Thursday, July 16, 2015

Abounding Misery


"Murderers are not monsters they're men. and that's the most frightening thing about them"
                          - Alice Sebold, The Lovely Bones

" Charles is a man of peace and character, who shines brightly in a dark place. His identity has shifted from that of a murderer to a child of God. He no longer allows the crime to identify who he is. He sees himself as God sees him- a new creation of Christ"

                          - Manson's right Hand Man Speaks Out- PDF on Watson's website


Ya know, Someone once told me "A Church is a Hospital for sinners, not a Museum for Saints." 

Hmmm...

Today, I take a look at "Abounding Ministries" The website of Tex Watson. Watson Founded Abounding Ministries in 1980, and then along came aboundinglove.org in 1997. His site features his "Monthly Views", letters from readers, links to various religious works, and free PDF versions of his books. It talks about his family and youth as well as his childhood and early years, and of course his life with- and since- his times with Manson and the family. It claims to have received "Millions" of hits. As I have read all of it in its entirety over the years, I thought I could summarize it for those of you who dont have the time or stomach. For the purposes of this post, I went back to look it over recently, and it appears to have been given a touch up. If I could digress for one honest moment- the coolest thing about this site, in reality, is reading the Fake "Gratitude" letter he received from Stoner Van Houten. ( True story- I am not going to give out Stoner's real name without his permission- but trust me its there) Reading that was the one and only time I actually smiled in all the hours I have spent on Tex's site. It is not exactly what I call entertaining, or fun reading for the most part. But, this site did give me some insight into Tex's life in Texas and California outside of and around the crimes, and to me that stuff was sort of interesting. I know it is very hard to take anything he says at face value for the most part, but it seems to me that with the passing of time, and the gradual realization of the inevitability of his predicament, Tex has started to be more honest about his involvement and participation over the years. I do not believe a word any of them said 40 years ago when they were still young, and thinking there might be some way out eventually. I am starting to believe some of them now that they are older, more mature, and have had plenty of time to clear out their heads. So call me crazy, but I believe some of what Leslie and Pat say at their most recent parole hearings. And as well, I believe some of what Tex says in the various documents on this website. Having said that- let's take a look:

I awake around 5 a.m.. to read, meditate and pray. I eat breakfast and work as the bio-hazard janitor in the facility where I live. The prison serves two hot meals daily, plus issues a sack lunch at breakfast, but I eat mostly food from the prison canteen and from quarterly food packages. I have been a vegetarian since I was 23 years old. There is a track around a grassy yard available for walking or running and exercise. Some inmates play baseball, basketball, volleyball, soccer or horse shoes, but I don't. I walk the track sharing my Christian faith, relating to many men. I'm often seen listening to Christian music and Bible teachers on the radio as I walk the yard. Prison visits are allowed on Saturday and Sunday. Bible studies, services and other functions are held in the prison chapel, where we have a vibrant body of believers in Christ. I also spend time listening to the Lord and writing the content for this web site.

If you are interested in this type of day to day minutiae regarding the current life of Tex Watson- I guess this would be a very interesting site for you. Obviously, this is going to be a website controlled by a person who has put quite a bit of thought and effort into painting himself in the most flattering light. There is much about  religion and what it has done for him, and many tales of how he is passing that on to others. He mixes in enough Manson stuff to keep the readers engaged, as he probably understands where his "millions of hits" are coming from. However, for the most part he goes to great lengths to use this website to try and sell the new Tex Watson and convince us that how he identifies himself these days- is the reality of who he really has become. Now, I know some of you are aware about his life inside. His marriage, kids and the times he basically ran the prison chapel with Bruce Davis. Doris Tate, God bless her soul, took the fight to them, and fought hard for real changes in the system- and won! And of course, Tex doesn't spend a whole lot of time on that. But this post is about his web-site, so I will leave the true story of Tex's life behind bars for another time.

Anyway. I guess I should tackle this in some kind of coherent order. I will try to make some sense where there is no sense so to speak. Let me start with the books.

" Will You Die for Me" is basically the autobiography of Tex Watson. It was written as told to Chaplain Ray Hoesktra. Chaplain Ray was a well known man in the prison system. Famous for converting the worst of people over from the dark side. This book covers Tex's childhood, college years, and his first trips to California, Then it goes through his entire experience with the family, up to and including, his trial and incarceration. He spends two chapters on the two August nights of the murders, and does not go easy on himself or try to downplay his own participation. Tex does actually won it. He posts a review of this book on his website I actually agreed with:

"A riveting story not only because it is a first-person account of the Manson murders by one of its murderers, but because no punches have been pulled..."

