Thursday, June 11, 2015

Poll Results

Well, the votes were still steadily coming in but the percentages weren't changing much so I ended the poll Wednesday morning.

I'm not sure what surprises me more, the fact that Helter Skelter got as many votes as it did or that my pet theory got 76 votes (I thought I'd be the only one!).

Thank you everyone for participating. It was a real eye-opener!







89 comments:

Mr. Humphrat said...

Looks like Patty voted about 2400 times LOL! Way to go Patty

CrisPOA said...

Matt i'm curious now. Can you elaborate a little on the motive that Polanski was the target?
In my opinion, the drug burn motive is based on rumors, since this kind of information never - and will never be - released to the public. But i guess the poll tells us that these rumors do make sense.

AustinAnn74 said...

Unbelievable. . . .

Panamint Patty said...

Lol

Panamint Patty said...

That's a lot of votes...dang! Patty is glad to see HS only has 18%. Its coming down fast.

Matt said...

Cris, that motive theory is way too elaborate to explain in the comments section. I'll get it out there one day in the not too distant future.

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St Circumstance said...

Strike that comment lol. This is interesting indeed.

St Circumstance said...

By the way if you to take volunteers to write up arguments for each motive and then poll who made the best argument- I will take the task of making the case for HS lol. But I'm not saying I believe it!!!! But I can make a case for it and someone has to do it. Lol

Robert Hendrickson said...

Great VOTING post !

I would just like to mention: Most of the mistrust or "hatred" directed at Bugliosi should actually be saved for the "establishment" government who employed HIM to distort or actually LIE regarding the HS "motive."

The same would apply to the "KILLER" cops through-out America. They were hired BECAUSE of their qualifications - NOT dispite of them.

AND in turn - WE the PEOPLE - who put "criminals minds" in places of power are the only ones to justifiably blame for the primative condition we have to live in.

Thus the REAL quetion might be: Are WE satisfied to exist in a mental drought OR has "democracy" finally become out-dated / obsolete ?

Matt said...

Saint, that is a terrific idea. Any volunteers for the other motives?

St Circumstance said...

:)

Robert Hendrickson said...

Helter Skelter is based upon Charles Manson being the BAD guy.

Any first year law student could have BEAT the Prosecution on that alone by simply putting it ALL upon the "REAL" Killer TEX Watson. Watson could have even been called as a hostal WITNESS at the first trial.

It could have been THREE against ONE and Charlie would have WALKED. BUT Manson would NOT turn on his TEX. WHY ? And how come the defemdant's Attorneys did NOT pursue this perfect defense ?

AND how did Bugliosi KNOW they would NOT "Plan B" TEX ?

Mr. Humphrat said...

I got blisters on my fingers from voting too many times : (

mrgroove said...

Does anyone else think "other" should have been a choice as well?

grimtraveller said...

mrgroove said...

"Does anyone else think 'other' should have been a choice as well?"


Well, I think "combination of 2 or more motives" might have altered the final result somewhat.

MrPoirot said...

From this poll we can safely derive that Charlie was convicted only because Bugliosi let the air out the ball.

mrgroove said...

I agree Grim.

equinox12314 said...


Matt,

Like ChrisPOA, I would be interested to know (given your amazing knowledge of this case) why you believe Polanski was the target.

Do you mean that he wasn't the direct target i.e. it must have been widely known that he was overseas filming. Rather, it was a way of getting the ultimate revenge on him by murdering his beautiful wife and unborn child?

Are you linking these murders to child porn?


Matt said...

Yes equinox, I am theoretically making that linkage. It's a theory that's been clanking around in my skull for three years. When I do explain (and I don't know when I will do that) I'll need to be careful because those are serious allegations.


Matt said...

But, 75 other people out of 7614 who answered the poll have thought that one through at least a little bit. I find that mind-blowing.

St Circumstance said...

How about Roman was away on purpose and had something to do with it. I wouldn't put anything past that Bastard personally. If he wasn't complicit he was certainly the least caring husband on earth.

St Circumstance said...

Unless anyone else who would let there very pregnant wife get on a boat alone and go stay with people they would later say they knew were a danger to her

St Circumstance said...

Anyone else knows someone who would...

Sorry :)

Matt said...

Exactly, Saint!

william marshall said...

Matt just wondering if the Polanski theory involves that nonsense about the murders being connected to Rosemary's Baby ?

Panamint Patty said...

Oh dear Patty hopes not William. :)

St Circumstance said...

Hey Patty! I hope you are peachy keen ;)

william marshall said...

Yeah Miss Party figured you'd know of what I spoke that ridiculous & really pretty dam sick internet theory of the crimes I've discussed this with Matt via email awhile back

william marshall said...

Miss Patty sorry smart phone not so much

Panamint Patty said...

Lol
Patty believes the whole country was in a satanic panic by the early seventies. Look at Ed Saunders book, full of satanic speculation. It was very faddish Patty feels. Satanic motive has not stood the test of time IPHO

MrPoirot said...

