Monday, March 2, 2015

Goodbye Helter Skelter Chapters Ten though Fourteen

While Stimson says very little about the murders on Cielo, he has much more to say about Waverly because each of the participants' memories of what exactly happened differ greatly.

Chapter Ten: The Murders on Waverly Drive"

According to several of the participants of the events of August 9th and 10th, Charlie, Tex, Pat, Susan, Leslie, Linda and Steve Grogan drove around for a few hours looking for someone to kill: two homes in Pasadena were possible targets, a minister in a church, and a man in a sportscar at a traffic light. When the group arrived at Waverly Drive, Tex says that Charlie went up to the house alone, then came back for Tex. The two of them took Rosemary's wallet, tied up the victims, then returned to the car to get two of the girls. Tex says that Charlie then told him to make sure that the girls did some of the killing this time before he drove off with Susan, Linda and Steve. Susan remembers that Charlie tied the victims up on his own. Leslie doesn't really remember much at all but she does remember Charlie asking her earlier that night at Spahn if she thought she could kill, to which she responded that yes, she could. Susan, Tex and Linda remember that Charlie had a gun which was supposedly buried later that morning in the sands of Venice Beach.

Charlie says that he did not have a gun. He remembers that he first went looking for True, who wasn't home, and just sort of offhandedly stumbled into the La Bianca home. There, he had a brief discussion with Leno who he says was not fearful at all, and was not aware that Rosemary was in the house. He left the house having not robbed or tied up the victims: that it was all on Tex. He did not know anyone was going to be killed that night. He also says of leaving the wallet in Sylmar that, contrary to the prosecution's assertion, he did not know whose wallet it was but only assumed that it was "hot." Furthermore he says he knew that Sylmar was NOT a black neighborhood which becomes significant if he was indeed trying to start a race war.

Later, Linda says it was Manson's idea to kill Saladin Nader in Venice Beach. Susan however remembers that Linda suggested it while the group was still in Sylmar. Linda pointed out the wrong apartment, no one was killed, and then Manson went back to Spahn, leaving the others to hitchhike home. Stimson claims that much of the information from that night comes from Linda whose lack of credibility will be examined in later chapters.

Stimson believes Manson's version of events for several reasons. He believes that Tex is not credible because he gets a lot of the details wrong, like saying the LaBiancas' car and boat were in the driveway when they were not. Also, the supposed hunting expedition earlier in the evening could not have taken place the way some of the participants said it did because there simply was not enough time. And, why would Charlie abort certain attempts because the neighbors might hear them but be okay with killing a man in a sportscar at a busy intersection on a Saturday night? No one can describe the gun that Charlie supposedly had, it was not in any of the trial testimony, and why would they feel the need to get rid of it it they had not used it? Charlie could not have tied up the LaBiancas on his own because Linda Kasabian says that he was only gone long enough for her to smoke 3/4 of a Pall Mall cigarette. Finally, when Linda led them to the wrong apartment in Nader's building, why didn't they just kill whoever answered if they were on a supposed random murder spree? In conclusion, Stimson says that because of these discrepancies, Charlie's explanation of events that night is the only one that makes sense and in it, he committed no crime.

Chapter Eleven: "The Murder of Donald 'Shorty' Shea"

This chapter is almost entirely devoid of any analysis by Stimson. He lets the words of Steve Grogan, Bruce Davis and Charles Manson stand on their own. What these people say is that Shorty was generally disliked by the Family because he was viewed as sloppy or sleazy for drinking too much and chasing the girls. Charlie says it is true that he did not like Shorty's being with a black woman because "I was raised that you don't...cross that racial line." Squeaky and Kitty both overheard Shorty talking badly about the Family to George Spahn. What finally got "five or six guys" upset enough to kill Shorty was the view that he had snitched on them and caused the Spahn Ranch raids of August 15 and August 24. Steve claims that the worst part of the raids were having Family children taken away to be placed in foster homes.

He and Bruce say that killing Shorty was Charlie's idea, that he was there, he put the weapons in their hands and told them to follow Tex's lead. Charlie on the other hand says that it was the group's collective idea and that it got out of hand. According to Steve and Bruce, Shorty was asked to drive the group down the hill to retrieve some car parts. At some point, Tex stabbed him in the eye, and Steve hit him on the head with a pipe wrench. Shorty was then dragged from the car and stabbed by various participants until he was dead. Charlie says he did not mortally wound Shorty himself but sounds as if he feels that the murder was justified based on the fact that Shorty was a snitch, and because snitches get what they get in the prison world that Charlie was accustomed to.  All of the participants agree that even though each of them at some point cut or hit Shorty, the bulk of the killing was done by Tex. Later that night it was Steve who came back to bury the body that had been temporarily stashed in some bushes.