Here is a couple of examples of Tex taking some personal responsibility, and pulling no punches in "Will You Die for Me":

They began pleading with us for their lives, and suddenly Frykowski started kicking and fighting,jerking at the towel that bound his hands. “Kill him!” I ordered Sadie, but he dragged her down as she flailed at him awkwardly with the knife, stabbing him in the legs several times. Then she had lost the knife in the cushions and Frykowski was loose, tearing her hair and pulling her down onto the floor. I would have shot him, but he and Sadie kept rolling and fighting, so I finally threw myself on him and beat him over the head with the butt of the gun until it broke, a section of the grip dropping to the floor. He was enormously powerful, fighting for his life as he dragged the two of us across the hall toward the front door, knocking over the trunks. As we staggered out onto the front porch, he kept screaming, “Help me. Oh God, help me!” I stabbed him over and over, blindly, the whole world spinning and turning as red as the blood that was smearing and spattering everywhere. Finally I shot him twice and he slumped onto the stone porch. I looked up and realized Linda was standing on the walk, staring at me in horror. She must have been there when we first came out, as well, since I could suddenly remember her screaming to Sadie, “Make it stop!” and Sadie shrieking back that it was too late.

 Finally I stood up and went back inside with Katie. Sadie was sitting next to Sharon on the couch as the pathetic blond woman sobbed, begging us to take her with us and let her have her baby before we killed her. It was the first time I'd realized she was pregnant, and for a moment it almost seemed like a good idea. But then Katie hissed, “Kill her!” and Charlie's tape whirred, “Kill her!” inside my head and I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek. Later, Prosecutor Bugliosi, because of some things Susan-Sadie bragged about in jail in one of her attempts to get attention, was convinced that it was she who killed Sharon Tate, but his suspicion was not true. It was my hand that struck out, over and over, until the cries of “Mother . . . mother . . .” stopped. Suddenly it seemed very quiet. It was over.

I apologize for the graphic descriptions he gives for those with a weak stomach, but they do illustrate my point. Tex doesn't go easy on himself or say anything which is self serving about his participation. I know they have all changed their stories a million times, but as I said earlier, as they age and their heads clear up- they seem to becoming more and more honest about what really happened- if not why. Although this book did give a fair and unbiased look at the actual crimes- of course, it also made a few attempts to humanize Tex and I didn't buy any of that bullshit at all. Here is one example of Tex trying to look like he is not "A Total Monster":

I have no doubt that things would have continued just as Charlie planned-for another night, for three more nights, ten, however long — if later that Sunday afternoon my mother had not called Willis Carson in Los Angeles and asked him to get in touch with me because she hadn't had a word from her son in six months. That call, and Willis's to the ranch that followed, set up my lie about the F.B.I. having come to my parents' home in Copeville, accusing me of murder. And that lie stopped the killing and sent us all to the desert where, nearly two months later, I refused to murder again for Manson and headed home to Copeville, with its peeling white wood and railroad, home to the store and the gas pumps and the kitchen — back to the world I thought I'd blasted out of my mind forever.

So here Tex is basically telling us that although he was the major force in the TLB killings, he was also the hero who saved the day for many other innocent folks. This book, much like the rest of the website is full of these types of contradictions. Tex seems to want us to believe that he is willing to admit that he was totally responsible for the crimes, but that he is also deep down a very compassionate guy with a big heart. He cant seem to process that those two just cant go together. He appears to be trying to be honest and credible enough to get us to feel we can now believe in him when he says he is harmless and changed. Sigh.... Anyway, This book did contain some semi- interesting stories about his youth and his early times in California. He did paint a pretty good picture of late 60's Los Angeles,  which is a big interest of mine. And for a time, it seems, Tex was living a life I have dreamed about quite often....

From listening to the music you sometimes got the impression that there was nobody in California over thirty. The first thing Richard showed me was Sunset Strip and I began to think the songs were right. The rows of discotheques and clubs and psychedelic shops were packed with young people, and they looked different from any people I'd ever seen before. The men wore beards and long hair and beads; the girls danced along with nipples outlined beneath their thin blouses. People played flutes on the corner and walked barefoot on the concrete. A girl brushed by me murmuring, “Grass? Acid? Speed?” Rich took me into the famous Whiskey a Go-Go, and as the rock blared I stared at the dancers, couples moving to the beat in the most unabashedly sexual movements I'd ever seen in public. It was a long way from Texas and if freedom was what I'd been looking for, I was certain this was it.