We are in an era now where Satanic and Wiccan beliefs are being mainstreamed. Look at the fotos around Manson Tunnel on any of the rocks around Spahn Ranch. They are littered with Wiccan and Satanic graffiti. Schreck is a former Satanist. Sadie knew Anton Lavay. The Manson girls saw themselves as Witches. Everybody knows who Yana was. Charlie says he is both the Devil and Jesus. Even the term "Satanic Panic" is a carefully crafted propaganda terminology designed to put a smiley face on antisocial behavior.
Look at the new trends in media. Antisocial behavior is the new normal. Wiccan and Satanism are not on the way out rather they are on the way in riding the same parade float as Islam. LGT and $5000 deductibles on your insurance.

william marshall said...

Patty have you ever read Maury Terry 's book The Ultimate Evil ? Talk about Satanic Panic although I must say his investigation in the Son of Sam case was fantastic in my opinion pretty well proves Berkowitz was not the lone killer

Terrapin said...

man 7 and a half thousand people regularly read this blog? The readers should comment more

equinox12314 said...



I just started listening to Nikolas Shreck's interview from the past weekend over at Brian Davis' podcast. He was talking about the new edition of his book, and there is still no definite publication date in sight, although he says it should be soon. It sounds like most of the updates will be about Charlie's music. Although, there are revisions being done about the Process Church. He says there is 'new information' coming in all the time!!! There may well be, but it doesn't mean any of it is true. I wonder if he will take on board the 'debunking' that has been done by the dedicated research team on this blog.

ziggyosterberg said...

I have a theory that the family was branching out into the lucrative clock radio selling business.



Too soon?

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Wicca and Satanism may get a touch more respect now (because we have to show token respect to ALL faiths nowadays..) but they're not really mainstream, are they? Most people I know think Wicca is a joke and would actively avoid anyone claiming to be a Satanist, theistic or not. There are a lot of causes & side-effects of the West's numerous failures & decline in the last few decades but 'Satanism!' isn't really a notable example of either imo. Atheism is a much more widespread result of this than the mainstreaming of devil-worship.

I actually more and more find myself agreeing with ziggyosterberg. This is an angle we've never seen before, I think we should take the poll again with the 'clock radio theft' option thrown in.

orwhut said...

Ziggyosterberg is a genius!

Robert Hendrickson said...

Just thinking: The LAW / Bugliosi say: YOU don't need ANY "motive" to convict MANSON for the murders."

But "HELTER SKELTER" was the whole STORY of the Tate / LaBianca MURDER Case. Mr. Bugiosi's famous book is even titled "HELTER SKELTER."

THUS - it's simply a "no-brainer." Eliminate the "motive" HS and there is NO case against MANSON.

So how in the 21st Centrury can any "JUSTICE" system convict a human being of murder without requiring some kind of explanation as WHY the murder was committed. In other words how do you show INTENT without a showing of the "motive."

Well, just turn to the sacred mountain in Malaysia story, unfolding right now. A bunch of Western hikers trecked to the top - shed their clothes - which apparently upset the Gods - to the extent - the Gods made an Earthquake a week later. The Hikers are now GUILTY of causing the EARTHQUAKE.

MOTIVE ? We don't NEED no stinking MOTIVE ! We got JUSTICE.

Panamint Patty said...

Nope William never read it

equinox12314 said...



Mr H

"...THUS - it's simply a "no-brainer." Eliminate the "motive" HS and there is NO case against MANSON."

Not quite, because Bugliosi did say that he believed there was more than one motive. So, if you eliminate HS, you are still left with other motives in which Charlie may have been complicit. For example, the copycat murders motive would have helped Bobby B if he managed to get sprung from jail. But if the underlying reason was so that BB didn't implicate Manson in the Crowe and Hinman killings, AND if could be proven that CM was complicit in devising the copycat murder plan, then CM still would not get off the hook. Conspiracy to murder.

william marshall said...

Patty send Matt an email if you"d like to borrow my well worn paper back copy I'd give it to you if I knew I could find another copy easily & cheaper it was fairly $$ because it was bought in local antique book store here in Atlantic city same place that wanted $200 for Shrecks book

Panamint Patty said...

You're such a sweetheart william

william marshall said...

That's debatable Patty but appreciated all the same my copy of Orange Sunshine sits in my glass case along with my Manson books thanks to you peaking my interest into the Bel

leary7 said...

You know what strikes me as stupendously ironic is that this post lists six possible motives for TLB but the one I believe in most isn't even listed ...but is present on the computer screen an inch above the post. Indulge me, please, me a moment to try and explain...

Manson was many things to many people but one thing he undeniably was isn't discussed very much...Manson was a classic nihilist. Manson specifically taught his followers that nothing mattered, that life and death were the same, that all their previous beliefs were programmed and meaningless.
You know why Charlie asked to stay in jail? Because jail is where nihilists are most comfortable. Beliefs are meaningless in jail. Jail is all about rules, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, you follow the rules or you're screwed. Charlie was uncomfortable out in the world where behavior is dictated more by a "belief-based" system than by an arbitrary rules system. Nihilists are simply more comfortable in jail where they are not confronted by a smorgersboard of belief-based behavior that they regard as manufactured and false.

What action was the precursor to TLB? No, not the Crowe shooting. It was all the "creepy crawls" the Family did. And what was the purpose of the creepy crawls? Was it robbery? Was it training? No, it was just to mindfuck. Charlie loved the idea of people waking up and discovering that one of their primary sacred beliefs - that they were safe in their homes - was horseshit.