What is most interesting to Patty about this chapter is the list of who was there: Steve, Bruce, Tex, Charlie, possibly one of the girls according to Bruce and "another person" according to Steve and Charlie, who is not named and who was never prosecuted for the murder. Who was this person, why was he or she never implicated, and what might be the significance of this? Patty would love to hear Stimson's thoughts on the topic.

Chapter Twelve: "Back to the Desert"

Stimson briefly recounts here how the Family returned to the desert around the first of September: Juanita Wildebush had left with a miner and Paul Crockett had moved into the bunkhouse with Little Paul and Brooks. He reminds us that Bugliosi recounts three aborted murder attempts on the residents of the bunkhouse during midnight creepy crawly raids but discounts them because what difference would it make if the supposed victims heard Charlie coming to kill them or not? It was very remote in the desert, and if Charlie truly had 20 or so brainwashed followers, why wouldn't they just kill them? Stimson also quotes Crockett as saying that he never saw any drug use or "ritualistic activity" in the desert.

Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen: "Introduction to the Motive" and "The Helter Skelter Motive"

Three elements that tie a person to a crime are means, motive, and opportunity: there is no such thing as a motiveless crime. And, while a prosecutor is not bound to introduce evidence of a motive at trial, it is to his distinct advantage to do so because lack of motive is strong circumstantial evidence of innocence. Stimson claims that in the Tate La Bianca trials, Bugliosi had to establish a motive because there was "literally no other evidence tying Manson to the murders."

Stimson contends that Helter Skelter is too fantastic to be believable, but that the public bought it because of the barrage of media fabrications and inaccuracies that began to emerge beginning in December, 1969: hooded victims, sexual mutilations, dune buggies with machine guns mounted on them and Manson being known among the family as "Jesus," for instance. Many police theories were bandied about including bad drug deal, orgy killing, LSD freak out, Mafia hit, robbery, revenge killing and class warfare, but none of them fully fit the circumstances of the crimes.

Bugliosi, Stimson contends, discovered Helter Skelter "in the peripheries of the consciousness of some of the people at Spahn's." Major components of the theory were the music of the Beatles and Revelations 9 in the Bible. Stimson says that the influence of the Beatles on Manson is overestimated because he was older and preferred the music of the previous generation to which he belonged, like Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra (to be honest this part made Patty chuckle a little bit). Further, he points out, that of COURSE there were messages in the music of the Beatles, that is what music is, and it is why people listen to it in the first place...so, what?

Then Stimson makes what Patty feels is his strongest point in the entire chapter. If indeed, the Family did honestly believe that they would live in a bottomless pit in miniaturized form for 50 to 100 years before emerging to rule the world, wouldn't that qualify them as being psychotic? And if hey were crazy enough to believe in Helter Skelter, why were they considered sane enough to stand trial?

Stimson goes on to demonstrate how none of the participants save Leslie thought that their crimes were meant to start a race war. Tex says he wasn't clear about what was to be written on the walls, that he "wasn't clear about the whole thing, really." Pat says that she thought they were going to Cielo to commit a robbery. Kasabian says she thought it was to be a simple creepy crawl.  Bobby says that he had never heard of Helter Skelter until it was reported in the media. Charlie says he did talk about Helter Skelter, but that to him it just means "confusion:" the direction that society was heading in in 1969. Stimson quotes a December 7th LA Times article entitled "Manson Wanted a Race War, Friends Say" in which each source says that they only heard certain parts of the supposed theory, and that they had to piece it all together on their own later on. Even Bugliosi has said on many occasions that he doesn't believe in Helter Skelter: "It was almost unbelievably bizarre...(I) told (a co-prosecutor) it wouldn't take me two seconds to dump the whole Helter Skelter theory if he could find another motive in the evidence." Stimson's ending analysis is that why wouldn't the convicted killers claim Helter Skelter as their motive, especially when they know it might be to their advantage to do so?  Because, he says, it's not true.

In the next installment, Patty will detail for you what Stimson claims the REAL motive was. She hopes you are looking forward to this part of the book as much as she is.





