Thursday, May 28, 2015

A Reader's Rebuttal to George Stimson's Chapter on "Manson and the Law"

In George Stimson's recent book Goodbye Helter Skelter, Stimson includes a chapter entitled "Manson and the Law". This rebuttal has been supplied by a reader. While the reader  disagrees with most of what George says, and believes that his logic and reasoning is flawed, he does credit him for taking a stance and attempting to support his position in a non-confrontational manner.
------------------------------

George Stimson makes several erroneous conclusions. First , and foremost, he takes Charles Manson's word as gospel, that only Manson was capable of telling the truth. What he ignores, is the nature of Manson's various comments, testimony, and storytelling which often conflict with other self-made comments, testimony, and storytelling. Stimson ignores that Manson will often avoid answering direct questions, give ridiculous answers, or simply obfuscates the truth does little to establish Manson's credibility.

Stimson avoids Helter Skelter as even a possible motive that may have been believed by some of the Family. Instead, he relies on stories of possible drug-dealing by others, though no credible evidence has ever been presented. Yet, he wants to ready to accept his version as fact, without allowing for the possibility of anything else. Simply saying that HS was not the motive does not make it viable.

Stimson ignores the jury's decision by making comments such as Manson could very conceivably be found not guilty” ignoring that he could have, and was conceivably found guilty. He states that since there was no testimony that stated Manson gave orders to kill the LaBianca's, Manson could not be guilty. That HS was not a motive, that Manson merely entered a home in which two murders were subsequently committed, and as such, guilt does not apply to Manson. Specious claims such as not knowing the home was occupied, or that a door might not of been locked does not absolve someone of responsibility of guilt, even through a felony murder application. Stimson is good at looking at a penal code, and attempting to apply it, but he fails when he focuses only on a specific code, and that the subsequent or supporting penal codes that apply.  Nor does he acknowledge volumes of case law which support the states' lawful, and accurate prosecution for these crimes.  It is like arguing with a child in which the child hopes that if it keeps giving the same answer, eventually you will give up, and the child will think that they are correct.

In re the argument against conspiracy, we only have Manson's word that he said he would not get involved. There are no corroborative statements given by others.

To state that he was denied a fair and speedy trial is foolish. The hearing dates fell within the prescribed timeline. Because a trial did not start tomorrow, or Monday does not amount to a delay of justice. Filing other charges to hold a defendant is not illegal, no unethical. Manson made various nonsensical claims to the court that brought his ability to defend himself into question. Manson used jailhouse knowledge and tactics to delay his trial, and he was called on those tactics. The fact that he did not like the outcome does not equate to a denial of constitutional rights.

The claims regarding the jury instructions ignore the fact that instructions are submitted to the presiding judge, and both attorneys then agree on the language within each instruction. What Stimson fails to recognize is that the jurors believed that the elements of the crime fit the instructions, and rightfully applied the facts to the law, and came to its conclusion. Stimson simply cannot understand how this could be because it does not fly with his narrative.

Probably the biggest error Stimson makes is his analysis of Bittaker v Enomoto. While he cites Faretta v California, it is obvious he does not understand the entirety of case law or its application. Every case cited is always dependent upon other case law no single case lives in a vacuum. As such, there are nuances, or specifics of other cases that can limit, or minimize the effective of a case. Had Stimson researched more, and had been honest with himself he would not have relied on Bittaker.

What is interesting is if Stimson had researched another California case, Davis v Morris, he would have seen why reliance on the Bittaker decision was not wise. In Davis, which by the way was the very Bruce Davis, the appellant attempted the same claim of constitutional violation by denying the right to pro se representation. In that case, the court held:
.2d 1056 in Petitioner contends that he was unconstitutionally denied the right of self-representation guaranteed him by the United States Constitution and expressly held absolute in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975).

Petitioner was tried in 1972 and so the Court must find Faretta (supra) retroactive before petitioner can receive the benefits of that Supreme Court opinion. The California Supreme Court in People v. McDaniel, 16 Cal.3d 156, 545 P.2d 843, 127 Cal.Rptr. 467 (1976) eschewed the retroactivity of Faretta. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the searching analysis made by Chief Justice Wright writing for a unanimous court in McDaniel.

Petitioner argues that although Faretta may not be held to be retroactive that he is entitled to relief nonetheless because the Ninth Circuit had determined that the right of self-representation was a constitutional right. He relies on Bittaker v. Enomoto, 587 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1978) and Walker v. Loggins, 608 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1979) to support his contentions. In this regard he reads too much into those decisions. Relying on Arnold v. United States, 414 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1969) and Bayless v. United States, 381 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1967) the Court in Bittaker and Loggins (supra) held that a state defendant had a constitutional right to self-representation before the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta. In its reliance on Arnold and Bayless (supra) the Ninth Circuit in Bittaker and Loggins does not clearly define this right as "absolute" and as such California courts were free to make determinations of competing rights of fair trial not addressed to "convenience or efficiency of the trial." Bittaker (supra) at p. 403, but rather to a fundamental concern that defendants undertaking to represent themselves appreciate the seriousness of the charges and present a meaningful defense in cases involving liberty and possibly even death. This case presents the question classically for the trial judge found only superficial understanding of substantial procedures that would seriously compromise petitioner's defense in a capital case. Fair trial rights can have no less importance in the administration of justice than can the right of self-representation now raised to constitutional dimensions of absolutism in Faretta. *fn1"
The trial judge was right. Petitioner's constitutional rights have not been violated by the intervention of Faretta.

The petition is denied.

While Stimson can be recognized as an ardent friend of Manson, his ability to make accurate legal conclusions or analysis is far less. His arguments, while entertaining, would not even get him a passing score on an LSAT.





218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Robert Hendrickson said...

NEW POST: "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." Amendment VI of US Constitution.

Learn to understand how we got from "Assistance of Counsel" to "represent himself" and your world should turn from darkness to enlightenment.

CLUE: It's a tough one and takes most 8 years of college to get it.

Mr. Charles Manson was DENIED his right to "Assistance of Counsel."

PREVIOUS POST:

EQUIXE: Understand WHY you can be congratulated for suggesting that ZERO's death was NOT a suicide, BUT that I should be condemed for suggesting that "BRET"S" death may have been ASSISTED.

CLUE: It's a NO brainer !

Vera Dreiser said...

Here's a question for George: Did you ever ask Sandy if she would've gone with the group knowing what they were going to do, on both nights, if she weren't locked up? Would she have plunged a dagger into Sharon, Rosemary, the others?
After all those years as her partner/lover/whatever (still continuing? Don't know, answer that, too), surely the subject must've come up.
What did she tell you, George?
I'm certain I'm not the only one who's curious.

equinox12314 said...

Hi Robert Hendrickson,

What I can understand is that it must have been unpleasant for you to be rebuked for suggesting that Bret died from anything other than natural causes. My feeling is that if there were something untoward about this young man's death, his family would have pursued it with the Icelandic authorities.

On the other hand, the LAPD certainly did attend the scene of Zero's untimely demise, and by all accounts took at face value what was related to them by the inhabitants of that property. It appears that Davis wiped the gun of prints, but forgot to wipe his fingerprints off the trigger. Apparently, LAPD did not know, at first at least, that they were dealing with members of the Manson Family.

It is nice to interact with you again, Mr H. I'm leaving it here because the thread is supposed to be for the discussion of the reader's response to George's legal analysis of the case.

PS. yes the answer for Charlie would have been to do as I am doing, and studying for a law degree. But.... that involves a lot of work, and work has never been Charlie's strong point! I think there is also the question of finances - law degrees are expensive!! Remember, Charlie was sued for unlawful killing by the Frykowski estate and they have been the beneficiary of any income he has derived from, for example, recordings ('Look At Your Game Girl' royalties).



George Stimson said...

I'm glad that the Reader took the time to read and evaluate my chapter on Charles Manson and the Law and to respond to it. Now I will take the time to respond to him.

My first and foremost mistake, according to Reader, is that I take Charles Manson's word "as gospel," a characterization that I strongly disagree with. I never took anything Manson said "as gospel." To the contrary, from the beginning of my relationship with him I always regarded what he told me with a healthy skepticism. He was, after all, Charles Manson, one of the worst people on earth (even by his own admission). So of course I considered the possibility that me might be lying to me. He does dissemble, obfuscate, evade, and go incoherent on you, but I always listened to what he had to say and then evaluated what he said in accord with known evidence regarding what he was talking about and with my own experience. And in the totality of the ten-plus years of our relationship there was no instance where I had any reason to disbelieve Manson other than if I simply chose to believe that he was a liar. Criminal prosecutors, of course, are prone to believe that everybody accused or convicted of a crime is always lying, and that's understandable because they are operating on a presumption of guilt. But the rest of us are supposed to operate on a presumption of innocence, and that's what I do. I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are telling the truth until I have reason to believe otherwise.

I had a whole chapter in the book dealing with why I felt that Helter Skelter was not the motive (and another chapter on the true motive), so I had good reason to avoid it as "even a possible motive." As for the "stories of possible drug dealing" where "no credible evidence has ever been presented," there is plenty of credible evidence of drug deals both from witness testimony and physical evidence. Plus there is nothing in the "drug deals" scenario that conflicts with any of that evidence or with any other details surrounding those particular cases. It all fits. Regarding "anything else" as reasons for the murders, I'm all ears. But don't tell me about Helter Skelter.

There's no way that I could ignore the jury's decision because, after all, it is the jury's decision. But I think that given the circumstances of the events leading up to the murders as I present them in the book Manson could conceivably have been found not guilty. An average person (not a prosecutor) might have found Manson not guilty. It's not that I can't comprehend the jury's decision; I'm just saying that it's possible that the jury could have made a different decision.

As to conspiracy, there is more than Manson's word that he said he would not get involved. Maybe there is no contemporary testimony, but there are people who were present who remember him threatening to leave Spahn's Ranch after the Hinman murder and of his friends begging him to stay with assurances that they would take care of any further trouble. That could come out in a new trial. (Of course you might think that they were lying, but it would still be worth a listen.)

(Continued in next post….)

George Stimson said...

You imply that if one thinks that Manson didn't get a fair or speedy trial they're a fool. But how fair can a trial be where the defendant can't present his own chosen defense? (There I go being a child again. Sorry.) And Manson's "speedy trial" held the record for trial length (this even without a defense presentation) that wasn't topped until the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995. (In Manson's case justice wasn't delayed, it was never coming in the first place.) Sure, stacking counts is a legitimate tool, and it happens all the time. It's called "leverage." It works, so prosecutors do it. Understood. With regard to Manson's "various nonsensical claims," it's hard to believe any of them being more nonsensical than the claim that Helter Skelter was a serious motive. And Manson used jailhouse knowledge and tactics because he was working from the bottom up.

As for my biggest error re Bittaker, if you dig down deep enough into the looong legal quote you'll finally get to "In its reliance on Arnold and Bayless (supra) the Ninth Circuit in Bittaker and Loggins does not clearly define this right as ‘absolute’ and as such California courts were free to make determinations of competing rights of fair trial not addressed to ‘convenience or efficiency of the trial.’" In other words, the Ninth Circuit Court ruling was vague, so California courts have enough wiggle room to do whatever they want. So they do, and then the people who are affected by their arbitrary decisions don't have any recourse because the law is "vague." Sweet. (I've never understood the reluctance of the powers-that-be to let Manson represent himself. Were they afraid that he would incompetently convict himself? Isn't that what they wanted? Or were they afraid of something else?)

Thanks for recognizing my friendship with Manson. You almost make it sound like a good thing! And regarding my ability to make legal conclusions or analysis, I'll admit that my analysis in the book is amateurish, but I don't have any doubt that I can understand the law because I have some experience with the profession. I've spent enough time in California's courtrooms and courthouses to realize that attorneys are not necessarily geniuses (despite what they might think) and I don't have an innate awe of them. I took paralegal courses (finished first in the class) and the prof told me that I was wasting my time there and should be going to law school instead. My mother, brother, grandfather, uncle, and at least three cousins all are or were lawyers, so I'm not lacking in genes. Thus I have a little more faith in my legal capabilities than you do. And believe me, if I took an LSAT I would not only pass, but I would also go on to become a damned good -- if likely controversial -- attorney.

And again, thanks again for responding to my chapter. I knew when I wrote the book that I'd be ruffling some feathers, and your reaction is nothing less than I would expect from someone who seems to think like a prosecutor. But my book isn't really written for prosecutors or people who have an interest in maintaining the judicial or political status quo in the Golden State. It's written for people who are interested in an alternative to the story that has been told about Charles Manson and the Tate-LaBianca murders for over 45 years. And I'm confident that I have provided that alternative.

Suze said...

