guesthouse thing inexplicable. Here in the centre of a tornado, this person is spared, hears nothing at all, and was apparently playing music so loud it would have blotted out all sound. Must have been some soundproofed place for killers, two of whom are on methamphetamine, with all that implies for heightened senses, not to hear it.

Let's consider:

As Steven Parent tried to drive away, they had just arrived. They were hidden in bushes, plus Parent hadn't been exactly looking for lurking killers. They could have just let him go.
Yet, Tex deemed it necessary to step out, stop him and shoot 4 times, not knowing how far the sound would echo, whether it would alert the household.

Yet, in the guesthouse, lights blazed, music played and at least one killer approached the door…and let the inhabitant go? A person who could be observing every action and every unmasked face, to report it later? They would just let him go? If he was playing that music and Pat went up to the door and turned that handle down, then she heard the sound. And I cannot believe Tex did not.

But. Now. What is the layout of the guesthouse? Garretson says he saw the handle..so where was he to see that? Where are the windows? Does anyone know? Where was he sitting? If you crept up to a house, surely, first thing, is look through the window? Peep, quietly? Where was the dog? Why didnt this aggressive animal growl when the handle turned?

Did Garretson see Pat? Did he recognize her and she him? Wasn't there something about a Patty Montgomery (one of Tex's surname aliases) turning up at the guesthouse to party there?

Is it as simple as that, that they locked eyes and Garretson shushed the dog and pleaded silently to be spared and Pat left him because she knew him, telling Watson the place was empty?
Yet how did Watson not check this?
After the killings, he sent the others to the car and went round the bodies to give them all extra chops. Susan confirmed that. "She was more cut about then when I saw her last" she said of Sharon, when Watson sent her back to write PIG.

So there is a terrible silence of death, which they all mentioned. In situations like this, the senses are very heightened. They wouldn't have heard the music from the guesthouse? Seen the lights? Susan, writing on the door? Watson, going round the bodies, wouldn't have seen, or heard, this blazing loud target? Wouldn't have gone up to the windows? Just ignored it? The death of a boy driving away makes this make no sense.

Again, where is the guesthouse in relation to the main house and garden? If the screams of the victims could be heard in the canyon, Garretson's music could not be heard, by ANY ONE OF THE KILLERS? Is that plausible?

According to one of Garretson's interviews, he saw Pat chasing Abigail. Even if this is lies, it implies that if the garden is visible from the guesthouse windows, the windows are visible from the garden. And how big were those windows?

Why was he playing the music so loud? All alone in the house? Lights on Music blaring…ignored and spared in the middle of a drug-crazed massacre. And double ignored after it?

For what it's worth, I incline to the idea that Pat had been there to party and met him. And I am also inclined to think he knew something was going to happen, likely because of the very dubious people coming to the house.

fiona1933 said...

Did he hear the shots that killed Parent, find the telephone cut, freeze up in terror, see the face appear at the window, see the handle go down? Perhaps the handle goes down first…door is locked, then the face looks in…and he realizes he knows her…and she hesitaites, while he is whispering frantically "please, please". And Pat puts a finger to her lips and goes off, telling Tex there is nobody there.
The lights and music almost seem like the actions of someone saying "Look, look, I can't hear you! No need to kill me Pat! See, you can see me! I'm just here on the couch, just here on the couch, can't see a thing, can't hear a thing…Oh God, please let them go away…"
And afterwards, of course, say nothing, because he would fear them coming after him.

fiona1933 said...

Another possibility is that Pat had already seen Susan drag people out to be murdered, and realized that if she opened the guesthouse door, she would have an inescapable burden of personal responsibility.
If she didnt do that she could (like Macbeth) try and kid herself that she wasn't really the responsible one (My wife made me do it) and hope to escape remorse.
And who knows how many more may be in there?
But again, that argues, she would have looked in the windows. And if Garretson heard and saw nothing, was he just sitting on the couch?
There is something wrong with the picture, entirely. It doesn't add up at all.

fiona1933 said...

And another funny thing…there's a picture of Garretson's desk, with the letters he'd been supposedly writing all night…why are they all ripped up? They've been re-assembled, probably by the cops…wish it were possible to read them.
But it looks strange.
Plus, I had forgotten that he claimed that he when he hitch-hiked down to Beverly Hills for dinner, the man who gave him a lift warned him not to go back to the house.
Joel Rostau?
What time did Rostau go there and when did Garretson go for dinner? Could that have been him?
And if Garretson went back…it's scary to think he may have known about this all along, even helped to set it up.
He also said that he heard Parent shot and thought Parent 'was throwing fire-crackers out of his car". Has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

AustinAnn74 said...

I wish somebody would offer o pay for a polygraph for WG. We could clear up a lot of confusion. Or, why not use some sodium thiopental, if he would be willing? That would make a hell of a show, like 48 hours, 20/20, or 60 minutes! Would he be willing, I wonder?

tony mcgrath said...

I don't believe for one second that Manson went to the crime scene that night
why?
which family member would have the balls to have a heated argument with Charles Manson himself

Matt said...

Tony. Agreed.

tony mcgrath said...

I'm convinced Manson never visited the crime scene
why? No family member would dare have a heated argument with Charles Manson at 4.00 am in a place where they should really try to be quiet

Matt said...

Not only that but if there was one place on Earth that Manson did NOT want to be that night it was Cielo Dr. A visit to the crime scene would have been miles beyond the bounds of stupid.