TLB happened for many reasons - I have long called it a 'clusterfuck of idiocy and psychosis". But I do believe that one of the primary forces behind TLB was Manson's nihilism and ego-driven desire to show the 'Piggy world" that all their beliefs were manufactured crapola. Killings didn't have to have a motive or reason...you could kill just because you felt like it. Life and death were the same. No sense makes sense. (yes, an inch above the post).
Nearly twenty years after the killings Squeaky did an interview were she still maintained that the TLB killings were okay because the "people who did the killings believed it was the right thing to do, so it was the right thing to do".
Charlie Manson, the nihilist, was simply able to convert a dozen or so drug-adled idiots to his brand of nihilism where, since life and death were the same, killing or murdering was simply something to be done, like sneezing or blowing your nose, and done all the time. No big deal.

See, most people argue that TLB "failed" because it did not result in the HS version of the Black Man arising. But if Manson's "intent" for TLB was just to mindfuck and prove to piggy society that one of their most sacred beliefs - that they were safe in their homes - was completely false - then TLB was, in truth, a colossal success.

No sense makes sense.
The killings made no sense.
That was the point.
No sense. No motive. Just killing. And the resulting mindfuck of trying to prove motive and assign reason to an action that was in fact random and meaningless. Or, more accurately, an action designed to prove meaninglessness.
What if TLB was simply Charlie telling the world that "none of your shit matters. You all fall dead when I say so. Me, Mr. Nothing, says all fall dead."
Makes no sense to a belief-based world. Makes perfect sense to a nihilist.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Now you're THINKING "EQ"

IF the "Copycat" motive was used (and Mr. "B" could have chosen that) most all of the Family could have been CHARGED, but Charles Manson would NOT have been a "mastermind" behind the Black and White Race War - the Final Conflict - the Battle of Armageddon - and maybe WE wouldn't have even heard of the word MUSLIM yet.

Hense, NO Helter Skelter, NO media event trial and NO Best Selling Book. In turn NO TV movie and most tragic NOOOOO "MANSON" Oscar Nominated Movie for ME. The History Channel would likely have gone bamkrupt and the Mi Lai Massacre would have taken over the World News and America's once great reputation would have turned to shit in the eyes of the world.

So maybe Bugliosi, by creating a NEW and improved DEVIL of sorts, actually saved America from a huge disgrace.

NOT bad for an Italian kid - who a hundred or so years ago would have been relegated to living "outside" of an all WHITE town in the Old West - just lke the Chinnese.

Thanks for the thoughtful letter William. Any questions ? Just address them to me here.

PS: You'll NEVER hear any legal discussions on the Crime of the Century, like on this blog, in any College LAW Class. Guess WHY ?

equinox12314 said...


"...and most tragic NOOOOO "MANSON" Oscar Nominated Movie for ME."

Mr H,

I laughed out loud when I read that!!

Yes, these murder sprees played out around the world, and you do have a point that it diverted media coverage from the Vietnam War - sort of burying bad news.

I read that Stephen Kay credited Bugliosi with recognizing that this case was special when the rest of the DA's office had initially thought it was something more ordinary.

william marshall said...

Mr Hendrickson glad the thank you letter arrived I couldn't thank you enough for the wonderful gift package I'm planning on having the movie poster YOU so graciously signed framed & since it appears I have the Cancer on the run I can finally join the tour next April & hopefully have the pleasure of meeting in person
Leary Happy belated birthday my friend

leary7 said...

muchos gracias William. always a pleasure to read your stuff.

I have to wonder how Mr Hendrickson's world would be effected if Charlie were ever to come out and say that TLB had no motive, that the killings were done just to prove that they could be done, killing for the sake of killing. No motive...no Viet Nam, no media manipulation, no mafia involvement, no drug burn, no race riot, no copycat...just Charlie being fed up and pissed off at the world and curious to see how far his personally trained zombies would go.
TLB with NO MOTIVE is rarely, if ever, discussed. Vince needed a motive to convince the jury. But did Charlie really need a reason to order and orchestrate murder? Obviously, many folk or observers of TLB need a motive to make sense of it all. But as I've been saying for years, trying to assign logic and purpose to the mind of psychotic, nihilistic sociopath is like trying to play golf on Antarctica.
Charlie didn't need no freakin motive...his hatred was strong enough.

equinox12314 said...


Leary 7,

It's always interesting to read a completely different perspective on these crimes such as you have offered here.

However, for Charlie not to need a motive, why did he order the murders (assuming that he did) at that particular point rather than any other time? And why those two locations? They don't seem to be random given that Charlie had been to Cielo and Waverley Drive before. On the two previous occasions when CM entered the crime scene i.e. Crowe and Hinman, there was a reason for him being there. Then, when he was later directly involved in Shea's murder, that was due to Shorty being perceived as a snitch.

Also, with regard to the creepy crawls, yes, maybe they were solely for the purpose of disorienting the house owners, but remember that the Family were also carrying out burglaries. Perhaps it was giving the Family practice at committing break-ins without getting caught.