Vera, you are so sickening. Mr. Stimson't personal life is none of our business, and I'm sure that if he wanted to tell us about Sandy he would have included it in the book. You're such a wicked old sow.

Vera Dreiser said...

Suze, I do enjoy your double standards.
But back to the real world of adults, howse about an answer George?

Vera Dreiser said...

(and your double D's are kinda interesting, too)

ColScott said...

Vera is the worst. A dried up kunt who looks more manly than I do.

Did anyone besides Tom "14 years for a book and counting" notice the LVH transcript posted over on Cielodrive.com? Pretty much blows up George's book nicely. Although I still need to digest it.

Where did you recover this from Bo? And you do know that slapping a copyright notice on it means nothing, the copyright belongs to LVH or her lawyer (either of whom could demand removal btw)

Vera Dreiser said...

See that, Double D Suze, you scared him off, just because you were more interested in attacking me, than you were in learning the important facts of the case. Like was Sandy willing to kill for Charlie, like the others.
How's about it George?
We need to know. If anyone else objects to this question, I'd love to hear it and a better reason for it than the lame one Double D coughed up.

ColScott said...

I object to this question Robin because you are a hate filled xenophobe, homophobe loser who should not be allowed around decent people. Do dogs follow you around the street to sniff your leg?

Suze said...

Robin you are correct they are spectacular. I'm out of your league though. I don't go for old and fat. Thanks for noticing though I bet your husband likes that about you. Don't stoop to her level, mr. Stimson. She is a long time troll.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

As a relative newbie on these boards, one who doesn't quite know who is who, I'm always delighted by the degree of vitriol and obscenity that greets VD's occasional appearances. Can anyone fill me in on the roots of this antagonism?

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

And I meant to say - interesting post, and a very courteous counter-rebuttal from Mr Stimson. The law is a fascinating creature. Men do not design such mazes without the deliberate intention of impeding the natural flow of intuition and common sense, and of creating an artificial and arcane world through which every Dante requires the guidance of a highly paid and correctly accredited Virgil.

ColScott said...

Vera Dreiser is Robin Olson a Maryland based evil fucking kunt who obsessed over Patty. When Patty started a relationship with Alisa, Robin, a homophobe, bizarrely became besties with Orca Tate, the unwell, fatass disowned black sheep of the Tate Family. Robin is an evil fugly shrew.

Clear?

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

ColScott - you had me at 'Maryland based' - thank you.

Matt said...

Ah, nuthin like fun at the ole ballpark!

Max Frost said...

Touché Geo!

It's pointless, however, to debate someone who is unapologetically blind to the rampant and perpetual corruption that totally DOMINATES the U.S. Justice system.

You'd have a lot more luck arguing with a wall of drying paint.

Dilligaf said...

Max, can you give us examples of the rampant and perpetual corruption that dominates the U.S. Justice system? I would truly like to learn more about this. It sounds as if you could educate us all on this.

Dilligaf said...

George, I do not think that anyone was arguing with you, it appeared that it was a counter opinion. It appears that had Manson tried to work within the legal system rather than against it, he would have had the opportunity to present which ever defense he chose. Instead, he tried to circumvent the entire process, creating the results he achieved. He has no one to blame but himself. Your book appears to be an interesting opinion piece, but that is all it appears to be. That you remain loyal to Manson is an indication of your belief in him, but such loyalty could certainly be biased, wouldn't you agree?

George Stimson said...

Dilligaf, yes, my book is just an opinion piece. It's not meant to be the final word on anything. (It's meant more to be the first word.) As to your last question, I'm not sure I understand. I do believe Manson when he gives his versions of the crimes. I believe that he is telling the truth. If that perceived honesty prejudices me towards being loyal to him, then I'd say you're right.

Vera Dreiser said...

George, why won't you answer my question?
Col, I knew you were lying about not being "Don Murphy" for 10 fuckin years before you were finally forced to fess up on this very sad-excuse-for-a-web-site (hence my rare appearances, Michael H-N) to the truth, after you were outted in pics during their little "excursion" last year. But you know in your heart of (black, grizzled, festering) hearts I'm not Robin, you only cling to that smokescreen, as do the other sniveling losers here, because it gives you all a convenient excuse to ignore my apt, bullshit-obliterating, entirely relevant and significant questions, which you'd rather not address. Just like you're enabling George now to not answer the very question you're all dying to have an answer to. WAS YOUR WIFE/COMMONLAW/WHATEVER, Sandy Good, ready to plunge a dagger into the victims with the others you so conveniently have turned your narrow backs on now, in these pages?
Answer the fucking question, George, that's a challenge from this dry old cunt, Vera Dreiser.
xxoxox (and a prickly thigh squeeze).

Max Frost said...

Dilligaf, are you f-ing serious?!

Open your eyes to the world around you. Step outside of your robotic textbook prosecutorial mind and try being honest with yourself rather than feeling like your post-prosecutor purpose in life is to blindly defend the justice system, including the police.

I gave you several examples in the past. It doesn't matter how many examples I could give you. I could flood your inbox every day forever with solid examples but nothing will register with you.

In the words of John Goodman's character in "Barton Fink"...YOU DON'T LISTEN!!!

Max Frost said...

By the way, Geo, very nice rebuttal to the 'author' of the post.

George Stimson said...

Vera, your question is pointless and irrelevant.

Vera Dreiser said...

Just as I thought, George. IE: She would've rabidly joined the carnage. And you stayed w/ her all those years, maybe still do, and you defend Charlie. All we (or I) need to know.
Irrelevant my ass.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Robin, if you're not Robin, who the hell are you? I'm sure you're not Vera Dreiser. The resemblance is not particularly striking. For all I know all of you guys could be one psychotic individual; that's the beauty of the internet. Maybe I shouldn't have used my real name. But it's hard for me to imagine that Matt and Col Scott - one laconic, the other gloriously intemperate - might be the Edward Norton and Brad Pitt of this Fight Club.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Robin / Venerea Drykunt - "this very sad-excuse-for-a-web-site". Whatever benefit of the doubt I may have been about to offer someone who has never offended me personally just vanished. You do indeed come across as a repulsive mess who needs some professional help.

Matt said...

We need not waste an entire post to discuss Aquarius. I was of course disappointed but I expected to be. The only things remotely accurate were the music and the fact that there was a character named Charles Manson who spoke in metaphor. The other Manson Family characters possessed decidedly evil demeanors, which in my mind always diminishes their complexity.

Typical prime time TV.


Dilligaf said...

Max, so in other words, you can't provide proof of an entire legal system that is rampant and corrupt? Rather, now you expand it to now include police activities. I am not trying to defend anything, rather I am asking you to merely prove something of which you claim. It sounds as if you have a chip on your shoulder that is weighing heavily on you. If you are going to make such a broad claim, one would think that you could show some examples. If you can't, hopefully you feel better for getting something off of your chest.

Dilligaf said...

George, thanks for your response, I really appreciate it. It was my impression that your book was written as an opinion based piece, not a fact based piece. Either way, you were able to take your opinion and put them into print, an effort not without challenges, and something most people do not do.

Matt said...

Vera if you like you can prove to me that you're not Robin Olson by emailing me directly a copy of your license with all but your name and photoblacked out. You could probably even black out your last name. I would keep your true identity confidential but I would post a validation that you are not Olson to prove your nemesis ColScott wrong.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Robert, I am sorry if you got the impression anyone was hounding you before. I wasn't, I respect you enormously. Just felt that suicide/depression, heroin addiction, and 'appearing normal' (i.e. someone not outwardly exhibiting mental health/substance abuse problems) aren't mutually exclusive. As I said, I think your additions to this site are invaluable.

I don't have much to add to this discussion other than a couple of things..
Dilligaf, I can't speak for Max but when he talks about problems with the state/justice system I think he is referring to situations like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal . Of course, you could argue that one was a victory, since that guy got caught... but I am sure there are many others who aren't. I don't live in the States but the impression I get is- massive underclass, who are frequently jailed for truly petty crimes, who are then used to generate profit (i.e. for Wal-Mart: even penal institutions nowadays need to 'self-supporting', i.e. profit-generating, nowadays). That seems.. off. But as I said, not an American, my expertise isn't the legal system (which yours appears to be), feel free to School me. :)

The other thing I have to add.. is Suze is a babe. Rockin lady. (Sorry if that sounds creepy but it needed to be said). That is all.

Suze said...

Thank you, Vermouth. I mostly lurk around here and try to learn. Work normally precludes my from active participation. Maybe some day I'll have more time to contribute. Matt, you are wasting your time. Vera/Robin will never bite on that.

Vera Dreiser said...

Well, Suze dear, you might want to let your admirers know that picture wasn't exactly taken yesterday. More like twenty-one years ago (when we all looked a little better...if that's even you from the Fort Worth Stockyard beer blast in 1993).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenm_61/368760308
And like everyone else on here, as we now see with Suze, I'm not revealing my true identity to Matt or anyone. There's no saying what you'll do with it, Matt, once you have it.
And if you're friends with the likes of George Stimson, who lay down beside a woman every night who would've killed a pregnant woman for Charles Manson, I'd rather not
take any chances.
And I would like to poll the readers of this site -- and sorry for disparaging it last night in that post, Vera had too much bourbon and was tired of the Col's relentless inability to accept the fact that she's NOT Robin Olson, it's really not that bad, for the most part, hence my occasional visits -- rather than attack me, just post a one word yes or no to the question of whether George should or shouldn't answer the question of whether Sandy Good, one of Manson's longest devotees and spokespeople, ever told him if she would've joined the killers on the nights of August 8 and August 9, 1969. I mean, he did write a book about the subject in which he spared no detail of what else he learned about the crimes, why not the information about among the highest profile Family members, his wife or lover? The one who told a press conference after the verdict, "Your children will rise up and kill you...L.A. will burn to the ground."
This man asks us to believe Manson should not have been convicted, yet he lived with and loved a woman who would've done what Manson was convicted of? I'd certainly not trust him to be an objective purveyor of the truth, would you?
So did she tell you that George?
And, in light of what we now know Leslie told Marvin Part in December 1969, did Sandy tell you she would've killed those people to free Bobby or to start Helter Skelter?
I think these are relevant questions.
So, the rest of you here, hold off attacking Vera for a moment, and answer the question: Should George tell us?
You want to know -- and he's so willing to tell you -- what Charlie told him. Why not what Sandy, among the closet to Charlie BEFORE THE MURDERS, AND AFTER -- told him?

George Stimson said...

Gee, maybe Bill Nelson didn't really die....

Vera Dreiser said...

Again, your refusal to answer speaks volumes, George. Guess we don't need anymore than that pithy response, though, now I'd like to know if you would've gone, too.
And I'd also like to know if others agree with George, that the question doesn't deserve an answer.

Matt said...

Robin, er, Vera, you're so quick to bag on Suze about her picture, yet you could send me a copy of your driver's license with everything blacked out but the photo of you and your first name. That way I'd have no way of outing you because I wouldn't have the info to out you. How could you not want to clear your name of being Robin Olson? She's sub-human. And because she's sub-human, if you're not her we'd all have the tiniest bit more respect for you proving you're not her.

As for your question to Stimson, I say the reason he shouldn't answer is because (beyond your own morbid curiosity) it reveals nothing of importance when it comes to this case. It adds nothing of value to a book unless you're Kenneth Anger revising Hollywood Babylon. Why do you care?

Suze said...

Verarobin, if you thought that was my real pic even for a minute then you are dumber than I even give you credit for.

Vera Dreiser said...

Let's start with motive, Matt, I think that's important. If she would've gone then she would've had a motive for going and we might be closer to knowing what the motive for the murders was. I thought that's what you and your buddy George were interested in, no?
And, like I said, I've seen what you do with pictures of people, you post them on this site. No thanks. And why do I need to prove a negative? Why don't you reach out to her and see what she says? Or examine her exchanges with whomever she exchanged whatever it was she exchanged and see if my views, opinions, interests, even remotely resemble hers, I'm guessing not, but then again, since all I know about her is what the Col and others have posted about her here, I don't know that for sure.
Suze, funny, you sure seemed to imply it was you, but I'm certainly not going to try to prove that. Weird, anyway, that you would present some random hot chick as your avatar. What the hell does THAT say about you? I'd rather not know.
I'd rather know what others, besides Matt, think about my challenge to George.
Anyone?

Vera Dreiser said...

And even weirder Suze, is how you thanked Vermouth for calling you a "babe" just a few comments up.
That's real honest, eh?
Whaddaya think of that, Vermouth???
But really, what does anyone think of Vera's challenge to George?
Isn't that what this site is primarily about?

St Circumstance said...