So, there are one or two interesting tidbits in this book if you take enough time to sift through the nonsense. His retelling of the crimes, and the detail he goes into, made me every uneasy. He does talk about Crowe and Gary, but not Shorty. He explains how and why he came and went into, and in and out of, the family. It was also interesting for me to realize that, in total, Tex was only in the picture for 9 months total. Also, it was interesting to learn  how after meeting Charlie at Dennis Wilson's house, he had to start out his time with the family sleeping in a tent with Dean away from the others until he "earned" his way in to staying with Charlie and the others. The last parts of the book talk about his times in jail. He starts with the arrest in Texas and covers all of his pretrial and post trial time in various mental institutions and clinks. He speaks about the efforts that both of his " Families" made to communicate with him, and of the all the health, and emotional issues he had to deal with. ( Poor Tex huh?) It ends with him getting very excited in the final chapters, because he gets to speak about his discovery of the lord. This is where I get off...

The other book on his site is called "Manson's Right Hand Man Speaks Out". This is basically a book of 200 questions and Answers. It only lists Tex as the Author, so I assume he is posing these questions to himself? He never really says where they come from. This is what it does say:

An interview for everyone, covering 10 intriguing subjects chapter by chapter. For the historian, you’ll find factual information. Parents will receive counsel for raising successful children. Students will be assisted with their research.Teenagers will find answers. And for those searching, they’ll find the Truth and see at last how to stop the pain! this book of 200+ Questions and Answers unveils fresh, new insights into the 1969 Manson madness. 


After the murders in 1969, Watson turned from Manson and returned to his family as a prodigal son. He has used his many years in prison productively. The interview you are about to read is one project with which he felt it necessary to be involved. Never attempting to shift blame from himself, he hopes to share new insights into the Manson madness, and to share positive solutions to problems in society, including victim mentality, the death penalty, prison reform and forgiveness. He prays that many will learn and be touched by these efforts.


 So, in this book- we get lots and lots of questions answered, but both the questions and answers are edited by the person who is trying to benefit from the excersize of going through them? I am confused. Well that makes about as much sense as anything else in this case I guess. But, let's not be pessimistic. Lets just take a look a few of the highlights. We can just take new, reformed Tex at his word and put some of these questions to bed forever right?

 Q: Is Bugliosi's book, Helter Skelter fairly accurate?
A: Yeah, 85%, for what it covers, especially on Manson's philosophy, since he interviewed so many people close to Manson

See- told you so lol Here is one more and then I am done with H/S- I promise!

Q: Did Manson believe this Helter Skelter Philosophy, or was he just into controlling people?
A: Yeah, he believed it, but we also let him control us. Remember, I ran from Manson on December 1, 1968, the day  we listened to the White Album together. That day he began to formulate part of his philosophy from the Beatles, because to him their music confirmed his black-white revolution theory. For the next three months, while I was away, he persuaded the hard-core family members with this madness. So much so, that when I was drawn back to the family at the end of February, all they could talk about was Helter Skelter coming down fast. To them, I was ignorant and blind and had a lot of catching up to do. I didn't know what they were talking about. My head was spinning from all this new insight
  
He seems to demonstrate a somewhat grudging  respect for Bug's for the most part when he speaks about him. But, moving on from the motive thing, here were a few that were interesting to me:


 Q: Do you think there's something innately wrong with someone who could commit such a horrible crime?
 A: I believe there is something innately wrong with all of us by nature of being born. As a Christian, I believe sin passed  upon all mankind through Adam and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden. This is why we need to be born- again. We all have a heart problem that causes us to trust in ourselves instead of God. But I understand your question. I think you are asking if some of us are born naturally as murderers and some not. I'd say no, we don't inherit it from our parents; it's acquired as we grow up, through the circumstances of our lives and the choices we make.

Isn't that last question both strong and yet weird sounding if he is posing this to himself ? Here are a couple of other old rumors Tex can clear up lol :
  
 Q: Did Manson ever teach the beliefs of Friedrich Nietzsche and Adolf Hitler?
 A:Strange as it may seem, I never heard Manson mention Nietzsche or Hitler. Again, I was away from the family for three months when Charlie laid out his take on Helter Skelter. I've heard that magazines were found in a bus we left in the desert, all having articles on Hitler and even Rommel and his Desert Corps. I faintly remember those magazines. Family members who were close to Manson during the months I was gone, knew his views on Hitler all too well. I did hear about that.