I do, however, concede that you are correct in describing Manson as a nihilist and sociopath. Also, you are spot on in stating that Manson identifies with the rules system in prison rather than the belief system of society at large. That is very evident in his media interviews.

Well done for presenting a different viewpoint.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Leary7: Your last post is surely worthy of careful thought. I myself have wondered, was it just a "reflection" of all the "establishment's" crimes against the little people ?

BUT you got ME on "Mr. Hendrickson's world." It really made me think: "What is my world." ?

Maybe it's in the ABYSS between Heaven and Hell, between the underworld and and the other world. I'm super liberal, but very capitalistic, I see the corrupt and incompetance of the "establishment," BUT I fully understand that IF we didn't hire criminals to protect us, THEY would harn us.

BUT above ALL else, I understand that the preservation of America (as corrupt as it is) is the MOST important element to the very preservation of individual FREEDOM through-out the world.

Without America there is NO Freedom !

Just the other day, in England, Parliament resumed in session and there in all her glory was the "QUEEN." with even HER crown of Jewals placed upon HER ragged head. Without America, without question, the whole WORLD would fall back into that prehistoric Hell of being ruled by Kings, Queens, Princes and other egomanics.

MY world ? - maybe YOU can describe it better ? I would welcome anyone's opinion.

equinox12314 said...


Robert Hendrickson,

You said: "... Without America, without question, the whole WORLD would fall back into that prehistoric Hell of being ruled by Kings, Queens, Princes and other egomanics."

As a constitutional monarch, the Queen does not 'rule' the country, but fulfils important ceremonial and formal roles with respect to Government. Now, compare that with Middle Eastern countries where they have absolute monarchs e.g. Saudi Arabia. What the Middle East also has in abundance is oil, and America without question is very dependent on oil. So, I am sure they would rather do business with despotic monarchic regimes than a revolutionary successor.

You refer to America's role in the preservation of individual freedom throughout the world. I would mention that in 2012 the European Union which is made up of 28 countries won the Nobel Peace Prize, and of 2014 the EU has the largest economy in the world. The political, military and economic clout of the EU surely has a major influence on preservation of individual freedoms. We have well developed legislation in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

I don't want to take this thread away from its purpose, which was the discussion of the results of the TLB motive poll, but I felt there were issues in your response to Leary7 which should be addressed.


grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...


"Just the other day, in England, Parliament resumed in session and there in all her glory was the "QUEEN." with even HER crown of Jewals placed upon HER ragged head. Without America, without question, the whole WORLD would fall back into that prehistoric Hell of being ruled by Kings, Queens, Princes and other egomaniacs"


Britain hasn't been ruled by a monarchy for hundreds of years. There is all the pomp and ceremony before & after elections and before each year when parliament reconvenes but it really has no bearing on the way the country is run. It's run by parliament, essentially by the government.
Ironically, there are and have been for decades, countries that are ruled in the way you describe. Dictators and corrupt Presidents that exist in parts of Africa and the Arab world for example.
But Britain hasn't been one of them.
The Queen didn't even get to vote in Matt's poll !



Terrapin said...

Love your theory on the motive leary7.... "a clusterfuck of idiocy and psychosis".

I've always thought the effects of regular acid use and certain elements of the time (social issues/culture in the 60s ) were what turned it from idea to reality

Six Miles From Cielo said...

Also add a heavy base coat of low self esteem for all the family members.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

grimtraveller - Her Majesty is an ardent adherent of the drugs burn motive theory, and she also confided in me that she thinks Leslie alone has paid her dues and should be parolled.

And of course you are right. But so - in a more fundamental way - is Mr Hendrickson. I am British, but if individual human liberty is at issue in a life-or-death way, America is the only beacon holder, for all its bugs and glitches. Britain may be a constitutional democracy, but the sanctity of the individual free human citizen is not hardwired into our psyche the way it is (or used to be) in the American identity. I'm not sure Americans would even put up with the ratio of humans to CCTV cameras we tolerate in our society. The great scholar of early American democracy, De Tocqueville, stated that the ideal American government was one that gradually habituated the people to do without a government. Look at the size of the UK's health and welfare sectors (America be warned!) and tell me we are anything but infants in diapers sitting on teat of our fat, pathetic nanny state.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

equinox - the Nobel Peace Prize? The Al Gore / Yasser Arafat / Barack Obama Award? You're taking THAT worthless devalued, dirtied Euro-bauble as some objective definition of genuine worth? God help us...

The EU is a fundamentally undemocratic and dictatorial body. There may be no war in Europe between major nation states right now, but that's not the same as peace. And if the price of peace is the centralisation of more and more power in the hands of the legislation-drafting, unelected European Commission, then I'd be more than happy to see Scotland go its own way, sadly.

The EU - a federal superpower in disguise, where some countries get to vote on whether to accept new EU powers while others do not, and if a nation votes NO then a few commas and clauses are subtly amended and the nation is made to vote again. And on, until the EU gets the result it wants. It stinks.

equinox12314 said...


Six Miles From Cielo

"Also add a heavy base coat of low self esteem for all the family members."



Yes, it was like the glue that kept them all stuck together.

Robert Hendrickson said...