I'll take a shot. I don't speak for George but I read the book and I feel like maybe a few of the inner core would have went. I think that those closest to Charlie felt like it was a war they were fighting. I think they equated it with war. I think they were able to rationalize some things we would consider very far out in the name of " war " I don't think George or anyone else wants to come out and say today what someone else would have done 40 years ago in the name of revolution, but I also think the answer is fairly obvious. I think if you read his book you wouldn't need to ask this question as much as try to understand the answer..,

But that is just my opinion and honest answer Vera :)

Matt said...

Robin--I'm going with name that til you prove otherwise--why do you care if I did post your photo. I wouldn't but what if I did? Are you that unattractive that if posted you'll give Suze enough ammunition to never get another disparaging remark again from you again? My pictures up here, Col Scott's picture is up here, Stimson's photo is up here, come on, join all us outers.

And how does knowing if Sandra Good would have gone to the Cielo house help prove the motive?

Suze said...

Verarobin, without speaking for Vermouth I'm pretty sure he meant it in the intellectual/personality sense of the word. I can understand why you would be unfamiliar with the term given the context.

Vera Dreiser said...

Uh, Matt, not a good comparison. George is SELLING A BOOK, and has appeared on television talk shows in the past, defending Charles Manson. "Col Scott" uses a still from a Monty Python film, and, as Don Murphy, is a public figure promoting, (besides shitty movies) like you, a website devoted to the Manson crimes. I'm not. I don't have a website. I'm a private citizen and, like most of your other posters here, choose to remain anonymous when discussing the crimes of people, many of whom were likely connected to crimes for which there is no statute of limitations: murder(Gypsy, Brenda, Cappie, SANDY, Clem, Squeaky, Country Sue, etc.).
Unlike Suze, however, I don't intentionally mislead people with an avatar that suggests I'm a hot "babe." And, yeah, Suze-boo, I think that's what Vermouth meant, why else would he apologize for possibly sounding "creepy."
Thanks for the answer, St. C.
And, Matt, I think if Sandy would've gone to the Cielo house with the others to kill whomever she encountered (had she not been locked up that afternoon) she would've had a REASON for going, whether to start a race war called Helter Skelter, or free a brother called Bobby, and I do believe she might've shared that reason with George at some point. I mean, are you really that dim, or just trying not to lose the allegiance of Manson apologist, George Stimson?

Robert Hendrickson said...

Last night, like Matt, I was "embarrested" for the makers of "Aquairious." It was that bad - especially when it's Charlie Manson started making-out (lip-lock) with the "politician."

Later I realized that this program is the TEST for future TV. The History Channel has been experimenting with just how much TRUTH is actualy necessary verses how much fabrication can be incorporated into a TV show before too many folks complain.

Fortunately, or otherwise, on a certain level it acually works. Remember Forest Gump ?

Actually, Aquairious may be paving the way for "The Clinton Crime Family" mini-series." AND that's a good thing - for ME - cause I got lots of real authentic 16mm footage on all kinds of subjects.

I don't want to do any "spoilers" here, BUT I can now see a black president, not unlike Obama, having a beer with some ISIS guys and toasting George Bush for making it all possible. AND I'm NOT talking about an SNL comedy scene.

To Gillgaft: A witness can ONLY express his OPINION of what HE thinks is a FACT. There are NO exceptions. A judge writes a legal "OPINION" regarding HIS Conclusion. There is NO such thing as an absolute FACT, or should I say, there is NO way for a human being to determine recisely which "opinion" reflects the one and only TRUTH.

That is WHY "Acquairous" is so relevant to the TRUTH. It proudly proclaims:"The one and only TRUTH does NOT matter. It's just enterainment folks."

AND wouldn't YOU just love to SEE the real "HELTER SKELTER," as described by "Little Paul," on a huge movie screen: "Bodies smashing all over the place .... with knives cutting the pussies out of women ...."

"I think it's sick:" Corie Hurst 1970

Matt said...

Robin, did you pull that bottle of bourbon back out? I'll ask again how does Sandra Good's possible reason for going to Cielo help reveal a new motive? If she went for either of the two you listed, HS or the free-a-brother-campaign, it sheds no new light on what the actual killers have said all along.

If you have evidence of Good having a different reason for going to Cielo, then why don't you state that question to Mr. Stimson, such as: "George, I've heard Sandy wanted to participate in the Cielo murders because she wanted Sharon outta the picture so she could have Polanski all to herself. Can you confirm or deny that rumor?"

As for for Suze's avatar and anyone else's, they're called avatars because they're alter-egos or fictitious characters, so it's suppose to intentionally mis-lead people. So wtf is your point? Oh, and most of us here know who Suze is. The avatar is a serious downgrade from what she really looks like. She's a babe in the physical sense too.

I think the true reason you want to remain anonymous is because you are Robin Olson and because you are in the truest sense of the word a troll - and I don't mean the cute little dolls because that would be an insult to trolls everywhere. What I mean is an internet troll, who by definition is this: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues.


equinox12314 said...

Why focus on Sandy Good when Mrs Linda Kasabian was present on both nights of murder and mayhem, and yet walked free? Sandy fell foul of the law over behaviour in connection with her environmentalist beliefs. Ms Good, at least, served a considerable prison sentence for that.

Vera Dreiser said...

Matt, everything you write contradicts what you wrote moments before.
If an avatar is intended to be an alter-ego or fictitious character intentionally meant to mislead people, then what am I to make of yours and others which, far as I can tell, are real? And I honestly don't give a flying fuck what people look like, though, you and your followers sure seem to. Yes, I've fallen into the trap of being baited and then occasionally playing along after being ridiculously lampooned for what I look like, when no one has a clue what that is. But when someone enjoys being called a "babe," when the picture she's getting the compliment for isn't her, I think that's a reflection of their overall credibility. (Comments Vermouth? Please don't play the party line).
I do not insult or troll, that's your interpretation because I ask the questions you are unwilling or unable to answer. Like the Col, it's easier for you to dismiss me as Robin, than to deal with my points.
And, again, if you of all people, who continually questions the motive of the Tate-LaBianca murders, doesn't understand the significance of what one of the principal purveyors of it shared -- not with the media or from the witness stand when everyone lied -- but with the person who was her companion for decades-plus, and then WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE MOTIVE (without revealing what she shared with him), then I don't even know why you're doing this.
Again, in light of what we know now Leslie told Part, it is important to know if Sandy said the murders occurred to free Bobby or start the race war Leslie (and others) have described. Sandy wasn't an incidental bystander, I shouldn't have to tell you, she was among the most devoted and longest-committed members of the Family, so what she told George was significant -- whichever "motive" she chose, old, new or entirely different.
Jesus, I feel like I'm dealing with a 5-year-old.
And whether she would've KILLED for it, is just as significant.
But I'll let you all play with your toys and your insults, I've got gardening to do.
And I'm so disappointed that only the Good Saint as taken my challenge. Says a lot about the "group think" I see on here. But, oh yeah, that's just me trolling.

Vera Dreiser said...

Oh for fucks sake, Equinox, because Linda Kasabian ISN'T talking and didn't stick by the group for decades after!
Sandy did and Sandy knows why those murders happened and shared it with George.
Even the Col now says the copycat murder motive that George is propounding is a crock. And if George knows it's a crock from Sandy, then what are we to make of George presenting a book that says otherwise??? What are his MOTIVES? Shit, now I sound like Hendrickson.

George Stimson said...

Vera, GHS page 236.

Matt said...

If an avatar is intended to be an alter-ego or fictitious character intentionally meant to mislead people, then what am I to make of yours and others which, far as I can tell, are real? And I honestly don't give a flying fuck what people look like, though, you and your followers sure seem to. Yes, I've fallen into the trap of being baited and then occasionally playing along after being ridiculously lampooned for what I look like, when no one has a clue what that is. But when someone enjoys being called a "babe," when the picture she's getting the compliment for isn't her, I think that's a reflection of their overall credibility. (Comments Vermouth? Please don't play the party line).

Ok, this is a football: My picture is my real picture. George Stimson’s picture is his real picture. Col’s is an AVATAR - meant to be obviously fake. Suze’s is an AVATAR - meant to be obviously fake.

I do not insult or troll, that's your interpretation because I ask the questions you are unwilling or unable to answer. Like the Col, it's easier for you to dismiss me as Robin, than to deal with my points.

This post is a reader’s response to Stimson’s chapter in Manson and the Law. It is not a post dealing with whether or not Sandy would have gone to Cielo. When we do a post on whether or not Sandy would have gone to Cielo, ask it then. He might even answer.

And, again, if you of all people, who continually questions the motive of the Tate-LaBianca murders, doesn't understand the significance of what one of the principal purveyors of it shared - not with the media or from the witness stand when everyone lied - but with the person who was her companion for decades-plus, and then WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE MOTIVE (without revealing what she shared with him), then I don't even know why you're doing this.

I ain’t got no fancy diplomas er nuthin but Sandy’s audio recordings, etc were used as primary sources for the book. Did you miss that obvious portion of the book?

Again, in light of what we know now Leslie told Part, it is important to know if Sandy said the murders occurred to free Bobby or start the race war Leslie (and others) have described. Sandy wasn't an incidental bystander, I shouldn't have to tell you, she was among the most devoted and longest-committed members of the Family, so what she told George was significant - whichever "motive" she chose, old, new or entirely different.

Again, off-topic for this post. And Again, Sandy’s audio recordings, etc were used as primary sources for the book.

Jesus, I feel like I'm dealing with a 5-year-old.

Can I go outside now???

But I'll let you all play with your toys and your insults, I've got gardening to do.

I hope it’s legal…

And I'm so disappointed that only the Good Saint as taken my challenge. Says a lot about the "group think" I see on here. But, oh yeah, that's just me trolling.

Yep. Just you trolling…

DebS said...

Vera, what if Sandy did want to go to Cielo Drive that night, you never know, she could have been the voice of reason and stopped the carnage. Hindsight is a two way street.

equinox12314 said...

For fucks sake, Vera, we all KNOW Linda Kasabian received an over generous deal from the DA's office which allowed her to walk. Presumably, because of her agreement with the DA, it would be foolhardy for her to be completely honest in public about the events those nights. It wouldn't be a hardship for her to stay away from the group because she was only with them a matter of weeks.

I think you have to realise that there are many of us here who will not understand why you are able to say for sure that Sandy knows why the murders happened AND shared it with George. That is a genuine query. Some of just come on here and give our thoughts on whatever topic has been posted that week i.e. we are not 'insiders'. From what you have posted, it comes over like someone who knows Sandy and George has informed you because you seem to be certain of your information.

I'm not having a go at you, it seems throughout the thread that you are looking for confirmation of something you know already.

Krissy Deen said...

Vera- I for one agree with a lot of what you say. I can also see why you talk the way you do with a couple of the other posters here. I only wish you could be more civil to the people who run this blog- because maybe then they would be more likely to discuss some of what you ask about and like I said I think you often make good points.
I also don't think you're Robin Olsen. What's such a big deal about her anyway? Is it because Don Murphy say's she doesn't like Alisa Statman and is a homophobe? I've seen and read a lot worse things about people on these blogs. You know like those people who are child molesters and murderers yet some of them still seem to have some support and I find their actions to be worse than homophobia although I don't agree with that point of view either. The Robin Olsen bit get's old, just like the name calling of Debra Tate does and it adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation. IMO anyway.
I'm a " loner" on this and all the other Manson related sites. I know none of you and have never spoken to any of you except for what I post publicly so I don't have a bias for or against anyone personally I just try and post honest opinions about things I read that interest me. It that makes me unpopular so be it. I do enjoy this blog though and the people who run it.
I do have a question for Mr. Stimson about Sandra Good which maybe he can answer for me. On one of the talk shows Sandra was on this was obviously quite a while back- Patti Tate was also a guest. Sandra told Patti that Sharon was not supposed to be home that night. Do you have any further information on this that you could share with us? I believe it was on this same show that Ms. Good stated the murders were a act of "war". I can't remember exactly what show this was on but maybe someone else does. Anyway, if you have anything you can tell us about Sandra saying Sharon wasn't supposed to be there that night and/or her statement that the murders were a act of war it would be interesting to hear. Thank you.

Krissy Deen said...

PS..sorry if I went off topic as well, while writing my above post I see several others posted in the meantime...

equinox12314 said...

Krissy Dean,

I was just looking at the clip you refer to on YouTube. If you wish to access it again, it was the Bertice Berry show, Charles Manson Role Model Part 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZktx3C2fTU

Krissy Deen said...

Thanks equinox! That was it. I guess Sandra's words were that Sharon " shouldn't have been home that night" which is still a interesting statement that perhaps Mr. Stimson can explain further.
Ms. Good also says the murders were to get Bobby B. out of jail,( well she actually also says they were because of the violence middle class kids were seeing on TV and a few other things if I'm understanding her right.) I always used to think the motive was the copycat idea although anymore I have no idea of what was behind it.
That show was indeed a long time ago, not only did I not know or remember that Mr. Stimson himself was on the show, I don't even remember the name Bertice Berry!