66 comments:

Vera Dreiser said...

Charlie just off handedly stumbled into the LaBianca home...
And tell me again George why you and this "book" shouldn't be mocked?

George Stimson said...

Vera, How Charlie "stumbled" into the LaBiance home is clearly explained in the book. (If you insist on commenting on the book, do you think that you could at least read it? Sheeesh....)

Mr. Humphrat said...

Just based on these book reports it seems to me a lot of ideas are dismissed by the author, while believing Charlie's versions. I can see how you may have valid reasons for coming to your conclusions.

George Stimson said...

I'd like people to hold off on making conclusions until after we get through the whole book.

Vera Dreiser said...

If it's available in a library, but I refuse to shell out my hard-earned bucks for an apologia treatise for Manson. That's why I'm reading these summaries. Maybe it defeats the purpose of why she's writing them. Rather than generate interest in the book, resulting in the blog-readers going out and buying it, its confirming my suspicions that there's no reason to spend money on it. From what I've seen you haven't offered one scintilla of evidence that Manson was railroaded, etc. If you did, I'd buy the book, believe me.
I don't think any of us on here believe the Helter Skelter "Myth," but to present the version where Charlie was less culpable than the others because he wasn't at Tate, or had a "discussion" with Leno after "stumbling in", then left, not knowing what was going to happen next (but he had enough time to go to True's then wander into Leno's and have a conversation, in the version you say happened, but not enough time to tie the couple up because Linda smoked a cig while he was gone in the version you're refuting? Well, that's pretty spectacular cherry-picking and dissembling of the facts, as far as I'm concerned)-- it's just more agit-prop from Charlie via a true-believer. I admire your no doubt sincere faith in the guy, but I sure don't share it and find it, well, let's say misdirected. Why don't you find some African-American inmate who's been proven innocent of murder by DNA yet is unable to earn release because of the corrupt judicial system (if you want names, I'll send you a list) instead of a guy who admits to cutting off half an ear of a friend prior to his murder, or killing another guy (six men on one) because he had the godawful indecency to not play by the rules of prison, or went around admittedly looking for people to kill with people who'd done what they did the night before at Cielo and then leaving them at LaBianca's after having a pleasant conversation with the soon to be buthered Leno?
All that aside, I apologize for my snarkiness. You've been civil to me in your posts, so I should try to post in kind. Honestly, it's just hard considering your motivation with this book, but if I post again I'll try to be gentle.
Love,
Vera

Matt said...

Vera, for the record I don't agree with some of Stimson's conclusions either. I said as much when I reviewed the book last summer.

I said of the book:

Let me begin by saying I enjoyed the book immensely. I looked forward to its release because George Stimson has had decades-long access to Manson and especially to Sandy Good (and her collection of audio files) not to mention Lynnette Fromme. I knew going in that the slant would be towards Manson's innocence, but I believe that Stimson does consider him innocent. Stimson took great care to cite his sources. He interjects his opinions, but he develops those opinions incrementally and (almost) convincingly. I did not agree with him on a number of things but I won't focus on those. You'll have to read it for yourself. Despite disagreeing on a number of major points, I do though give it a thumbs-up. It is a must TLB read.

I didn't have to agree with his conclusions to conclude that this book is a valuable resource. His cited sources are things that heretofore were not available to us. That alone made this a worthwhile read and one book I won't be lending out. It will stay on the shelf for referencing.

We won't be holding our breath for you to be civil, so don't kill yourself.

George Stimson said...

Okay, Vera, fair enough. But you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage because you're responding to a review (a summary, really, so far) of the book and not to the book itself. That strikes me like someone writing a review of the Cliff's Notes of one of the classics. As for you not reading the book because you don't want to pay for it, maybe you shouldn't even read it when it's available in a library. As I say in the Preface, the book is not intended for people who already have strong convictions about this case; it's for people who are skeptical of the "official" version and would like something more reasonable, or people who don't know much about the case but are open-minded. I'm not really out to convince everybody that Manson is innocent. I'm just presenting a point of view to see what the reaction is. And like Matt says, there's a lot more material in the book than is indicated by Patty's review. You can like him or dislike him, believe him or disbelieve him, but either way Manson's version of things is a worthwhile contribution to the literature of Tate-LaBianca. (Personally, I think that just about anything I've ever read or seen about the case is total bullshit -- but I happily paid for a lot of it anyway.)
As for Charlie's legal culpability in various incidents, I have a lengthy chapter dealing with that issue later in the book. (Patty hasn't gotten there yet.) I'd be very interested to get opinions on that after it's been properly examined (i.e., examined the way it is presented in the book and not the way it is presented by a book reviewer). I make detailed and serious legal arguments in this book, arguments that I think will cover most of the points you raised in your second paragraph (except for the part about the negro).
Thanks for the apology. I look forward to being reasonable with you.