EQ.Don't worry about the "thread." WE are apparently the only ones without a date tonight and stuck on this blog. Besides Leary raised the bar so high with HIS "theory" that HE is entitled to push the "direction" any damn way HE pleases.

It was the image of the "crown" that grabed me. It looked soooo yesterday and guess what ? America has enough oil to last IT a hundred years. We just choose to use-up the Middle East oil before ours.

Unfortunately, or otherwise, IF America was to drop out of the race, China would be the NEW leader. Of course, IF it was to be determined who is the boss - by a WAR - there would be NOT much left of anything

That's all I meant. that that was MY kind of world.

PS: I really respect YOUR comments - sometimes even more than MINE.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I don't want to Hog the Blog, BUT last night I saw an old movie called "The Seventh Sign" with Demmi Moore. It was about the "Book of Revelations" and was very entertaining to see such a demonic / biblical story come to light.

So what ever happened to the "MOTIVE" where "Little Paul" proclaims that Charlie" was acting -out a SIGN from "Revelations." He even said the famous Beatles were part of the "Relevalations" story. WOW, John, Paul and Dingo get to be real Warriors, just like little Prince Harry and William.

Cause that not only makes a good story, BUT a great movie ! AND the Europeon ticket sales would be killer also.

equinox12314 said...



Mr H,

"...WOW, John, Paul and Dingo get to be real Warriors, just like little Prince Harry and William."

Dingo?!? I can't stop laughing at that. Coming from you, I am not sure whether it's a typo or deliberate.

Matt said...

So that's what happened to those Manson Family babies!!! The Dingo ate them!


equinox12314 said...



Hi Mr H,

I too particulary enjoy Leary7’s posts.

Yes, the State Opening of Parliament does look like something out of a Ruritanian kingdom. There have been proposals in recent years to modernise the ceremony. However, I think that it is that antiquated form which attracts overseas tourists, and tourism is a significant contributor to the UK economy. It is seen as being quintessentially British, but the truth of the matter is that it bears no resemblance to the reality of British society today.

Regarding oil, obviously the US has to safeguard its interests in those countries in which it has invested a lot of capital. Even here in tiny little Scotland, the CIA has a presence due to the US’ North Sea oil interest and other business investments.

It will be interesting to see how the dynamic between the US and China unfolds in the twenty-first century. We don’t know as yet if they will fully develop cooperation across a broad range of issues such as trade and investment to military security and human rights. It could be argued that there are gains for both countries from cooperative economic relations, but there is a counterargument that military and security issues will temper any possible cooperation. For example, the future of disputed areas of territory, like Taiwan, where state preferences on each side can be seen to be opposed.

grimtraveller said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

"I am British"


Yeah, me too. One of the few that would actually call themselves a Black Englishman.
And despite what Charlie thinks, I think I'm damn creative of mind !


Robert Hendrickson said...



"It was the image of the 'crown' that grabbed me. It looked soooo yesterday "


I hate all that pomp. I hate what it represents. Fortunately, it no longer matters. The press here were funny though, complaining that it's not right that a woman of 80+ should be wearing crowns and robes that weigh in excess of 17 lbs !




Robert Hendrickson said...
"Of course, IF it was to be determined who is the boss - by a WAR - there would be NOT much left of anything"


Too true ! Mutually assured destruction was fine as long as all sides concerned didn't want to die. But it seems inevitable that sooner or later, someone who doesn't mind dying is going set into motion a chain of events that no one is going to be left to blog about......
I say 'seems' because I don't really believe that's going to happen.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Civilisations decline very slowly, for long periods of time. But when they finally die, they die almost overnight.

It only ever 'seems' inevitable, until it actually happens.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt, your Meryl Streep is awesome.

equinox12314 said...


@Michael,

Michael, the Nobel Peace Prize retains its value purely on the basis that there has never been one awarded to any member of the Kardashian family :) (although it may only be a matter of time)

Regarding the EU, there has not been a war between its original six founding members in sixty years, and for that we should be grateful.

Yes, you are right to question the legitimacy of the European Commission with neither Commission Members nor President being directly elected through the ballot box. It is problematic that its vote of approval is drawn from the European Parliament which itself has a relatively low turnout in its elections. Also, there is the question of the European Commission under Barroso taking a more presidential style of control due to its increasing size with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, and regrettably, an increasing role for the commission's civil servant apparatus. There are another six countries who have expressed an interest in joining, so we may end up at a point where we have bureaucrats ruling the Commission at the expense of the Commissioners.

On the subject of the EU referendum resulting in Scotland being taken out of the EU, the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was supposed to be a “once in a generation” ballot, not held every time a constitutional issue arises which disjoints the nose of the Scottish Government.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

equinox - a pithy and optimistic final sentence that brought a wry smile to my face, good work.

I have - through not owning a television and not reading newspapers - managed to isolate myself almost entirely from the saga of the Kardashians. Am I right in assuming they are one of the clans fighting over the magic ring in Game of Thrones?

The only Kardashian with whom I am familiar is the creep who stood by his friend OJ Simpson after he had slashed Nicole's throat. Is he related to the Daenerys Kardashians of Mordor?