Max Frost said...

Dilligaf, like I said, open your eyes. The examples are all over the place. Rampant and perpetual corruption dominates the U.S. Government and hence the entire U.S. Justice system.

Your request for examples is not a request, it is meant as rhetorical...implying that I could not provide enough examples to prove my point.

I'm not going to hijack this thread or this blog to show you what's right in front of you. You obviously have Internet, use it wisely and educate yourself.

equinox12314 said...

Hi Krissy,

Yes, I agree with you that the statement "shouldn't have been home that night" demands further explanation, and of course, George should be able to do that, but I have my doubts as to whether he will do so. In order for Sandy or any of the Family to know the details of Sharon's proposed whereabouts, there would have to have been contact between people at Cielo and Spahn. That would go a long way to explaining what this was all about.

Krissy Deen said...

That's the way I see it too equinox. It will be interesting to hear what if anything Mr. Stimson can say to help clarify that statement. I don't understand how anyone can say a person shouldn't have been in their own home- to me that is pretty much the same as blaming Sharon Tate for her own murder.

equinox12314 said...

"... I don't understand how anyone can say a person shouldn't have been in their own home- to me that is pretty much the same as blaming Sharon Tate for her own murder."

Krissy,

True, that is another way of looking at it!! The statement on the BB show is tantamount to saying that Sharon was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not so, in fact, she was in her own home and minding her own business.

I would be VERY surprised if you receive an honest explanation of how they knew she wasn't going to be there.





Vera Dreiser said...

Thank you Equinox and Krissy, FINALLY someone see's where this line of questioning intended to go! You guys should be moderating this site, not Matt.

Matt said...

I haven't moderated this trhead, Vera. I've responded with my opinions. Moderation only takes place when someone breaks the rules and needs to be deleted - like you often do. You haven't crossed those lines in this thread.

Matt said...

yet

St Circumstance said...

I do agree a bit as well with Krissy but my point - I guess- is that if you really want to learn the answers to those types of questions - read his book. The answers to those types of questions are there. But you probably won't get anyone to answer a question when in its worded in a way that makes the answer you clearly are looking for so inflammatory towards the person you are posing to question to....

Krissy Deen said...


It's not meant to be inflammatory at all. If Mr. Stimson see's it that way I apologize in advance to him. I have no bad feelings or intent towards the man at all. He comes across as quite a nice guy actually- he wrote a book about the crimes that are discussed on this blog and I'm just asking if he knows anything more about the statement that was made by Sandra Good. If I came across as sarcastic or as you say inflammatory it was over the statement that Sharon Tate should not have been in her own home that night and I'm fully aware that it was not Mr. Stimson who said that. I had forgotten he was actually even on the show with Ms. Good when I first asked about it. As I stated above- I'm interested in knowing if he can in any way help clarify the statement she made. It's nothing more than a sincere question for the man on my part.

St Circumstance said...

Krissy I meant more the way Vera was trying to pose it. I think that some hard questions are fair when you make the decisions that some of them made and make statements like the one on that show. But some of these questions along these lines were addressed in his book and it isn't easy to see why he would rather take his time to explain his feelings about these things versus answering mean spirited one line questions which are asked with malice. After all lol he isn't really taking the popular position. It can't be easy having to debate from that side. George never hurt anyone. He deserves a fair fight or at least to give his side in the manner he chooses.

In my opinion

St Circumstance said...

I just don't get the approach. Do we really want information from the guy or do we think he will answer a self incriminating question designed to give us a "gotcha" moment so we can confirm our deepest fears about his dark desires to overthrow the government and free Charlie so they can go back to trying to kill us all? That's how to communicate? Do you think George is that naive? Ever self publish a book? Whatever you say about George- he is no dope.

Krissy Deen said...


If that post is for me I don't really understand your point completely either StC. I asked the man a honest question. What other approach do you recommend I take? I know you said we should read his book- I would agree with that- to a point- if only reading that opinion after my original post when I hadn't even realized he was on the show sitting with Ms. Good when she made the statement I am asking about.
But I don't feel I need in any way to read his book to ask the man my question. It's about a talk show and he was there and a part of the show. So his book doesn't really play into it at this point. He may or may not want to or even be able to answer the question but I don't see a need to apologize for asking it. If he can't answer or doesn't want to answer I'll just move on. I'm ready to anyway since the thread has admittedly gone off topic. There really isn't a " gotcha" moment for me where Mr. Stimson is concerned. He wasn't even around when the murders were committed. But maybe you are a little naïve if you don't think these blogs and questions are ALL about finding that " gotcha" moment. I just don't think anyone thinks it will be coming from Mr. Stimson if it is to ever happen at all which I truly doubt.

Krissy Deen said...

PS...Regardless of whether your last post was meant for me or not St., I did want to say why I don't think I need to read the book to ask the question. With that being said, I will myself now move on...

St Circumstance said...

Krissy- again- it was not meant for you. It was simply in response to Vera asking him if he or Sandy would have went along. I think I mentioned hard questions like the one about what Sandy said on the show were fair - in my opinion.

Also again lol - I agree with your initial post almost completely. :)

St Circumstance said...

Also to make this very clear- the initial question by Vera is also what I was referring to when I said I felt he answered those types of questions in his book. Not anything Krissy brought up. Sorry for confusion. Early start today which will suprise nobody who met me on the Tour lol. I probably should have stayed out of this one. Have a great weekend all :)

ColScott said...

shit I had to go makes some shitty movies and this happens?

TL/DR- Dried up unloved hag Robin (and yes it is here 100%) wants everyone to answer her questions because she is special (needs). But she won't even own up to her own homophobic, xenophobic, Kuntish self. Dillingaf thinks being a low level law and order type makes him smart (it doesn't). The Col was exposed by Matt (my future gay marriage partner) last year. Blah Blah blah


How about this? Sandy wishes should could have killed every single Corporate Exec she wrote to and dance in their blood. But she didn't. She paid her time and now, 2015 she is a BETTER HUMAN BEING than you, not drowning the fact that her life is a void and her family hates her in a vat of bourbon.

So there's that.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

My take on the "she shouldn't have been at home that night" is that it sits somewhere between "she shouldn't have been at home that night if she wanted to live" and "in retrospect she shouldn't have been home that night, the whole pregnant woman thing makes us look like the bad guys". I don't necessarily see it as implying any detailed inside information on the Tate-Polanski travel plans.

And as for motive - well, if it was the free-Bobby motive AND the middle-class kids seeing a lot of violence on TV motive, I'm reminded of the wonderful multi-layered excuses kids make when they haven't done their homework: I sprained my elbow and couldn't write, and my dog put my schoolbag in the washing machine and my mom is in hospital" etc. Maybe there was no motive. Maybe they killed because they hated American society and thought they were morally entitled to kill. Maybe they killed because it was spectacular satanic theater.

Incidentally, I am honestly not Robin Olsen.

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

You are Robin Olsen - the high heels and short skirt are a sure give away!

On the "she shouldn't have been at home that night" question, we shall have to agree to differ. You have to remember that Sharon was supposed to be staying with her friend, Sheila, that night. Due to her advanced state of pregnancy and the August heat, she was too tired to go, so she called off.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

equinox

I wear those items for medical reasons only.

We do indeed have to agree to differ. Had Sandy come out with that statement in 1969 I would give it some credence. But this interview was from 1994, a quarter century after the killings. So Sandra Good learned at some point in that quarter century that Sharon Tate was 'supposed' to be staying with Sheila Wells that night, and so when confronted with the question point-blank by Sharon's sister, she has this fact ready, but for some reason is not willing to discuss it further in front of the cameras.

I don't buy it.

chatsworth charlie said...

DebS said...
Vera, what if Sandy did want to go to Cielo Drive that night, you never know, she could have been the voice of reason and stopped the carnage. Hindsight is a two way street.

Besides, wasn't Sandy as pregnant as Sharon at that point?
Not exactly conducive to creepy crawling.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Continued:

Because for another thing, there is no logic to that. Sandra Good doesn't mention a drugs burn involving Frykowski, for example, she mentions the free-Bobby motive, and the fact that there were kids killing and dying in Vietnam. So you tell me - which of those motives would've been predicated on Sharon Tate not being at home one particular night?

"OK, we need to commit some murders like Hinman's to get Cupid cleared. Now I hear from my sources that the actress Sharon Tate is staying at her friend Sheila Wells' house tonight, so go to Tate's house and kill anyone else who is there".

What? Seriously, that's the scenario? Or was it...

"Hey, this war in Vietnam is so evil, so unjust, we really want to bring the barbarity and violence home to America's living-room. Charlie knows there are Hollywood types up at 10050 Cielo, but Polanski is in Europe and Sharon Tate is supposed to be out this evening (Charlie won't tell us how he knows that, but he brought a bird back to life so I trust him on this) but why don't we go up there anyway and kill any other random people who might be there..."

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

Could Sandra's reluctance to discuss the matter further on camera come down to the fact that she might have to give away the identity of the Family member at Spahn who was in contact with Cielo? It could have been someone who was never charged. Just a thought.

Overall, I felt very sorry for Patti Tate during that interview - she seemed to want a straight answer as to what on earth did her late sister have to do with the Family's belief system.

OFF TOPIC: I checked out your excellent art. I particularly like your drawings, and was delighted to see you did some of your training in my native Edinburgh.

Kevin Marx said...

For what its worth on the audio interview on cieldodrive.com Leslie tells the interviewer that Katie told her they didn't expect there to be as many people at the Tate house. She states:

"She said that — that they had murdered five people; that they didn’t know there were going to be that many at the house; and they didn’t know who the people were; and there were a whole lot of them."

George Stimson said...

Sorry to be late chiming in, but life frequently takes me on the road for hours at a time and today was one of those times.
I asked Sandy about the comment she made on Bertice Berry. She says that she was confused on the show and is not sure what point she was trying to get across. I think (purely speculation) that she was trying to make Patty Tate feel better.
As for whether she would have gone to Cielo, she didn't have that choice. She told me that she didn't even know that her friends had committed the murders until over a month after they happened. (Matt, that incident I told you about happened in Randy Starr's trailer, not in a hospital.)
As for me, I was only 15 at the time and eagerly looking forward to getting my driver's license in Cincinnati, Ohio, but Charlie once told me during a visit that if I had been at the ranch none of the killings would have happened because I was too level-headed to let anyone go forward with the copycat murders plan.

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

Apologies, when I responded to you above, I did not see your 'continued' comment.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

equinox - thank you for that kind comment. One of the drawbacks of stupidly using my real name in regular participation here is that a google image search of my name now brings up an image, among others, of a smiling Charles Watson. Ugh. Anyway, Edinburgh was awesome, I love the place. I miss that bone-freezing wind down in Leith.

Kevin - that's an interesting addition, but it surely means only that they hadn't expected five adults - maybe a man and a wife, but not the wife, her ex, her husband's Polish friend, and his girlfriend, as well as a random guest of the resident of the caretaker's cottage. I'm not surprised they were surprised. Waverley must have come as a welcome relief...

equinox12314 said...

George Stimson,

"... She told me that she didn't even know that her friends had committed the murders until over a month after they happened."

Regarding the above, when was Sandy released from custody? I ask because it looked like there was indiscreet discussion of the murders out at Spahn, particularly from Susan Atkins. Even Charlie allegedly told Al Springer soon after that 'five pigs' were killed by them.

It's not that I disbelieve what Sandy says, but I can't recall offhand when she got out.

George Stimson said...

Maybe there was an indiscreet discussion of the murders at Spahn's, but Sandy wasn't a part of it. She didn't hear about them until after her son was born in September.

Vera Dreiser said...

George writes:

"As for whether she would have gone to Cielo, she didn't have that choice. She told me that she didn't even know that her friends had committed the murders until over a month after they happened."

Nice try, George, but that certainly wasn't the question. You, as well as we and Sandy already knew she didn't have the choice because she was in jail. You're too smart to think we'd fall for that lame attempt at "providing" an answer.
Ask her the real question, not the modified version that allowed her to not answer it.

And how on earth would they have any idea how many people would be at the house unless they had some indication of who would -- or wouldn't -- be there? If Pat had never been there before, why would she think there would be less than five people there? Charlie and Tex had been there before and each time there were parties going on, or groups of adults that numbered at least four or five.
Leslie's comment is more revealing than she evidently intended it to be.

But I don't want to hijack MY OWN THREAD: Ask again George, and come back to us with the answer. I'm hardly holding my breath, but, now that you've set a precedent by pretending to ask, let's see how creative you' can be with a new "answer."

