Friday, April 24, 2015

Manson Tour 2015: A Discussion With George Stimson: Part I





Filming by Stoner Van Houten






28 comments:

Robert Hendrickson said...

Ahhh, the Copycat Motive - makes sense to me, BUT I can't get over the fact that a photo of a dirty, smelly freaky looking HIPPIE on the cover of LIFE magazine could SNUFF the Ly Lai Massacre right OFF the front pages of America's NEWS.

I mean - the worst Mass Murder ATROCITY personally performed by the greatest Nation on Earth in the 20th Century and a single petty thief / ex-con "upstages" a real fucking WAR and a government's worst publicity nightmare.

That's like a 98 pound "weaking" moving a 10 ton rock from in front of a cave.

xreles said...

The Biggest problem with believing that the girls, on their own, laid these plans then ACTED on them, for me is… these are the same girls, so mindless, so adhering to Chucks every - whim and peel me a grape commandments -that they sat and waited for the family DOGS to eat before they dared eat!

And you want me to believe that they all of the sudden broke away from his will , and in such a huge way then went back to that ranch to face him? Sorry Charlie, I can’t go for that.

Panamint Patty said...

Xreles what is your source for the girls' having to wait for the dogs to eat first?

Cielodrive.com said...

Ed Sanders

xreles said...

I don’t remember right off, a document or an interview, hell it could have been a movie and be totally unsubstantiated but even so I’ll just move right on down the line to reason #2 for me.
These are the same girls that would sell or even give their own bodies away at Charlie’s command, the same girls he would sometimes beat AND KICK if they merely interrupted his thought.
And this is just how my mind works now but if you were to possibly make me doubt the weight of 1 & 2 I’m still sold on 3 thru whatever along this same vein see.
There’s no way would I ever believe in anything other than they all , each and everyone were doing what Charlie commanded .Even if it was thinly veiled in the one instance behind the infamous…” DO WHAT TEX TELLS you”… what with all the other firsthand testimony of how CM called all the shots or else you better “GET OFF HIS ROAD”. Please, do I really need personal account # 4 or 400, no, for me no I don’t.
I know I’ve heard CM himself speak of the chow line pecking order at the ranch…it was during a stream of conscience interview rant on his mother and his low view of women in general because of her. And I’m pretty sure I remember at least one of girls speaking to the (dogs ate first) routine as well.
I watch any and all Manson interviews and remain fascinated, but I don’t document anything so I can’t answer your question unfortunately.

Senor Robot said...

I haven't got the time or sound for listening at the moment, but this will be my audio book for the night. I might be nude, though not specially for the occasion. Having not taken part of the video, i'm assuming based on Hendricksons comment that the copycat motive is being discussed. There are two conditions that i'm struggling with. Whether or not Good stated that Watson made some calls to make sure Sharon Tate was not at the residence and whether or not the supposed statement is true. If both are true and we assume there's a copy cat motive. We're dealing with the weirdest copy cat killing ever. Then not only is course of action completely different (shooting, extensive beating, number of victims and so on) but there would also have been some kind of active and pre-existing relationship to someone actually connected to the victims. The second condition making the house selection especially poor in the context of a copy cat-thing. If only the first condition is true, we're only dealing with a really really weird copy cat killing.

Panamint Patty said...

Yes it was a horrible idea if it is true. Stupid.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I only watched a little of this video so far but it will be great to see more. I'm glad you all got to spend time together. I am almost done with Goodbye Helter Skelter and I think it makes very good points towards showing get Bobby out of jail motive. However I feel the entire book goes out of its way to shine the best possible light on Charles Manson, gives him every benefit of the doubt, while giving the others in the 'family' little to no benefit of the doubt. It is transparent to the point of being silly.

xreles said...

Cielodrive.com thx. Pg 122?


I want to say it was Catherine Share that also mentions this maybe not in the book but somewhere.

Cielodrive.com said...

xreles, it's on pg. 183-4 of my copy of the Family. But there are so many versions of that book.

"The women were not allowed to discipline the children in any way. After all, the child was the perfect state.

As noted, the women offered food to the dogs before they themselves ate. The children often were fed sour milk, according to Sunshine Pierce. Infant sexuality was encouraged. Susan Atkins told a cellmate later that she used to perform fellatio on infants."

CrisPOA said...

"Don't you know it's me who's doing all these killings?"
Isn't that what Manson once asked Juan Flynn?

Copycat or not, it is my opinion that Tex and the girls didn't do that by themselves. This is only one of several clues we have that Manson was into it as well.

I'm looking forward to watch the whole discussion once i get home. WOW.

Cielodrive.com said...

The irony of the copycat motive is that the murders committed to get Bobby released, have kept him in prison for most of his life.

chatsworth charlie said...

Cielodrive.com said...
"The irony of the copycat motive is that the murders committed to get Bobby released, have kept him in prison for THE REST of his life."

Fixed.

xreles said...

26
meanwhile, back in sleazoville



“Evidently, the entrapped girl became hungry and some girl from the Family offered her some corn flakes but, according to Family custom, the lady offered the flakes first to a dog named Tom, then she could eat them-for the dogs always ate first, before the women, according to Family table manners"

CrisPOA said...

Chats and Cielo, the copycat crimes have also kept everyone else involved in prison for the rest of their lives. That's irony too!

Charlie Higgins said...