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

"Dionysus wandered the world actively spreading his cult. He was accompanied by the Maenads, wild women, flush with wine, shoulders draped with a fawn skin, carrying rods tipped with pine cones. While other gods had temples to be worshipped at, the followers of Dionysus worshipped him in the woods. There, they might go into a state of ecstasy and madness, ripping apart and eating raw any animal they might come upon."

equinox12314 said...


Michael,

The Kardashians may indeed have sprung from the darkest depths of Mordor. If you are being serious (??? not quite sure how firmly your tongue is in your cheek) about not owning a tv or reading newspapers, yes that is Robert Kardashian, friend and defence attorney to OJ. His talentless over publicised ex-wife and her offspring have made themselves mega-wealthy on the back of a 'reality' programme.

"...There, they might go into a state of ecstasy and madness..."

Apparently, that is the effect if you look at Kim Kardashian's generously proportioned backside for too long.:)

My next comment on the subject of Scotland's relationship with the EU is that if proportional representation had been in place, the SNP would only have won 25 seats in the UK parliament.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Indeed, an anomaly to be sure - that UKIP garnered almost as many votes as the Lib Dems and SNP combined, and yet end up with a single MP while those two parties get more than 60.

I'm serious - I don't own a television or read newspapers. Everything I need to know about the world is right here.

Matt said...

Michael, I hear you. I barely watch TV and I haven't read a newspaper in decades. No point in either one.

equinox12314 said...



Matt,

I too no longer buy a newspaper and very rarely watch TV. However, I do keep going over to the UK's MailOnline site throughout the day. I know it is cheap tabloid 'journalism', but I find it strangely addictive. They are, however, obsessed with the bloody Kardashians.

grimtraveller said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

"Indeed, an anomaly to be sure - that UKIP garnered almost as many votes as the Lib Dems and SNP combined, and yet end up with a single MP while those two parties get more than 60"


It looks that way when you take into account individual votes but in reality, that's not how the game is played. British elections are not about individuals' votes as such. In fact, the elections are often about more than one thing ~ a bit like the motive for the murders ! In the election, some people are voting for the party. Some people are voting for a Prime Minister. And others still are voting for an MP. And any combination of those. Or all three. Or to stop a particular party getting in in your area. Or because they feel they should vote. It could even be seen as Leary7's "Clusterfuck of idiocy & psychosis." {The way we sometimes vote, that is}.
The thing with UKIP is that their vote was really spread out across the country and therefore diluted so they only had enough votes to win a seat in one area ~ and he was already the sitting MP and had been the MP before he defected to UKIP. That the people of Clacton voted him in for two different parties in three different electoral circumstances over 5 years tells you he is well regarded as a good MP by those people. They dug him when he was with the Tories, they dig him now that he's with UKIP.
Whereas the SNP's voters were much more concentrated in specific areas north of the border. So there, individual votes really carried collective weight. It really isn't about how many individual votes you get, it's about how the concentration of votes is maximized for you. That's partly why in elections you get these mind boggling swings from left to right or vice versa.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

grim - yes, I do understand that. But it's a curious system that in a democracy that many voters are essentially unrepresented (ideologically, if not geographically) in the Parliament. 4 million is a lot of people.

Matt - strange how we survive without the media. The world still turns and I still wake up each morning.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Hey guys, love your political comments, BUT I personnally believe that WE of the world got off on the wrong foot. IE: The "Soup Nazi" (a personal friend of our Family) should be the Supreme "ruler" and Jerry Seinfeld should be his "press secretary."

To be able to hear Jerry make jokes EVERYDAY about EVERYTHING would be music to everyone's ears..

George should be "Secretary of State" Cause WHY NOT ? Obviously, "Krammer" would be the # 1 choise for Vice Ruler, just in case anyone didn't like soup.

AND Elaine, well, to see HER and the "Queen" play bingo to see who gets to wear the "crown" would make life worth living.

WAR, there would be NO more, cause "Newman" would be in charge of delivering the secret weapon "every can and reuseable bottle" to the capital of any want-a-be aggressor NATION.

Please Jerry - before Hillary and Jeb make HELL a # 1 vacation destination.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Robert - close but no cigar. Never mind Seinfeld - what about Curb? My personal dream ticket would be Larry David and Jeff. Suzy could be a great Sec of State.

leary7 said...

good points, Equinox. For me personally I've always felt the timing of TLB was simply due to Charlie returning after time away with Stephanie and finding that Bobby had been arrested as well as Mary and Sandy and there being money problems with no means to make the move out to Barker that Charlie wanted and combine those with the paranoia of the Crowe fallout and other issues with bikers etc., the shit was just raining down on Charlie and he felt it was time to lash out and teach the society he hated a lesson.
As to the choice of Cielo and Waverly I am partial to the simple explanation that Charlie was familiar with both. The bigger question for me has always been why Charlie chose NOT to go along on the first night. And of course did he visit Cielo in the early morning hours after the killings.
It has always struck me as such a strange vignette the image of Charlie driving back to Spahn by himself after dropping of his first group of killers at Waverly and then the second group at the beach. Think about it for a second, he drops of his followers with instructions to kill and tells em then to take the bus home. I mean your odds of getting caught are so much higher with no getaway vehicle. The idiocy of it blows the mind.