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

George,

"She says that she was confused on the show and is not sure what point she was trying to get across. I think (purely speculation) that she was trying to make Patty Tate feel better."

Having seen the interview, I believe her. And your speculation may be fairly close to the truth.

Of course, another way to make Patty Tate "feel better" might have been to unequivocally condemn the fact that she was stabbed to death in her own home, rather than attempting to justify the murder using global politics, or deflect from it by asserting that Hollywood exploits women's bodies, or by implying that any life, including Sharon's, was expendable if it meant getting another Family member out of prison for a vicious murder HE had committed.

There she is, a quarter of a century later, ranting with absolute conviction that killing seven people was kind of justified because they were only trying to fraudulently win the freedom of a friend who had viciously murdered a trusting, unarmed, tortured, terrified young man.

To make such a morally repugnant argument with such swivel-eyed, batshit-crazy conviction, with no shame, no embarrassment, while the sister of one of the victims sits a couple of meters from you.... wow...

ColScott said...

Robin's website is active today boy- http://goo.gl/jrhQDw

Vera Dreiser said...

Well I couldn't open it, but if anyone can, please compare whatever the hell is on that site to what I've written here and see if you think we're the same person.
In the meantime, back to George and Sandy...
George?

George Stimson said...

Vera, you asked a (dumb) question and got the answer you're getting. If you don't like it, that's tough. No one is accountable to you.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Vera, it's apparent you have a very odd, vindictive edge to you; tangling with the mentally-unhinged on the internet isn't something I find fun, so I'm done with you after this. I was giving Suze praise because I think she's cool and you were slagging her off. It is something someone does to someone they like whose feelings might just have been hurt, kind of standard community behaviour. I am aware her photo is from the 80s & might not be her, just as mine is from the 30s & might not be me (that's right folks, I'm not actually zombie Judy Garland). Regardless of what Suze looks like or who she is off the internet she's still a rockin babe, most Mansonistas in Mansonblogdotcomland are (cept you, natch), and she probably doesn't need me to white-knight for her- but that is how communities work, people care for each other. Feel free to read whatever else you like into it, I won't be paying attention. Ta.

Kevin Marx said...

I could be completely wrong here but I thought I read somewhere that whilst in jail, Sandy and Mary on hearing about the murders said to each other something like "wow, they really did it".

Krissy Deen said...

Mr. Stimson, thank you for the response to my question, I appreciate it.

Max Frost said...

This is very interesting...

I don't have the history that y'all have with Robin Olsen and whomever else falls into that category...but I am amused and do give credence to a lot of these comments (in general) by Vera, and I personally would like to see an end to this "you are Robin" "No I'm not" game that appears to have no end whatsoever in sight.

Can there be a compromise of sorts?

Vera doesn't trust Matt enough to reveal enough of her identity to prove she ISN'T Robin. Matt, Col, et al are convinced she is. Me? I have no idea because I don't even know who Robin is other than what I've heard about her. I have no judgement or negative feelings about Vera, Robin, Deb Tate, or anyone else. I'm as neutral as you can get. So PLEASE, can we put an end to this once and for all? For the sake of productivity if nothing else...

Vera, can you trust me? Email me and let's work this out. Then I will tell the others at the very least who you are NOT.

At least - if you are indeed not Robin - any future dialogue (comments) will exclude that part of the friction...because it indeed does take up a helluva lot of space and time in the threads.

Vera Dreiser said...

George Stimson said...
"Vera, you asked a (dumb) question and got the answer you're getting. If you don't like it, that's tough. No one is accountable to you."

Volumes, George, volumes. If it was dumb the first time, why did you ask her? Convenient, ain't it, when yer busted on the non-answer you call it a dumb question.
Maybe it is dumb, because we all know the answer. And we all know you're as culpable as Bug in covering up the truth of these crimes. Ironic, ain't it?

And Vermouth, you're so gallant in your defense of Suze. Now go to the top of this thread and see who initiated the name calling. I wasn't even addressing her and got this: "You're such a wicked old sow."
And if you go back in time you'll see that she, like the Col and many on here, ALWAYS revert to playground childish insults about looks -- again, weird, since they have no idea what I look like -- rather than engage in a reasoned argument. But I'm done. My Bourbon's waiting and George clearly ain't gonna give an answer. He's probably too busy knitting a new Klan hood (yeah, I never even got to his shockingly racist statements on that videotaped interview with "the gang" -- that NO ONE even challenged then, or after the fact, when it was posted here. And, yeah, that tells me all I need to know about the majority of posters on this site. All I could think watching the group silently listen to George's horrific statements about the superior intellect of the white race was the words of MLK: "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." You should all be ashamed of yourselves).


Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Vera, I am gong to break my word and take the bait, i.e. respond to you. Firstly, sorry for insulting you. I should never have inserted myself into this drama/personality-clash in the first place, and apologies again if you weren't the one who initiated it. I mean that.

To bring this round to something more relevant: can you provide a link to the video where Mr. Stimson makes those comments? Was it on this site? Not doubting you, just haven't seen it. I'm getting the vibe you think some of the Mansonistas here are tacitly approving of his comments by not condemning them; I wasn't aware of them at all, but would be very interested in hearing what he actually said regarding race, etc.

Vera Dreiser said...

Go to the Stimson interview they posted here a couple weeks ago, part 1.
You'll see it.
Maybe Matt could provide you the transcript so you don't have to slog through the whole tedious thing. I think the race remarks came towards the end.
Still can't believe they were ALL fucking silent.

Vera Dreiser said...

And Max Frost, I appreciate the offer but I'm assuming that's not YOUR real name, so, how on earth would I ever know you're not Matt or George or someone else I'd rather not have my personal info.
Like I said, go to that Robin site, which I still can't get to, and see if I sound like her. I doubt I will, but that's just a hunch.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Thankyou Vera, I'll watch it later today when I have time and form my judgements on it then. I have just thoroughly read through every comment here (rather than skimming them)- and I actually think the questions you've raised are pertinent, they're interesting. That's all I'll say for now. Ta.

Max Frost said...

Vera, read my comments and see if there's any comparison to Matt or the Col.

If you email me I will satisfy your need to know for certain I'm not either of them before we continue...

chatsworth charlie said...

Vera, I can confirm Max is neither Matt nor George.
As a matter of fact.......he's nobody.

OO-EE-OO

equinox12314 said...

Vera,

You have to realise that some will be silent on matters because we are in a different time zone (Michael and I are in the UK, and there is another reader who I believe is in Holland). Therefore, we are either five or eight hours ahead of where ever others are in the US. I was fast asleep when the last dozen comments were posted. I seem to recall George Stimson's current views on race being discussed during the taped interview on this year's Tour.

Kevin Marx,

I wish you were able to remember the reference for Mary and Sandy making that comment, it would be helpful.

I have read (but like Kevin Marx cannot recall the exact place) Bobby Beausoleil saying that he knew who had done the murders as soon as he heard about it. But then again, in one of his magazine interviews he states he did not know. However, we all know that Bobby B changes his story more often than some people change their underwear!

equinox12314 said...

Col Scott,

I copied and pasted the link you posted for 'Robin's site'. I was in the middle of eating breakfast here in Scotland. Thanks. A. Lot. For. That.

LMFAO

Robert Hendrickson said...

You gotta give Vera some credit: She sure knows how to push dem buttons !

I'd like to see her and Sandy in the same room - alone together - with NO pigs around.
BUT maybe the Col gets to sneak in for his monolog.

equinox12314 said...

Vera,

Apologies. In my comment made today at 5.23 am (US time), I refer you to GS's comments on race in the taped interview. You had, of course, already referred to those in your comment on 29 May at 1140pm (US time).

Saturday morning here, and I am still recovering from Friday night!!

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

equinox - I thought that WAS breakfast in Scotland. Deep fried, naturally.

;p

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

I watched the video Vera suggested and Mr. S's comments about race appear around this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UdLRjK9f2Dw#t=1939

I have also made a partial transcript of this part of the conversation, placed below. My own thoughts will be in the next comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
GS: I don't think it would be a motive- it's not a motive at all, but it's in the thought and even today there's, let's say that there's a race war coming on, and that it's coming on. I mean, look at the news, every time you turn on the news now there's, uh, cops are killing blacks or it's worse- you'd think it's worse than ever now.

DUDE: Right, but let me... the race war thing, now many times you've seen Charlie, now, he's an ex-con. And I know the politics, I've been inside myself and I know the politics that go on there, maybe you can answer this. ... Um, I'm just kinda curious has he ever mentioned to you anything- I know he's been in prison for a long time, does he seem like a racist to you?

GS: A racist? Does he..? I don't think he likes or dislikes black people anymore than he likes or dislikes anyone else, he considers them to be different- by dictionary definition he would be a racist because he considers that the white mind is more evolved, is more creative than the black mind.

LADY: Do you think that's because he is a product of where he's from- Kentucky, and Ohio, and that area that is not, as...

GS: Well certainly he's a product of his times, but, uh-

DUDE: Does he sound more like a convict or like somebody from the South?

LADY: Yeah.

DUDE: There's a difference. He's a convict. But I also understand there's people from the South, and that's way different, so when he's talking, what is he sounding like, does he sound like a convict or does he just sound like someone from the South?

GS: That he just doesn't like black people is not true, because there are blacks in prison that he interacted with perfectly-

LADY: Right, but does he think that black people are in some way, in some ways, inferior?

GS: Yes. [Notable pause].

LADY: And is that from prison or is that-

GS: I'll say this. If you don't see a difference in the culture of Sweden and the Sudan, you know, look. I know it's something people don't wanna talk about, and it's not a judgement per se, at least from where I come from, but I think there's a difference. Culturally, however you wanna put it. It's not right to say that. I don't think there's anything a black person can't do- they're not too stupid to be President, I mean, could be anything. But, uh, I have to look at reality and the world and what I see. I was at the Young [?] museum looking at Dutch masters paintings from the 15th and 16th centuries and they were just amazingly, looked like photographs they were so well-done. And thinking about the culture of Africa, it's just different, it's not there. And if that makes ME a racist, then that's what it makes me. But I'm not one of these people that says the only difference between blacks and whites is the colour of their skin because I don't believe that. And maybe that makes me a racist, but I think anybody honestly looking at it-

DUDE: First of all this isn't actually about you, this is more about the mind of Charlie and can people grasp the concept of 'race war'. To me he honestly just sounds like every convict I ever came across- you don't like blacks, you don't like the Mexicans, and you need to stay with your own kind. And he is a con-vict. And he sounds to me at times like a convict, man.

orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Okay, first thing's first:

Super-fucking-apologetic for not knowing the names of two of the people in the video. I suck, which is why they're just referred to as 'Dude' and 'Lady'. I am really, really sorry about that- I know you are both regulars and I SHOULD know you, you were on the fucking Tour... guessing you might be Deb and Pete? But I wasn't 100% sure, because I am self-centered and know only my own beautiful face (and Matt's, he's gorgeous, plus it's his avatar..]). Again, really really sorry for spacing on your your names. Sorry!

Okay... this whole thing Mr. S brings up which has caused Vera to tearfully consider Dr. King and his tribulations, it comes in the middle of a conversation about whether Manson is an actual racist, whether 'Helter Skelter' or the Family's ideology is based on actual racist foundations, or whether he's just echoing what he's been taught in the prison system which raised him- stay with your own kind. It's actually a really interesting question (the Family's 'ideology' and its links to National Socialism are the most interesting aspect of this whole 'case' to me), and George digresses away from that to his personal views- which I don't mind, because those also are really interesting.

I'm also not sure what Vera was expecting- for everyone to leap up from the table, then grab George in a citizens'-arrest-style-headlock, while chanting: "We shall not stand silent in the face of your violence?" Or perhaps they could have linked arms and sang a moving rendition of "We shall overcome", with Matt afterwards performing a solo rendition of "Ebony and Ivory" in order to really drive home for George the gravity of peaceful race relations? St. Circumstance at least could have formed his empty beer cans into a sculpture of Nelson Mandela while someone else recited the Emancipation Proclamation.

As you can maybe tell- really don't think this is a big deal. The issue of Manson's views on race and their place in Family ideology is so much more an interesting and important thing to focus on than whether George thinks Dutch art is better than Sudanese art, surely?

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Also, Mr. Hendrickson's idea... putting those three in a room would either precipitate the Helter Skelter Apocalypse, or it would make GREAT reality TV. Kind of like a combination of Ultimate Fighting, Fox News political interviews, and a cockfight, rolled into one

orwhut said...

Kevin,
I think you'll find the comment you mentioned or something very similar in Robert's movie, MANSON.

Matt said...