George

orwhut said...

George,
I might pay more than you're asking for a copy of your book if it was personally signed by you and Sandra Good.
Whut

Mr. Humphrat said...

OK I bought it and I saved $6.16. Sounds like it must be worthwhile.

starship said...

So, what we're to believe here is that Manson has himself told Stimson all these details? Because that version about Waverly via what Charlie says is something I've never heard before. Looking for True? Doubt it.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes when Charlie says he was 'raised' not to cross that racial line....So I guess he was raised to beat, rob, murder, steal, lie, pimp and rape too?

Priceless. Is Charlie on record anywhere about this particular book?

Robert Hendrickson said...

CM would NEVER discuss the details of the CRIMES with ANYONE.

He has said: If YOU are with ME, I would NOT have to tell you ANYTHING - YOU would already KNOW.

Within seconds of meeting HIM - HE knew ME and I Knew HIM. There was NO need for further discussion, EXCEPT. to "shoot the shit."

leary7 said...

It seems that Mr. Stimson feels compelled to offer his alternative to the infamous Helter Skelter motive that we all know is skewed and/or lacking in some manner or degree.
So the search goes on, into its 45th year, for the real motive.

Over on the other site they still argue about the motive of Jody Arias. I did not follow the case but do know that Jody confessed to the killing on the witness stand. So they argue motive. The thing is that you could ask Jody why she killed her boyfriend every Christmas for the next forty years and in the end you would have FORTY DIFFERENT answers.
Why? Because Jody is clearly a pure psychopath.
Our man Charlie is many things to many people but in the cold light of dawn he remains just another pure psychopath. Charlie has always considered himself above all the rest and harbors little if any respect for human life. He can be charming, but he would stab you in the back and rape your adolescent daughter without thinking twice.
Here's the thing. Trying to discern a pure motive for the actions of a psychopath is not just 'tilting at windmills' - it is 'tilting at nuclear reactors'.
Generally speaking, psychopaths rarely have one true or pure motive for their actions. It is usually a 'perfect storm' scenario of events and emotions.
Most of us here seems to think that is what caused TLB.
But folk like Mr. Stimson and the irrepressible Col Scott still seek the smoking gun - a clear and true alternative motive to Helter Skelter.
45 years and counting...
What is the over/under for when this game ends? Five years after Charlie et all are gone? Twenty years? Or does the very nature of the game - chasing truth from a psychopath - make the game eternal?

AustinAnn74 said...

Is that you, SG?

Matt said...

It makes far more sense to support Charlie than to constantly beat on a horse that's all ready beaten.

yawn...

candy and nuts said...

Or what how gauche is that offer to blue and George wow

candy and nuts said...

Hi Ann was nice to read you thought Sandy one of the prettiest since I recall you making jokes about her frizzy hair or you said she needs conditioner and when I defended. Blue you attacked. Me also

candy and nuts said...

You softening Ann nice

candy and nuts said...

Leary email me your cell if you in the area

AustinAnn74 said...

Huh?

AustinAnn74 said...

Oh yes, now I remember. Well, thank you, Candy. :)

bobby said...

When I look at the time frame of who investigated & spent time around the key figures:
I have to put more stock in VB,LAPD,RH,ES & others closest to the scene & people at the time than the GS's & folks that came along a few or many years later made friends with CM & family members.
Why: Because these people went into it with a fascination & thus a pro CM family bias. How else could they befriend these people & get to hear their slant on the events.
Just my take on it & I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what these newcomers did or think, just that they are miss guided & duped into thinking CM is some super intelligent environmental guru.
Why: Because he is & was not anything close to productive or working for the health of the earth. He didn't walk the talk when free. In fact just the opposite. He got out of prison & went to see agents of celeb's not to rep's of the DEC looking to help. LOL.
Anyway, I'm enjoying Patty's book review & I think Mr. Stimpson is a good person & very intelligent. I imagine if I were in his shoes I'd have a different opinion on CM than I do.

candy and nuts said...