 Q: How about the beliefs of Scientology and The Process Church?
 A:I never heard Manson mention Scientology or The Process Church. He did meet up with a Scientologist named Crockett in the desert. Crockett was instrumental in deprogramming Poston and Watkins, and stood toe-toe with Manson. This was the only mention of Scientology. I remember them arguing back and forth for hours.

Here is one I am always curious about with all of them:

Q: Are you in touch with other former Manson family members?
A:No, I'm not. I do hear things about them through the media and through the grapevine, but I have no direct contact with them. Bugliosi did a great job following- up on former members in his updated version of Helter Skelter. I hear that many have become Christians and truly love the Lord. Some have died in accidents and some from natural causes. Others are in hiding, trying to go on with ordinary lives. Only a couple of the girls still follow Manson. I pray their eyes open up to the truth that is found only in Jesus Christ.

The Music:
  
Q: Did the music influence you in a negative way?
     A:Well, it certainly didn't influence me in a positive way. These musicians were, like me, looking for answers in drugs, rebelling against parents and society and living in sexual immorality - each one related to the other. They sang about love, peace and freedom; all the things I was lacking. I was caught up in rebellion, searching in all directions, but in unbelief toward God; especially my parents' God. I believe music was one of the influences that helped me dishonor my father and mother. I was under the influence of the same drugs that influenced the musicians. This made it easier to identify with them, and it made what they were singing about more believable; the music had an even greater influence over my mind and took me into what seemed to be a magical world. 

     The Drugs:

 Q:Was Manson using drugs, or were only the members using them?
 A: I'm asked this question a lot. People seem to think that Manson had all of us drugged out, while he remained sober so he could easily manipulate our minds. This may be true, but a sorcerer such as Manson uses mind-altering drugs himself in order to contact spiritual beings, and gain supernatural powers. He was definitely using drugs like the rest of us.
 
And one final sample regarding the crimes:

 Q: How did you feel the day between the Tate and LaBianca murders and shortly afterward?
 A:I'm ashamed to say it, but I didn't have a lot of feelings. My conscience had become hardened because of my own rebellion. My feelings were dulled through the effects of drugs. But I did have some feelings; more than I admitted to Manson. I was supposed to be without feelings according to Manson's teachings, but in reality, my feelings were all mixed up. I was depressed, downhearted, spiritless and even disoriented during the crime and afterward. I remember sitting in a dry creek bed by myself. I couldn't believe it was me doing what I was doing. I just wanted it to stop, but I felt pressure to go along the next night. I remember thinking as we drove around, “Please don't let Charlie find a house to do the same thing in.”

So that should give you an idea of what type of Q/A Tex has with himself. If you want more- there are about 195 more of them you can read if you care to. I found some of these questions to be interesting, and some to be self serving. Again, probably in both cases, calculated and purposely so. I did find it to be worth reading if you are interested in the perspective of Tex. I am myself. I am much more interested in getting insight into the mind of Tex than I am Charlie. To me, Tex is a much more vicious sort of character than Charlie. Maybe not as "cool" or "hip" to most people. But Charlie is not cool or hip to me. I could have seen him coming a mile away, and would never have fell for his bullshit. Tex, however, is another story. Tex is much harder to figure out to me. And in my opinion those out there who are into Charlie for the darkness and the "Evil" he represents- are missing the boat. Tex Watson should be your Huckleberry. This is the mind you want to get inside of to understand evil. This is the guy who people should be having nightmares over. Charlie carved an X into his own head with a pin. Tex carved up a pregnant woman with a knife. I think Charlie gets too much notoriety sometimes, for the things Tex did. 