And Vermouth, that was a controlled conversation. At least as much as it could be. Reason being, we were trying to stick to the subject for a blog post. Not easy to do with that many people but it turned out ok. Oh and thank you for the kind words. No offense but I'm going to pretend it was Judy Garland complimenting me. lol.

Vera, please don't pretend you only visit this blog occasionally. That's, well... bullshit. You read us multiple times daily. You are careful to mask your IP, but the patterns are unmistakeable (I.T. is how I pay my bills). You only 'comment' when something rubs you the wrong way and you do it in a manner that offends good peoples' sensibilities. Hence the reception you tend to get.

The two part video from last month's Tour was (once again) a controlled conversation. Hammering our guest about his beliefs wasn't part of the day's agenda. In retrospect I wish I had secretly videoed the conversation that took place that Sunday evening (on the last full day) at that same table. We had a free-flowing conversation with drinks, hors d'oeuvres and an interesting mix of people. The subject was TLB and it was off-the-charts good. A couple of people present were novices and I couldn't help noticing the wide-eyed interest they took in listening and absorbing. That's the way I like the blog to be, and many times it is. It's unfortunate that you choose to be a disruptive force rather than a contributor but that's life.


Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Matt, I could tell it was a controlled conversation, as you put it- as Dude (please tell me his name! it's bugging me) said, "This isn't about you, it's about the mind of Charlie," and he brought the conversation back to the topic of the Family & Charlie, not George's personal views, very quickly. It was basically an interview, not a conversation, but an interview about a TOPIC- Charlie, The Family, the murder motive- not an interview about The Mind of George (Mr. Stimson, if you wanna use that as the title for your next book, consider it a freebie from me). Which is why the idea of you all interrupting it to give George a scolding lecture for being "a racist" seems kind of funny to me, that wasn't the point and regardless of everyones' personal views on race (which, amongst the people present, I am willing to bet are diverse and complex) lecturing him on the merits of political correctness might have led him to go, "Fuck this mess" and leave. So yeah, I'm on board with you Matt (and I bet Judy Garland would be too).

And yes.. that is exactly how the blog is. That's how that VIDEO was. I am constantly amazed at the detail you all have absorbed over the years. I still get mixed up over who exactly was at the Tate house on the murder night, I am not even worthy of being novice-worthy on this. The blog is constantly eye-widening and that's exactly why I like it.

Matt said...

Dude = Stoner Van Houten

anon said...

Vera I hope you are reading this very much. I am so many in things in this world, but ashamed is not one of them. I don't care if you are Vera, Robin, or Deb Tate herself.It really doesn't matter to me who you or anyone else is at all. I have always put my real pic up there, and my name and location have never been secret either. It really doesn't matter to me- I live my life in a way that makes it very easy to close my eyes every night when I go to sleep.W#hen my dad passed away- that was the last time I ever worried about answering to anyone else. But I am going to answer you now.

I have spent almost 7 years now on these blogs defending the victims and their families. I have been chastised by my hero- Col- for defending Deb Tate. I have had to take breaks from the sites due to getting abused because I refuse to abandon H/S as, at least a possible, motive until I see more proof of something else- which I still haven't. I have not backed off from taking unpopular stances. My last post was a direct questioning of anyone ( inspired by George Stimson) who would want to befriend Manson after the crimes. I have written post after post arguing that none of the TLB killers should be paroled. I have been as hard on the "Family" in print as anyone I have ever read over the years. IF you are a friend of Deb Tate, or if you are Deb Tate- as much as you seem to read here - you should know all this.

Like yourself- I have an interest in this case. Like yourself- I know right from wrong. Like yourself- I think what happened to the victims was cruel and indescribable evil.

Now here is where we may part ways.

I want to understand how and why this had to happen. We both seem to be interested enough to keep reading and participating in these blogs. So I know you have the same interest I do.

I think that after 7 years of reading, listening, and watching- it was time for me to take the next step and get a little closer to the scenes and people. I have maxed out what I can learn doing it this way. I had the time and the means to go get a closer look, so I did. Now the best way for you to learn more might be to ask someone a loaded question intended to embarrass them. I felt that engaging in two way dialogue and giving him a chance to explain his side and perspective would be more informative for all of us. If I were to stand up call George out as a bad person who hangs out with lunatics- I Don't think the dialogue would have lasted very long, and am sure he would not wanted to continue to speak and then we learn nothing of his feelings and ideas.

And, if we don't want to do that- why are we watching and reading in the first place? why not just stick to the thought they are all out of their minds and just move on? I wanted to see for myself if there was more to it, and I think there might be. Besides I sort of already had my chance to voice my negative views in my post about this subject, so now it was his turn to give his side. That is fair two- way communication and that is how to learn what George and his friends really feel.

Then we can maybe learn something we don't already know??

Anyway, I think I am at the point personally where I have heard from many, many sides of this story. The remaining players who can offer something new, for me, are not going to do so if we are attacking them without a chance to speak their minds as well. So I personally decided to give some of my time to hear the other side in hopes some new - intimately involved- people will join in with some new interesting thoughts and perspectives. I am not looking to support, praise, or glorify anyone. Just to listen and try to understand.

I am not and will not be ashamed of that.

anon said...

By the way not sure why that came up anonymous lol I guess its cause I am at beach on someone else's computer

its me UR favorite Saint ;)

St Circumstance said...

lol my real name and real pic lol then I post it as anonymous...

This children is why you never smoke weed at 8 in the morning ;)

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

I take you went into the fish and chip shop at the bottom of Leith Walk which sells deep fried Mars Bars, Bounty Bars etc.

Seriously, eating out has improved here since your time of study. Some of our restaurants even have Michelin stars!!

Have a nice weekend.

Matt said...

I think from a personal standpoint this is worth mentioning: I did not know George Stimson before this year's Tour. I met him at Spahn when all the others did. I didn't expect to like him because his views on many things are contrary to my own. But y'no I was really surprised by how much I wound up liking him. He's a good guy and easy to get along with. His views are different but he conveys them in a well-spoken, non-confrontational and polite way - the way everyone should. We also agree on a wide range of non-TLB related things (you wind up talking about a lot more than TLB in the course of 5 days).

I don't agree with a lot of people on lots of ideas, but that doesn't stop me from liking them personally. Conversely, I agree with a lot of things other people say too, but can't bring myself to like them (clears throat)...


Vermouth Brilliantine said...

St., something you mentioned has always fascinated me too- who DOES want to befriend Manson (or the Family) AFTER the crimes? And I mean, people who actually form a friendship with him, a positive association, not just those who get 'close' to him so they can simply ask questions etc. We've met a few- George, the ATWA lady (fuck I am bad with names) who used to deal drugs or whatever, Star... and they've all been interesting characters.

They've all also seemed, to me at least, to be 'pissed off hippies'. They're all a product of the 60s counterculture or (in Star's case especially) its reverberations through history, and I think there is also (maybe less so in George? I dunno, he doesn't seem nasty or unpleasant as a PERSON to me regardless of his worldview, he seems kinda chill & nice) probably some psychological attraction to 'badness', shit society deems off-limits. Kinda the same reason some chicks REALLY dig bikies & ex-cons (like some of the Family girls went on to do..) or why some dipshits today are attracted to fascism/communism because of their status as Past Enemies and the whole tanks & uniforms & prisons aspect, rather than because of the principles fascists or communists actually believed they were fighting for in that period. Modern Manson groupies are hippies in terms of dress & style & culture but psychologically the whole 'peace & love' deal just isn't their bag, they're looking for something darker and Manson provides it. That is my perception, it could very well be wrong (you can't psychologically analyse someone through the Internet, for one thing), but to me it explains something about why Manson still gets positive interest from people decades later.

I think the Family themselves (and this is maybe me projecting my own interests onto it, it's certainly why I'm so interested in the Family and its modern hangers-on) are kind of like the 'right-turn' one little pocket of the revolutionary counterculture took in the 1960s. Most of the revolutionary counterculture got inspired by egalitarian & social-justice ideals (Weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers, Yippies... commies & maoists), yet the Family (if taken at face value) were inspired by & fighting for ideals which were the complete fucking opposite. So, to bring this back on-topic, that's also probably an attraction for some people... certainly why oddball Nazi figures like James Mason and the National Socialist Liberation Front looked on the Family as forerunners.

Personally I just think Manson was a hypercharismatic petty crook who managed to beguile and persuade a lot of lost and sad people into some pretty dark mental avenues. If born in another period or place he could have been a Rasputin (kinda was, actually). As Stoner points out in that video with George, Manson's views have more in common with prison-yard mentality than with Southern racism or National Socialism. Most of Manson's whole ideology (especially the 'deep-green' ATWA side of it) was developed after he was imprisoned, and presumably had a lot of time on his hands. Anyway I'm gonna stop there, I'm also high and writing reams of shit noone will read. Peace & Love, 4/20 ya'll. (or should that be 'Heil & Hate, 14/88, ya'll?' whatevs).

equinox12314 said...

Vermouth,

"...and writing reams of shit noone will read".

You are so wrong in that assumption. Both me and many others who read this site thoroughly enjoy your thoughtful contributions.

"...Personally I just think Manson was a hypercharismatic petty crook who managed to beguile and persuade a lot of lost and sad people into some pretty dark mental avenues."

I agree with that in its entirety. Manson had been locked up since the age of nine. All he has ever known is how to survive in the harsh environment that is the US penal system. I don't think for one minute that he is some sort of 'mystic guru' whose ramblings contain deep enigmatic messages. Neither do I believe that he gave a damn about any of the young people whose lives were touched by him. He used the lot of them for whatever he needed. The women were pimped out. Even now, I believe he is using Star to provide him with a link to the outside world through his social media pages. She also gathers money for his quarterly prison box which provides additional nutrition to the inadequate prison diet. I think he is lucky to have her.

Why would anyone want to be friendly with him? Perhaps they have an interest in real crime, and let's face it, he ended up as one of the 20th century's major players. Maybe it is 'fame by association'. After all, it must go down a treat at social gatherings when you mention that you visit Charlie in prison. He does come across in SOME interviews as being a personable individual that people might be comfortable talking to, although it has to be remembered that they are meeting him in a very controlled environment. If they met him on the outside, it could be a very different story!

I suspect he reserves any revelations for people like George or Schreck who are trusted confidantes.

At the end of the day, I could talk to Charlie, but there is nothing that could persuade me to be friendly with Tex, because he is the man who ultimately wielded the knife and fired the gun, thereby slaughtering seven people and ruining the lives of their families.

candy and nuts said...

Kevin, if memory serves me right, that quote of Sandra Good's was from the film MANSON, during a scene which shows Sandra Good with fresh cut X, and her voiceover saying ,'Mary and I were in jail the night of the murders, and we looked in the paper (presumably the next day) and Mary said 'Right on', and I said 'Wow, I guess we did it'. I haven't watched Manson in a while so this just from memory, you would have to check for sure.

candy and nuts said...

btw I just read on Cielo Blog Leslie Van Houtens taped confession with her attorney Marvin Part re: the murders VERY interesting

candy and nuts said...

read/listened I meant

CarolMR said...

Leslie talked about Helter Skelter a lot.

Kevin Marx said...

Thanks Orwhut and Candy - your memories are better than mine!

CarolMR said...

Last night, like Matt, I was "embarrested" for the makers of "Aquairious." It was that bad - especially when it's Charlie Manson started making-out (lip-lock) with the "politician."



I guess the writers of this show thought the real Manson and TLB were so boring and banal that they had to add a little something extra. Absurd.

Cindy Lee said...

Since we're skewing to LVH, I too read Cielodrive's posting of her tape to attorney Marvin Part. I think the thing that struck me most was, yes, she's talking a lot about her belief system in Charlie, HS, etc, but I refuse to give her an out because she also clearly understood right from wrong.

Cielo's site is down at the moment, but my recollection is that Van Houten states that while she felt no remorse for killing Mr. & Mrs. LaBianca, and that she'd do it again, she did feel bad for the children who had to come home and find their parents and that she felt bad for someone in the Tate family over their loss of Sharon. IMHO this proves she knew that what they did was wrong.

And when one clearly understands right from wrong I don't think you can then turn around and say you were a brainwashed, robot who killed under Manson's orders. She admits that she had choices to make and she chose to go along, she admits she wanted to go along and lend her hand to the cause. And while the "cause" may have been misguided, I don't think it's any different (aside from the savage killings) to the uprisings that happen daily when people fight for what they believe in.

While she may claim remorse now, she's exactly where she needs to be for the rest of her life for making a conscious choice in taking the lives of 2 people. You take a life, you pay for it with your own.

Cindy Lee said...

Btw, I didn't find Aquarius all that bad - at least they cast good actors. I'm up to ep 4. The actor playing Manson was playing it a little spooky in the pilot, but as the episodes go on I think he finds the character. It's certainly better than Jeremy Davies. They at least have made the effort to show that Manson didn't look like the crazed maniac that appeared on the cover of Life and why people initially viewed him as hip and cool.