Mr H., I would not have the gumption to presume to know your world. I only admit to being fascinated by it. If I had the choice of spending the day with any one of five Americans you would be on my list for sure.

Lynyrd and I have discussed the issue of why Charlie has, for 45 years, really refused to accept any responsibility for TLB. Lynyrd thinks the reason is simple embarrassment. I agree but use different terminology, I say Manson was "mortified by its ineffectiveness (i.e., no Black uprising), But lately I have been leaning more and more to it being just a simple product of Charlie's belief system. As I have said, Charlie is a total nihilist so his reasoning is just on a different level than most of us schooled in the 'belief-based' system. Charlie has few if any beliefs. He is, however, after a lifetime of existing behind bars, extremely accepting of the 'rules-based' system of prison. ONe of the biggest rules in prison life is that you "OWN YOUR OWN ACTIOINS". You don't blame your cellmate or the system...when you fuck up you own it. BUT you own only your own actions, not anyone elses. So in Charlie's mind it doesn't matter whatever influence he might have had in initiating TLB, since he didn't actively participate he simply does not have to accept any responsibility for TLB. Charlie honestly and truly believes that what happened on Cielo and Waverly is all on the heads of those that were there and did the deeds. The rest of us, of course, have been schooled in the notion that the driver of a getaway car in a robbery is as guilty of murder as his accomplice who enters the store and shoots the clerk. That is what we believe. But Charlie clearly believes the opposite - that the shooter alone is responsible.
I recall seeing Manson being asked in several interviews if he feels any responsibility for TLB and him saying no. But is there any interview where he is asked specifically if he feels any responsibility for Shorty's death. Of course, in the prison world, killing a suspected snitch is acceptable so here again Charlie would argue that he did no wrong.
Manson just lives in a different world than most of us. His constructs of reality are completely different. And his belief system is totally different. I honestly don't think that can be emphasized enough.

Matt said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_x2YTJ6Q

R K said...

I really enjoyed reading leary 7's comments here (and the other comments as well) and I completely support 7's arguments. I agree 100% on why Manson picked the locations for the murders. He knew these places. Why did he order the murders? Because he could? He felt satisfaction from his complete domination over his followers. Things were falling apart on his home front and he wanted to confirm his status at the top of heap. Perhaps this was a big test for Tex; after leaving the group for a short time, maybe Manson needed to know he could trust Tex to do his bidding. Manson leaving the murder party with no means of transportation after Waverly is a little baffling. Perhaps he hoped the group would get caught and he wanted to rid himself of the followers who troubled him the most. Or maybe he just wanted to be done with the entire "Family", once and for all, and start again? Or perhaps it was all about finally getting his name noticed by the world.

Manson wanted fame and he got it. His music didn't do it for him, but the Family "performed" well enough to get him his name marked in history alongside Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy and Jim Jones.

I guess folks will argue about "the why" until a generation comes along who has no memory and knowledge of the case.

grimtraveller said...

leary7 said...

"I've always felt the timing of TLB was simply due to Charlie returning after time away with Stephanie and finding that Bobby had been arrested as well as Mary and Sandy and there being money problems with no means to make the move out to Barker that Charlie wanted and combine those with the paranoia of the Crowe fallout, the shit was just raining down on Charlie and he felt it was time to lash out and teach the society he hated a lesson"



Added to which, when he was in San Diego with Steph, he outlined HS to her sis so it was in his mind the day before. He was pretty pissed about something to have hit Steph. Also he doesn't deny {or rather, says he may very well have said} saying "now is the time for HS." He could've meant that it was time for the pigs to start getting their damn good whacking and time to show Blackie how to do it or to give him the benefit of the doubt, he could've meant it was time to bring about the general confusion and throw the cops off the Bobby scent. I agree with you, the timing was the result of the pressure cooker of the events of the ensuing 5 weeks.


leary7 said...

"As to the choice of Cielo and Waverly I am partial to the simple explanation that Charlie was familiar with both"


Which he admitted to in a roundabout way. When I first read HS, I kept on anticipating, after LK says "You're not going to do that house are you ?" {meaning the True house} that somewhere further in the book it would turn out that while on one of his visits to the True house, there had been some kind of skirmish with his neighbours who were either the LaBiancas or whoever lived there at the time.
But it never happens !
There are some interesting associations in CM's past with his '69 present. For example, the idea of cops' heads on poles, I think, comes from this incident with this guy his Mum skanked, who was wanted for killing his wife, having cut off her head and put it on a pole. So the associations in his mind of Cielo & Waverly aren't hard to see.

grimtraveller said...


leary7 said...

"The bigger question for me has always been why Charlie chose NOT to go along on the first night"


I think he partly wanted to see if Tex would do it, how far Pat would go and whether or not Sadie was as tough as she claims he kept telling her in private.
He has some interesting ideas on being in the military and obeying orders.



leary7 said...