Ya Ann xxoo

candy and nuts said...

I have not bought George's book yet I will admit buying fresh lettuce and carrots for my two pet fat rats holds presidency to a new book but I will try to buy it soon

candy and nuts said...

Ann we have had some tiff when you made fun of blue and told me I need a makeover when you have never even seen me it's all good water under the bridge

AustinAnn74 said...

Candy, I don't really remember all of it. I told you that you needed a makeover? I really don't remember. I'm so sorry.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I was thinking again on the scenario wherein Charlie goes into the LaBianca house alone, talks to Leno, and then goes and gets Tex. And Leno and Rosemary have the paper with news of the Cielo murder? And Leno didn't pick up the phone to call the police while Charlie's out at the car again? That doesn't seem likely. I'm thinking maybe he just cased it and looked in and saw them home and went back to Tex.

0704feb6-c2b9-11e4-8bf8-c3031f6aad10 said...

Some of you people seem so absolutely certain that Charlie is a completely deranged psychopath.So,why the continued interest?Why snoop around these sites looking for a bone to chew on?Attacking anyone who dares to think otherwise.
Its perverse.You come across as serial killer junkies.Sex,Murder and Death draw you in irresistibly in,repulsed yet utterly captivated.Mesmerized yet never relinquishing your moral certitude to keep you at arms length from the 'evil' you so deeply desire.
Why?
Charlies are a crackpot,theyre all certainly mad killers.Case closed folks!No?
Do you frequent the sites and forums of Ted Bundy?John Wayne Gacy?..why would you?,theyre clearly nutcases,theyre clearly guilty,and our interest soon wanes once guilt is acquired and some semblance of motive is given.
If your all so sure of Charlies culpability and inherent evil,why the continued interest?
You look at him and loudly proclaim 'What an evil sick little man!',I and others like me look at you and think what sick deranged little people you must be to avidly follow such a bloody case even though you've decided the 'leading role`s' guilt.The kinda folks who drive back around for a second look at a car accident maybe?
God Bless Charles Manson I say.Long may he live and love.
XXX

Matt said...

0704, you might want to switch to decaf.

AustinAnn74 said...

Geez.

Mr. Humphrat said...

0704 I don't think Charlie is a psychopath and I don't think he's been professionally evaluated as a psychopath. He's a very interesting character as are many of those who were around him. The 60s were a very interesting time. Yeah anytime you spend a lot of time reading about violent acts you have to question why sometimes.

Panamint Patty said...

0704 is right in that Manson IS different from the serial killers because he isnt a serial killer. and therein lies the interest IPHO

anonymous said...

Absolutely

anonymous said...

Realistically yes he was. The prison system was his parent, period. That wonderful compassionate system that "rehabilitates." We can say that there are people who overcome a horrible upbringing but here's the main element: those of us who have overcome awful upbringings have had a stable person in our lives as our anchor. CM's anchor was the reform school his "mother" sent him to and then later prison.

aMy said...

I think it's too late for the decaf!

orwhut said...

Candy,
I was hoping George would come up with an autographed price and post it. He provides a product and I asked for a delux version. If that's gauche, then I'm gauche.
Whut

Matt said...

I hadn't heard the word gauche in something like 20 years. Now I've hears and read it about 5 times this week. It's kinda like having a song you hate stuck in your head. Gauche... gauche ...

leary7 said...

I would never put Charlie in the same room as Bundy or Dahmer or any other serial killer.
I put Charlie in the room with guys like Geronimo and Stonewall Jackson - guys who were unrepentant killers who were also seriously delusional. Old Stonewall was a five star looney bird who would "kill at the drop of hat, and frequently would drop the hat himself".
Geronimo was a vicious killer but has been "rehabilitated" to the point where his name was used as the code when Bin Laden was killed.
Charlie simply does not qualify as a serial killer. But his qualification as a psychopath is pretty damn strong.

leary7 said...

whenever I hear the word, Matt, I recall someone saying to Fonzie, "how gauche". And Fonzie replies, "Good, how gauche it with you".
I've always loved bad humor.

leary7 said...

One of the few interesting tidbits in the book "The Mickingbird Next Door" was Harper Lee calling Truman Capote "a true psychopath". She said that her childhood friend Capote, who she worked with on 'In Cold Blood', believed he was a unique human and above the laws of everyone else. By that definition Charlie fits the mold.

candy and nuts said...