"Atkins" was over the top in the oo-ee-oo, but for the most part, I find it the only watchable dramatization to date - or I should say, I didn't want to rip my eyeballs out :). I think the writer is using the politician in the conspiracy mode of the head of universal, the amount of famous people whose lives intertwined with Manson's, the "true" motive for the murders, etc. Since it's an NBC/Universal production he couldn't go there so he came up with an alt.

CarolMR said...

Cindy Lee, I understand what you are saying. But I still think it's misleading. And, this being Hollywood, of course the lawyer is a prominent Repub.

Vera Dreiser said...

The ever-evolving stories of Sandy Good, Manson's chief propagandist, as she and George Stimson, Manson's chief apologist, attempt to erase Sandy's culpability in the horrific acts of the Family in 1969:

Sandy today, via George:

"... She told me that she didn't even know that her friends had committed the murders until over a month after they happened."

George in response to a comment by another poster:
Commenter:
"Regarding the above, when was Sandy released from custody? I ask because it looked like there was indiscreet discussion of the murders out at Spahn, particularly from Susan Atkins. Even Charlie allegedly told Al Springer soon after that 'five pigs' were killed by them."
George:
"Maybe there was an indiscreet discussion of the murders at Spahn's, but Sandy wasn't a part of it. She didn't hear about them until after her son was born in September."

But what Sandy said in 1970 or '71, as dug up by Candy and Nuts (and Kevin), says it all.

candy and nuts:
"Kevin, if memory serves me right, that quote of Sandra Good's was from the film MANSON, during a scene which shows Sandra Good with fresh cut X, and her voiceover saying ,'Mary and I were in jail the night of the murders, and we looked in the paper (presumably the next day) and Mary said 'Right on', and I said 'Wow, I guess we did it'.

Look closely at the dissembling of white supremacist George Stimson in both his book and on this site and use your brains instead of your vapid desire to be close to a part of horrific American history, and understand who he and Sandy are, why they won't answer my question, and what they are really trying to do: acquit the man they have never stopped worshipping. And in acquitting him, they are acquitting themselves. Sandy Good, behind bars or not on August 8 and 9, 1969, was as integral a part to the "Helter Skelter" murders, as Manson himself. She knows it, and so does George.

PS: Michael H Nagle sums up the hypocrisy and idiocy of the Good/Stimson team's 21st century propaganda the best -- and strikes at the heart of their heartlessness -- in his brilliantly composed comment from above:

"George,
'She [Sandy] says that she was confused on the show and is not sure what point she was trying to get across. I think (purely speculation) that she was trying to make Patty Tate feel better.'
Having seen the interview, I believe her. And your speculation may be fairly close to the truth.
Of course, another way to make Patty Tate "feel better" might have been to unequivocally condemn the fact that she was stabbed to death in her own home, rather than attempting to justify the murder using global politics, or deflect from it by asserting that Hollywood exploits women's bodies, or by implying that any life, including Sharon's, was expendable if it meant getting another Family member out of prison for a vicious murder HE had committed.
There she is, a quarter of a century later, ranting with absolute conviction that killing seven people was kind of justified because they were only trying to fraudulently win the freedom of a friend who had viciously murdered a trusting, unarmed, tortured, terrified young man.
To make such a morally repugnant argument with such swivel-eyed, batshit-crazy conviction, with no shame, no embarrassment, while the sister of one of the victims sits a couple of meters from you.... wow..."

And George lay down with that woman every night, and perhaps still does.
All you need to know, kids, all you need to know.

Cindy Lee said...

Well, Vera, thank you very much for summing up everyone else's post and re-posting it in yours. Now. when you say you're not a troll, I want you to re-read your post because as opposed to the others' your comes off accusatory and full of self grandiose.

I wont repost your reposting of posts, but just take a look at your first sentence "as she and George Stimson, Manson's chief apologist, attempt to erase Sandy's culpability" and your last sentence "And George lay down with that woman every night, and perhaps still does.
All you need to know, kids, all you need to know."

A) I'm not a kid. B) it's not all I need to know. The reason for blogs is so that people can state their opinions. Everyone's entitled to one, even you. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you is that when someone comments or gives an opinion that you don't want to hear, you attack.

Whether you think it's the gospel of Christ or an out and out lie, George Stimpson is entitled to his opinion and his version of events as he remembers them without having someone like you, who has no insight (nor deserves to have any insight ) to his private conversations (or bedroom habits) with Good.

Give it a rest.

Vera Dreiser said...

Cindy Lee:
"The difference between you and everyone else here is that you is that when someone comments or gives an opinion that you don't want to hear, you attack."

No worries for you, dear, I simply ignore the ones that don't say anything.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Vera, if you think I had a point, of course I'm glad. But my point was not an attack on Mr Stimson. It may be that I disagree with 97% of what he claims and what he believes, but I will never see that as reason to rub anyone's face in the dirt or try to humiliate them, let alone make judgements on their private life.

I find the murders entirely without justification, morally despicable and evil, and I find the adult Ms Good's defense of the killings, and her evident lack of compassion or regret for what her Family had done, evidence of an utterly dogmatic, inflexible, pre-programmed automaton, high on her own spiritual 'insight'. I find it appalling and troubling, to say the least. No doubt Mr Stimson sees things another way.

But I feel that if I met Mr Stimson we could discuss things, debate them, disagree 100%, and part without personal acrimony. I think he's misguided, but one can be misguided about certain things without deserving to be treated like a dog or to have his personal life thrown in his face like a handful of shit. For what it's worth, as a newbie here who doesn't know as much of the minutiae as others, I read the reviews of Goodbye HS without actually knowing who he was or who he knows. Now that I know, do I think it makes any difference? No, we debate the case on its merits and judge it against the facts, just as you want us to debate your questions without demanding proof that you are not Robin Olsen. It works both ways. I think Matt summed it up very very well.

Vera Dreiser said...

I appreciate that Mr. Nagle, but unlike you, I have a difficult time leaving my feelings at the door when I'm dealing with people who, #1, are overtly racist, 2, profiting off the murders of innocent people who their spouse (married, commonlaw, whatever) were, if not responsible for killing, at least, knowledgeable of, after the fact -- and likely before -- and aided and abetted the killers in their flight from justice, and, further, then traumatized the survivors of the victims for decades to come by celebrating and justifying those deaths in media appearances.
That's offensive to me, as I mistakenly presumed it was to you, too, by your post. George Stimson's private life is of no concern to me. His public life, is another thing, and he joined that arena when he started making media appearances with Sandra Good decades ago. George Stimson, thus, is entirely complicit in Sandy Good's actions, not because he is her spouse, but because he willfully advances her agenda of hatred and lies by publishing and profiting off a book he knows is a crock (copycat to free Bobby? Drug dealing Hinman? Please!). He joined the game when he appeared on TV with Good the first time, wrote his book, and every time he posts another lie or obfuscation here -- and, in the case of not answering my questions about Sandy's state of mind at the time of the murders and after, lies by omission.
If this were the spouse of any of the others WHO HAVE NOT PROFITTED OFF THEIR LOVED ONES CRIMES -- from Watson's, Davis's or even Brenda and Gypsie's spouses -- I would not hold them accountable, because, yes, they have private rights as citizens. George is an entirely different arena, and he good and goddammed well knows it.
Yes, he may be civil and courteous on here, even with me, but what he's saying, what he's promoting -- and who he's championing and protecting -- makes him no less evil than them, courteous or not. This site, I'm guessing, is probably responsible for more of his book sales than anywhere else. You all have to live with that, not me. The bloods on your hands, not mine.


Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

You see Vera, where I have a problem is this: you make a case and set out your argument well enough for the first 90% of that comment, and I see your point and it's food for thought; but then you go and make a fool of yourself with those final three sentences: entirely uncalled for, almost certainly untrue, and an example of precisely the same ranting, irrational, moral self-certainty that I found creepily repellant in Sandra Good.

And as Matt has pointed out, if this site has blood on its hands (a laughable proposition), well, you're not exactly a stranger here yourself.

I do not leave my feelings at the door either, as you saw in my earlier comment. But I can engage strong feelings and moral revulsion without lashing out at every other user of this site, and without lapsing into absurd hyperbole.

equinox12314 said...

@Michael

"...For what it's worth, as a newbie here who doesn't know as much of the minutiae as others..."

Michael, You may be a newbie here, but your contributions so far have been excellent, and serve as a lesson in how to make a structured argument without having to resort to being personally abusive, as happens so often on internet blogs.

However, I should like to make the observation that George's book was reviewed on here back in 2014 by Matt, and this year reviewed again on a chapter by chapter basis over a period of three weeks by Patty. The book has received ample coverage from this site. I will balance this though by saying that Matt has allowed 'the Reader' to write a post rebutting the book chapter which deals with the legal aspects of the case.

This thread unfortunately went totally off topic. I would have liked to respond to 'the reader', but the law databases to which I subscribe only cover the UK and European jurisdictions, and therefore I would not have been able to check the cases to which 'the reader' refers.

candy and nuts said...

Vera thanks for reposting my post ,,,,um i just recalled the line from film...,i usually have rote memory of movie lines and scenes...like Natural Born Killers and Psycho,,,,glad you included me

orwhut said...

Candy,
I just saw the part of MANSON where Sandy talks about reading about the murders. Your memory is remarkable! While Sandy doesn't say how long after the murders she read about them, it sounds to me like she meant very soon after they took place.

candy and nuts said...

:)

candy and nuts said...

And vera

candy and nuts said...

Jimny lmao

Vera Dreiser said...

You're welcome, Candy and Nuts.

And Michael Nagle, so you're allowed your moral outrage about Sandy Good ("To make such a morally repugnant argument with such swivel-eyed, batshit-crazy conviction, with no shame, no embarrassment, while the sister of one of the victims sits a couple of meters from you.... wow...") but I'm not allowed to make mine about George, Sandy and this site's promotion of George's book?
Okay, well that sounds, uh, slightly hypocritical.
Right, "wow."

Matt said...

That makes 14 times you've dropped in on us today alone, Vera. Thank you for the support.

candy and nuts said...

Vera you mentioned you outted col scott pic years ago jimny jame r was also sending col pic around before it was confirmed here it was col ...what a coincidence andya jimny pic was col

candy and nuts said...

Vera just making an observation ...comparison

candy and nuts said...

14X ya that could be jimny since lulu wont talk to him what else he have to do?

Vera Dreiser said...

Doing the job you should be doing Matt. May come in twice as many times since the sheriff in this town is in bed with the crooks.

candy and nuts said...

And btw vera wtf is it your business who stimson lays down with its none of your business you demented pervert

Vera Dreiser said...

Candy, I didn't out the Col, he did it voluntarily on here, and yes, Matt, I paid attention back then, too.
And Candy, don't know who Jimmy James is. I thought I was Robin Olson.

candy and nuts said...

Vera i personally dont care who you are the internet is full of pseudonyms i dont have my real pic here because most people know me and have seen me and ive got nothing to hide

candy and nuts said...

Vera i personally dont care who you are the internet is full of pseudonyms i dont have my real pic here because most people know me and have seen me and ive got nothing to hide

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Vera, it's hard for me to type right now, I'm constantly trying to wash off all the blood that I have on my hands from doing exactly what you do - visiting this website, reading the posts, and joining discussions on these boards.

Strange, how it's okay for you to do that and retain your absolute moral superiority, while the rest of us who do it have blood on our hands. Sure, having read a largely critical review of Mr Stimson's book here, I feel almost personally complicit in a group of murders that took place two and a half years before I was born.

I come here to learn about an infamous crime, the culture that produced it, the culture that had to assimilate it, and the conflicting interpretations of the event, a crime that became as culturally significant as it was personally horrific and tragic for the victims. If I can do that without flinging absurd insults and moral denigrations against anyone I disagree with here, (which is pretty much how most of us operate, as you know) then why can't you? To put it bluntly, what is wrong with you?

I once read a book by pseudo-historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving. Why? Because I wanted to hear what he had to say, unfiltered. I found the accusations against him to be absolutely justified. He was clearly a pro-Hitler, Holocaust-denying individual, as videos of his speeches at neo-Nazi rallies later confirmed. But I wanted to know for myself, not simply take someone else's word for it. Do I also have the blood of six million Jews on my hands? And if not, why not?

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Candy, I don't have my real picture here because I don't want to scare people.

candy and nuts said...

You kinda cross the line about who stimson lays down with unless you get some vicarious thrill of it its kinda uncalled for just saying

candy and nuts said...

Micheal 99--percent of anyone in mansonworld knows im altra-wendy and has seen wrote or talked,,abused me we all who we are i doubt your pic is as bad as you think

candy and nuts said...