"It has always struck me as such a strange vignette the image of Charlie driving back to Spahn by himself after dropping of his first group of killers at Waverly and then the second group at the beach. Think about it for a second, he drops off his followers with instructions to kill and tells em then to take the bus home. I mean your odds of getting caught are so much higher with no getaway vehicle. The idiocy of it blows the mind"


I'm not so sure it was necessarily idiocy. Hitch~hiking was pretty much a standard way of getting about. That's one of the ways they all travelled and indeed a number of them met that way in the first place. Besides which, both groups did get home that way that day. There may not have been any reason to worry about getting caught while hitching a ride as it was something young people did all the time. It was in the aftermath of their arrests that the hitch hike culture suffered a major blow as young longhairs were seen as "kill crazy cultists."

leary7 said...

"The rest of us, of course, have been schooled in the notion that the driver of a getaway car in a robbery is as guilty of murder as his accomplice who enters the store and shoots the clerk. That is what we believe. But Charlie clearly believes the opposite - that the shooter alone is responsible....
Manson just lives in a different world than most of us. His constructs of reality are completely different. And his belief system is totally different. I honestly don't think that can be emphasized enough"


For me, this is paradoxical because when it suits him to be part of an alternate reality, he is. And when it suits him to fit in with society's thought, he does. This is partly why I find him so believable in certain things and deceitful to the max in others.
Mind you, arguably, most of us are or have been, at some point, similar.
Mixing prison consciousness with acid radicalism with rebel environmentalism with, frankly, little experience of the outside world, was a bold experiment, but ultimately a disastrous one.

ziggyosterberg said...


@Leary7 - It's mind boggling how many lapses in judgement Charlie made on the second night.

Going along for one. (Bye bye alibi)

Trying to kill a man at a stop light in front of who knows how many witnesses, which, by the way, if true, how does that fit into Helter Skelter or Free A Brother? Were they planning on taking him back to his house and stabbing him a bunch of times post-mortem and then writing something in blood on his walls? And does Charlie look like a black man at night?

Picking a "random" house, which, in an odd coincidence, got his name put on the list of suspects in the second LaBianca homicide report, due to the daughter of one of the victims dating a member of the Straight Satans.

Going into the house with Tex.

Having Tex use one of his thongs to tie up one of the victims.

Trusting Linda Kasabian not to fuck up her assignment of planting Rosemary's wallet in a restroom where it would hopefully be found and her credit cards used ; Linda puts it under the lid of a toilet tank. (WTF?)

As you said, not providing transportation away from the crime scene. According to his book, Tex and the girls walked around in circles for hours in a Loz Feliz neighborhood that they were totally unfamiliar with, all while Tex was still carrying his bloody clothes and bayonet (which he finally chucked in a reservoir) before they finally settled under a tree in a vacant lot to wait for dawn. Tex still had his bloody clothes at that point. When the sky started to lighten, they started walking and Tex found a cardboard box to dispose of his clothes in, after which they saw a man picking up his morning newspaper and asked him for directions to the Golden State Freeway.

Those are just a few that I can think of.

ziggyosterberg said...

@Michael Hloušek-Nagle

How about a Curb Your Enthusiasm style remake of Helter Skelter with Larry David as Bugliosi, Richard Lewis as Manson, Super Dave as Tex, Leon Black as Lotsapoppa, Jeff as Irving Kanarek, and Jeff's wife as all of the Manson women?

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Why would Leon be Lottsapoppa? Now, ziggy, personally I see Kanarek played by Marty Funkhauser. Though when I think about it, Larry himself is more of a Kanarek than anyone else on the show :)

equinox12314 said...


Ziggyosterberg,

"...Trying to kill a man at a stop light in front of who knows how many witnesses..."

I think all the driving around that night supposedly looking for victims was a load of nonsense. Charlie knew all along who he was looking for i.e. the LaBiancas. He wouldn't want the rest of the crew to know that. They took his word for it that when he looked in a house window that there was a photo of children and he wouldn't want them killed. They had just slaughtered an eight and a half month fetus.

ziggyosterberg said...


@Michael Hloušek-Nagle - Good point about the Larry & Kanarek comparison. I've never come across a person who seems to object to everything as much as Larry does. Kanarek would be a natural for him to play.

I hope Curb comes back for another season. It's the funniest show on tv, in my opinion.


@equinox12314 - I agree. I think that Charlie was fucking with them.

You know the incident where they stopped at a church and Charlie was going to kill a priest? In "Manson In His Own Words", Charlie (or Nuel Emmons) says that he went to the side of the church, took a piss, waited a few minutes and came back and said that no one answered the bell. lol

Kevin Marx said...

Its interesting that the drug burn motive came out on top - as compared to the other ‘big’ 3 motives its probably the one with the least amount of testimony, witness statements etc to support it.

Maybe it’s because in theory (looking at the case from a very high level) it’s the most mundane and least fantastic motive - therefore the most likely.

Or perhaps it comes down to dollars - the fact that it is the only ‘Profit’ motive where the other 3 are in different ways ‘Passion’ motives.

Filtering the noise and distilling the logic - the killers were essentially a gang of criminals, who used, bought and sold drugs.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

"Filtering the noise and distilling the logic - the killers were essentially a gang of criminals, who used, bought and sold drugs"


Filtering the noise and distilling the logic - the killers were essentially a gang of criminals, who showed they were prepared to kill, had beliefs that most would find bizarre and appeared to have a lot of love for each other.
Notably, none were to last.