Ann thanks we. All say things in the heat of the moment 07 screw you point one finger four pointing back at you🐮

candy and nuts said...

Haha Matt

candy and nuts said...

Or what you're a good sport

orwhut said...

Good sport or not, Candy, I still hope George and Sandy sign a few books and make them available to the group.
Whut

candy and nuts said...

Blue is the goddess of the sky and blue water she is always there,,,,,,

candy and nuts said...

Her aura is Already there,,,,,,

bobby said...

leary7 said...

"I put Charlie in the room with guys like Geronimo and Stonewall Jackson - guys who were unrepentant killers who were also seriously delusional"

Leary, WTF did that come from ? I don't want to take this blog space on a unrelated topic & I certainly agree that CM aint no JD or TDbut to say G & SWJ are the same as CM that Fing nuts.

candy and nuts said...

Bobby haha people see into so many things we all do let it ride

Matt said...

Bobby, I don't think Leary was saying Geronimo & SW Jackson were the same as Manson. I think he's saying that they are/were all psychopaths. The difference is that history reveres two and despises one.

bobby said...

Thanks Matt, I'll have to think on that a while. LOL.

Being a history NUT not buff. My first thought is mostly for sure G was not a PP nor did I ever think of SWJ as one.

But I have to admit that now I will have to give that all some thought.

Thanks to both you and Leary for giving me more to think about.

bobby said...

Hi Candy, I know. I assure you i'm not meaning to cause trouble I love Leary.

candy and nuts said...

Hi Bobby all good 🐭 be nice to animals"

candy and nuts said...

Bobby be whatever to. Leary be honest and who you. Are🌝

orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bobby said...

Hi Candy, I have a big soft spot when it comes to animals. I love them & I am always nice to the. I can assure you of that.

Good message to everyone Candy.

Thanks.

Matt said...

"go forth in love and peace — be kind to dogs — and vote Democratic".
- Thomas Eagleton

bobby said...

"go forth in love and peace — be kind to dogs

Matt, I can do that part got it covered. as far as the vote democratic I can to that to just not for democrats. LOL.

Matt said...

Quite ok bobby as long as you vote. We can can cancel one another out. I do have one rule though. I don't discuss politics with ppl who don't vote.

bobby said...

I vote

Matt said...

good!

Robert Hendrickson said...

Does that mean you won't discuss "money" with poor people ?

Does that mean you won't cast your pearls before swine ?

Does that mean you won't educate uninformed people ?

Does that mean I shouldn't discuss the "motive" with people who don't know it ?

Cause that is EXACTLY why America's "education system" is a FRAUD.

Apparently - YOU are breaking YOUR own rules AND don't even know it.

Opps, maybe I shouldn't be discussing this here ?

candy and nuts said...

Tx Bobby animals give love

candy and nuts said...

Or what be honest you want Sandra autograph u don't care about the book

orwhut said...

Ahhh Candy,
You can see right through me.
Whut

leary7 said...

hey Bobby...yeah, I know how non-sensical it seems to compare Cm to Stonewall or Geronimo. It takes some really out of the box thinking.
But I just finished reading a book about Confederate spies that had an interesting portrayal of Stonewall. He really was a first class lunatic. And he hated Yankee society and had no hesitation to kill and kill some more. He once order the execution of one of his own soldiers, a father of four, for striking a superior officer.
It is hard to get a good read on Geronimo's psychosis but there are numerous accounts of what a really sadistic killer he was. And he too hated white society.

One aspect of TLB that I believe never gets the weight that it should is how much CM hated established society.

When I try and relate to Charlie's mindset that is what I key in on - his anger with the world at large...and unlikely as it may seem to you that is something I sense when I contemplate Geronimo and Stonewall too - their consuming hatred of their enemy's world.

I'm clearly warped, but I just feel Charlie much more clearly when I think of him in those terms than I do when I think of him in Bundy or Dahmer terms. Charlie didn't seem to have freak show obsessions or perversions like Bundy - he just had a whole lot of seething hatred.
Anyways, it's just another lens to look through, I'm not campaigning for anything.

candy and nuts said...

or wat I thunk I have a crush on you call me

orwhut said...

It wouldn't work out Candy, you wouldn't believe me if I lied to you. I did look up that word, rumpkin or something, for you though. Check the latest post.
Whut