And insofar what sandra did or didnt know that woman put her ass on the line for her convictions no col her life isnt a.void every day she gardens and cares about mother earth

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Michael, I have to second what equinox said... I always like to read what you have to say (type?). You come across as very civil, intelligent, and level-headed. I also think this:

"I once read a book by pseudo-historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving. Why? Because I wanted to hear what he had to say, unfiltered. I found the accusations against him to be absolutely justified. He was clearly a pro-Hitler, Holocaust-denying individual, as videos of his speeches at neo-Nazi rallies later confirmed. But I wanted to know for myself, not simply take someone else's word for it. Do I also have the blood of six million Jews on my hands? And if not, why not?"

Is what we need more of (not just here on the blog, in the world in general). People being open-minded enough not to exist in an intellectual vacuum. Years ago I used to force myself to read editorial articles in a Murdoch newspaper by a columnist whose views i DESPISED chiefly because I wanted to challenge myself, to engage with content which went against my own way of thinking- in short, I wanted to see how HIS values made HIM see the world and reach the conclusions he did. I only stopped doing this (with that writer, anyway) because I stopped buying that newspaper regularly.

It is the same with George. He is kind of in the 'Manson camp', he's an apologist (of sorts) for the Family, he tries to rationalise what they did- he doesn't seem to try to 'justify' it (he clearly says in that video earlier, and probably in his book, the 'copycat' plan was fucking loopy and that Charlie is a very bad dude- but also a 'good' dude in some ways) but he is offering a countering opinion, a divergent, maybe even slightly sympathetic view. I can't figure out what Vera wants... she alternates between trying to get Mr. Stimson to spill the beans on THE REAL TRUTH - which Sandra whispers to him every night while they make love, I guess - and trying to silence him through accusations of racism or guilt by association.

George, if you're reading this, you seem like a really nice guy. When I watched the video I linked to earlier I grinned as soon as you started talking, said out loud: "Whoah, an old hippy!" You seem very intelligent and like a decent human, which it is possible to be even if you're in the 'Manson camp' (or whatever camp you're in). Don't let anyone silence you.

(And PS thanks for the compliments equinox, that was a nice thing to see when I woke up this morning :)

Terrapin said...

Maybe The PEOPLE involved in this whole Manson-saga are the ones in the way of getting to know the real motives. Some of the PEOPLE here are getting in the way of having a constructive conversation about said motives. I read the original post and was excited to see there was 160 comments! I was sure there must have been an interesting discussion going on! But instead, had to sift through 100 comments of pointless bickering. Manson was definitely right about one thing at least, EGO is a problem

candy and nuts said...

Terr and you just added more bullshit of what you bitched about

equinox12314 said...

OFF TOPIC: This is being posted on various Manson sites.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705130844/http://www.mansonfamilytoday.info/manson.htm

Matt said...

Yes, we're aware of it, Equinox. Too bad the archive is in such tatters.

equinox12314 said...

Matt,

Could you be more specific about what is missing or deficient? Just interested. I know you have said before that you hope the original could be made available, and I am sure many of us would second that.

You're the IT guy, so perhaps you are able to explain why the version that Katie over at LSB3 discovered is so patchy. I am not particularly IT literate, so I will take a guess that the Wayback machine captured an earlier copy?

PS Matt, I doubt when you posted the Reader's rebuttal, that you could foresee that you were launching World War 3 on here!!

St Circumstance said...

Interesting how Lulu has made people reconsider the H/S motive. It is interesting to note that George singled her out as one of the few who supported that motive. So George was aware that she was one obstacle to his theory he would have to overcome. As far as I know- he did his book before that LuLu interview came into our orbit.

LULU was the youngest involved with the murders and probably knew as little about what was really going on ans anyone involved, so I dont take her word as gospel.

But- between her, and Watkins and Jackobson- among others- as well as H/S being painted on a door at the ranch, and at the scene of one of the crimes, it is easy to see why Bug's picked that one if he did indeed "invent" a motive. ( I am still not 100% there yet)

I just haven't come across as much " hard" evidence or as much testimony from anyone else involved about any other motive to say clearly- that is why H/S can't be true, or why something else has to be true.

Maybe- lol oh lord they will come for me again :)

But just maybe- LULU was telling the truth, or the truth as she believed it?

In the second case- what would be the difference?

Matt said...

Equinox, There is still enough of that site on Wayback to make it worthwhile to peruse. Problems are that the images are gone, deeper links are broken, Wayback isn't easily indexed by search engines, and Wayback is notoriously slow and frustrating. Plus not everyone knows about it or is willing to keep clicking on bygone months to find what they want to review.

We had a lead recently on someone that may have Bret's site but it came up cold. We'll keep trying though.

Publishing these bios here solves some problems. They now will be easy to find. If you do searches, the Wayback doesn't come up, but in a few weeks this bio (here) will be visible again for people to find. You also have the opportunity to comment and discuss them here and the blog is fast and easy to navigate.

As far as the "lively discussion" over the last few days - it's fine. I pretty much expected it. George is a lightning rod (I’m sure he'd agree) so the haters were bound to surface from lurking. The good news is that we had over 12,000 visits so far this weekend. Lots of people have had the chance to learn. We are also in thae lightning rod category given that we're the only place you can find new material on this subject. I stopped reading the other sites (with the exception of Cielo) for that very reason. Nothing to learn. Glad to see that Katie still reads us every day, though.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt. I was fairly extreme in my reaction to the video of Good. I hope I'm not a hater? Actually, if I am, I can live with it. Hate is a good old human emotion. I'd rather be a hater than one of the perpetually offended.

Matt said...

Not at all, Michael! You are a terrific contributor.


Vermouth Brilliantine said...

For anyone confused about the video being discussed, I believe it's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B03fnXafIdE

St Circumstance said...

Michael- you are one of my favorite reads for what that is worth.

Cindy Lee said...

You know, Terrapin's post gave me one of my rare and lucid thoughts on this Sunday morning (Vera/Robin at least when I pull out the bottle of booze it's to have fun with friends instead of a weekday drowning out of your apparent miserable life)...Oops, Vered off course already, back to my thought: Terrapin's "Ego" reference.

In Vera-Robin Olson's 4:02 post there's a lot of "talk" about writing a book, book sales, profiting on the crimes. "Profited" is even in all caps (who doesn't love a screamer?).

To Terrapin's "ego" I'd like to add the word jealous. Vera/Robin are you a frustrated writer? Have you written a book on this case? A common denominator in your posts over the years seem to be that you attack anyone who's been able to accomplish publication and I think that jealousy is what causes you to lash out .

It would seem you accuse anyone who writes a book on the subject or appears on a news program, as an individual profiting off these crimes and yet you absolve Debra Tate who wrote (I use the term loosely because she didn't really write anything in it) a beautiful coffee table book. Victim family member or not she profited off of said book. What would you do Robin if someone offered you a book deal to write about these crimes?

And back to the subject of you being a troll, here's a great saying that describes you to a T: A person hates & attacks others for 1 of 3 reasons. 1) They want to be them 2) They hate themselves. 3) They see the other person as a threat.

equinox12314 said...

Matt,

Thanks for the technical explanation. I don't contribute or belong to the other sites, but I will, on a weekly basis, check them out to see if there's anything new. As you say, this site is the only one that consistently comes up with new material. The strength of this site is that you create your own opportunities like, for example, the annual tours where you allow the rest of us to read about your adventures (and very graciously invite any interested party to go along). Also, you approach authors and other media figures to come here and participate in discussions with the readers. The site is further strengthened by the excellent research skills of DebS.

I look forward to reading the other Manson Family bios on here, as and when they are posted up. You are right that by making them available on here, others are able to discuss them.






Scraper Pro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scraper Pro said...

Vermouth: Thanks for the you-tube Berry link. SG+GS = lunacy

Mr. Humphrat said...

Could someone help me: I wanted to see what Stoner Van Houten looked like back on the Bertice Berry show, but I can't find that part now. I can find parts 1 through 5. Thanks!

Panamint Patty said...

Humphrat, sorry to disappoint you but SVH was never on Bertuce Berry. Lol

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Thanks Matt. You know what I'm waiting for? Your mega-post detailing the case against the HS motive as YOU see it.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

St C, that's kind, and let me say, despite the fact that I frequently find myself in total agreement with what you write, I nevertheless enjoy your contributions very much. Sometimes you speak my mind better than I do, it's like I'm obsolete!

St Circumstance said...

:)

Matt said...

Been working on that one for years, Michael. Probably won't be done for at least a few more. You might have to stick around a bit.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt I get it: we'll just have to buy the paperback when it's published, like everyone else. Damn!

CarolMR said...

"But- between her, and Watkins and Jackobson- among others- as well as H/S being painted on a door at the ranch, and at the scene of one of the crimes, it is easy to see why Bug's picked that one if he did indeed "invent" a motive. ( I am still not 100% there yet)"

Saint, sorry for such a stupid question, but do you mean that you are not 100% sure that Bugliosi invented HS as a motive or that you are not 100% sure that HS is a motive? Thanks.

Suze said...

Michael, now Vera will think you are a little girl!

Robert Hendrickson said...

"I remember Mary and I were in jail....." Sandra Good 1970

Someone "remembers" what was said in the MANSON ?

I'm impressed, must be a really far-out flick. Can't wait until the mini-series comes out - so I can make copies of it.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Suze, I'm sure Vera thinks far worse things of me already, but I hope it doesn't confuse her. It's weird how literally I read the avatar images too. If you feed the brain a name and a face, what else can the brain do with the info but link them? Col Scott IS a retired military mustache, you are a sex goddess, (and I'm sure you really are) and whenever Cielo posts a comment she IS Sharon's face, even though she may not be a she for all I know. I don't know whether it's a symptom of being obsessed with visual images (as part of my day-job) or a slight autism thing, but the face I see IS in my head the person I'm reading.

Genetically the little girl on my avatar is 50% me. She gets the moody pout from me, at any rate. :)

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

I hear it's a pretty good movie, Robert, I must have a hunt around for a pirate copy, I'd love to see it...

Matt said...

Cute kid, Michael. Enjoy her to the fullest, they grow up way, way too fast :(

For the record, Cielo is a dude.


St Circumstance said...

Hi Carol. I am not 100 per cent sure he just made it up or created it as a motive as some suggest. I am still willing to believe it was not the real motive. I still feel it was probably not the actual reason for the crimes. But until I see more real hard evidence to sway me that some other motive was actually more reasonable. I am not 100 per cent it wasn't the actual motive either at least as far as Bugs sincerely believed based on what he found during his personal investigation.

But I learned on tour what I know is very far down the totem pole lol so- you should 100 per cent not listen too much to me :)

equinox12314 said...

St Circumstance,

How do you feel about the view that's been put forward numerous times that the five murderers were there for different reasons. Let's say Pat and Leslie for Helter Skelter, Tex and Linda for the copycat motive. And I am damned if I know what Atkins was there for. I doubt if she knew herself!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Ah! Thanks Patty I just realized Vermouth had been referring to the video made by you all recently when he referred to "dude" and then Matt said "dude = stoner van houton"

St Circumstance said...

I don't believe they went for 5 different reasons. Equinox - you as we'll have been a great addition to this conversation.

St Circumstance said...

To clarify for you:

maybe multiple reasons for them collectively

But I do not think they had multiple reasons individually

based on that I have read and seen to date....

St Circumstance said...

For that to be the case- you would have to prove multiple connections between killers and victims, and right now, it seems hard enough to prove there were any of real substance...

No?

CarolMR said...

Saint, thanks for your reply.

St Circumstance said...

Carol- any time :)

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

The way I see it, the murders were clearly committed in a deranged effort to spark an all-out war between the believers in the Helter Skelter motive, and those who think Bugliosi invented it. Manson believed that the Skelterers had been in charge long enough, and would be defeated by the Bug-killers, but the Bug-Killers would not know how to rule unaided, until a group of enlightened trolls led by Vera Dreiser and Robin Olsen emerged from under a rock to tell everyone they were doing it all wrong and show them how it should be done.

Kevin Marx said...

Has there ever been a poll on the site regarding motive? I know for most people it would be subject to change - but you could maybe run a new poll every time there is a decent new book released to update it. Would be interested to see what % of people believe each of the motives.

Matt said...

Kevin, that's not a bad idea. Thank you...

equinox12314 said...


@Michael '... until a group of enlightened trolls led by Vera Dreiser and Robin Olsen emerged from under a rock to tell everyone they were doing it all wrong and show them how it should be done.'

Michael, LMAO. You have to give Vera some credit for making this the liveliest thread in a long time!!

P.S. The beautiful little girl in your avatar must realise by now that her Dad is a complete nutter.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»