If in fact the girls tried to make it look like a copy cat crime, it was very badly thought out ... When BB was arrested, he was driving Hinmans car and wearing the same clothes that he wore when he killed Hinman, which were covered in Hinmans blood and the knife which he used was also found in his possession ... Now I know that the girls were whacked out of it on drugs, but a 5 year old would know that trying to lay the crime on someone else was a non starter

chatsworth charlie said...

^
[EOM]

AustinAnn74 said...

Doe the motive somehow soften the killings? The people responsible are still in prison because of what they did. They did not just go in and shoot someone, besides Steven Parent, who actually did have a defensive wound on his hand, by the way, but they terrorized, sliced, carved & stabbed their victims, including an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman. Poor Gary Hinman suffered so horribly before they killed him. Leno's death screams were heard by his wife while Tex plunged a knife in his throat. Why did they have to be so cruel to their victims? That has never made sense to me whatsoever. I respect everyone's opinion on this, by the way, even if I know you won't agree with me. Just saying....

Robert Hendrickson said...

Maybe Shakespear figured it out. Holding a mirror up to the NATURE of things.

Remember, It's easy enough to find a needle in a haystack (use a metal dectector) BUT what if you are only looking in the WRONG haysack ?

MRobertsIsNotMansonsSon said...

When George Stimson sat next to Sandra Good on The Bertice Berry Show- Sandra said about Sharon Tate : "She was not suppose to be there that night". In this interview at around 7:30 when asked about that rumor- he says there was no knowing before hand whether she would or not be home- so he is contradicting what his Good friend Sandra Good said on that show! This guy is just a Manson supporter who will make up any excuse to blame everyone but Manson.

Senor Robot said...

To me, the whole "i kind of and sort of have been around drugs so i sort of have a kind of special insight into these kind of things" is specious argumentation. Watson was obviously able to act rationally and carry on a coherent conversation when dealing with Weber. We should also note that Weber says Watson was a smooth operator when it came to dealing with car doors, that and actually doing the driving. I won't add anything else until i've listened to the second part. But what i mentioned previously, which also MRobertsIsNotMansonsSon alludes to, and what i'm saying now are things i have issues with. And boy do i have issues.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Just watched the Bertice Berry link.
I doubt if Sandra Goode knows any better than any of the others whether Sharon was supposed to be there that night. I thought she was also one of the ones early on who claimed it was a drug burn motive. I thinks she's just speculating.
I am disappointed to see George Stimson next to her going along with the Vietnam theme-that they were reflecting society back at itself.
I really see Doris's face in Patti in this video.

CrisPOA said...

Well after "Part I" all i can say is: return to square one.
I can't buy the copycat-Kasabian-Tex-Girls thing.

Consider Manson is innocent. Why did he wasted any chance to defend himself (personally or not)? It was a death penalty right? The only reason i can guess - the guy was/is really a lunatic. Or was he willing to be immolated for the Bobby cause?

George Stimson said...

Read the book and get back to me, folks.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Yes George I have read almost all of the book and you do make good points. You seem like a rational, kind, intelligent person. I'm glad you and Sandra had your say in front of Bugliosi on Helter Skelter and whether Charlie is really a cold blooded killer. I don't care for the things Sandy said on that stage in front of Patti Tate. She and you say Manson had nothing to do with the murders, but Sandy also seems to support the murders as "war" (in front of Tate) and says she takes responsibility for all of them too, all the while attempting to tell Tate that Sharon wasn't supposed to be there and Patti's been fed lies and she sympathizes with her. Gross man. To me Sandy is someone who talked herself into a corner decades ago and refused to change her position out of pride so continued to say more and more outrageous things.

beauders said...

AustinAnn, Watson wrote in his book that the reason the murders were so brutal was he thought it would raise his status with the women in the Family. He wanted to be equal with Manson or take over the Family himself. When he returned to Texas he told his friends that he and another guy were in charge of a group of people.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

"Read the book and get back to me, folks"


I have done and I think it's a brilliant book. Superbly and articulately written. Over a series of threads I have been and will continue to make comments as various things crop up to me.
The interview is interesting and the thing I want to comment on was the section on race. As a Black Englishman {my parents were Nigerian} my own take is that the subject of race and racial difference is often paradoxical. In the last chapter of the book "Charles Manson", Charlie gives some of his views on race and George kind of supports or reiterates them in this interview. I wanted to draw attention to the view given here that somehow, because the cultures of Sweden and the Sudan were markedly different, that the Swedes were somehow superior as a result of them being White. I feel that this view refuses to acknowledge that this world isn't monosyllabic {ie, only one right way to be} but rather, full of diversity and there really are actually markedly different ways of living, ordering societies and seeing things. Pretty much everywhere you will find people who think their way is best or better than any other.
The irony of choosing Sweden and the Sudan as examples is that through much of Europe, Sweden is held up as an example of progressive social ordering that is higher up the scale than even some of the heavyweights like Britain, France, Russia and Germany while to many Africans, Sudan is seen as pretty backward. Differences in Culture as relates to superiority are not confined to the Black/White issue. Witness the long running friction between China & Japan or Japan and Korea {many Japanese people don't differentiate between North & South, they just see 'Korea'}. When Charlie & George talk about the White race being more creative, does that encompass the entire White race because there are 'White' countries where such a notion is a non starter. And where does this leave South America and places like Israel ? Are events like the slave trade and more importantly, colonialism, taken into account as to how the situation that Charlie was presented with came to be ?
To be honest Charlie's thoughts sound far more like an White American view because when you start to go deeply into it, it is fraught with problems that are unlikely to be resolved in a 5 minute spin.
Just a few raw thoughts.

Logan said...

i agree grimtraveller