The final gem to mention in the Tex Trilogy is called " Forgiven- The Tex Watson Story." This 28 minute video docudrama was made by students at Biola University and has interviews with Tex and that wacko Sue Laberge woman- who you probably know was the daughter of Rosemary Labianca. So, with a title like that, and with the (very sad and pathetic) involvement of a victims family member- I assume you can guess where this is going as much as I did. But I watched it anyway. You hear his voice and you get why they called him "Tex." He talks real slow and has an easy country manner to him. He sounds very relaxed when talking about himself in this video. He tells the same story as he does in his books, but it is a little different hearing him explain it, and watching his eyes while he talks. They keep cutting in to the interview with some sort of movie scenes which act out his story as he is explaining it.  I am not sure if it was the students doing reenactments, or some old Manson movie I have just never seen? If that is the case, it is easily the worst Manson related movie ever made. I really hope it was the students. Tex mentions several times during this show, or whatever it is, that he was "deceived". He wasn't aware of what was going on around him. He blames drugs many times for his condition, but then periodically stops to say he doesn't blame drugs for the crimes. At one point about 14 minutes in- he does both of these things in the same sentence. Then, of course, the second half becomes all about God. Key the slow guitar music, and now it is o.k. for him to start laughing and smiling...

At about 17 minutes Susan shows up in the video, and any hope of sense or reason goes right out of the window. What in the hell is wrong with some people? In my entire life I will never get people like this Laberge person. NEVER! I am not going to give her the importance of repeating one word of the garbage that comes out of her mouth. Suffice to say, God may understand, and forgive people like this, but I am quite sure I never will. This man tortured and took the life of her mother, and she sits there and works for him to help him gain favor? Sickness in my opinion. And as for Tex- some Charlie like manipulation skills - no? I think that if you want to listen to the daughter of a viciously slain woman tell you why to forgive the animal who did it- there is a video on this site where you can find it.

Aside from the these invaluable forms of Tex information- there are a couple of books on Christianity on the site Tex wrote as well, but I don't give a frog's fat ass about any of that. You can go and read that nonsense for yourself if you must. There are testimonials, and links to other religious types of stuff which all show you what a great command Tex has of the subject. It contains plenty of letters from readers who tell him what an inspiration he is to them for their own personal reasons. I learned from Stoner he even answers some of them ( Until he realizes he has been "Stonered") 

And then there are the monthly views. These are small thoughts from the mind of the madman, always ending with prayer and some scripture. In his latest monthly view- The theme is Change. It opens with a part of a recent letter he received from some Jack-ass in San Diego. The letter tells Tex how wonderful his new website looks and how happy he is Tex is able to help so many people. He thanks Tex for helping to get over some issue he had with his parents and now everyone in his family is lovey-dovey. Then Tex goes on to talk about the importance of Change. Change is Possible! Let Change Happen! The Power to Change! A Changed Life! These are the headings of the rest of his "Monthly View" Tex fills in each of these headings with bible quotes and inspirational messages. All designed to make you see how he is not the same twenty year old kid on drugs who made those horrible mistakes I suppose.

And that people is Tex's website in a nutshell. That is what Tex's website is really all about. It is a carefully crafted vehicle to sell people an image of a changed man. A man of god, who is an inspiration and help to many others. Someone who went to the darkest of depths only to survive the inner emotional battles and emerge to find his way into the brightest of light. ( I should trademark that)  The only problem for me is that I am not buying it. Tex Watson is one of the most dangerous bastards who ever lived. I know that people will throw lists at me of people who killed many more as far as total victims, and who did more savage things as far as brutality. I know people have murdered children, and committed acts of terror.

I get all of that, but here is the thing to me about Tex that sort of separates him in my mind:

Terrorists and rapists and child molesters, serial killers usually have some kind of a past history of violence, or some kind of extenuating circumstances that trigger them. They, more often than not, have some type of history which, at least, can sort of explain their behavior. Tex was literally the boy next door. He could have been the guy sitting next to any one of us in algebra class. He came from a good family and no history of abuse or mental unbalance. He is the guy you never saw coming. He is the one in a million who defies all profiles of a future predator, or multiple murderer. That really makes me scared. Charles Manson standing in front of me talking his shit would not scare me. I have seen a thousand scumbags talk shit in my life and probably met a few who were better at it than Charlie was. You humor them and walk away, or never get close in the first place if you are smart. You should be able to recognize them from a mile away really. But, waking up to the clean cut kid who grew up down the street from my house standing over me holding a gun and knife, and telling me he is the Devil-and at my house to do the Devils work- would scare me out of my wits!

Look, maybe that is just me. We all have our own personal demons and fears in this world, just like we all have our own personal saviors. Tex Watson says he has found his savior, and has dedicated a website to him. From the Devil to God- Tex has seemed to have been able to connect with both extremes. Once again he has says he has gone through changes. I have doubts that Tex is changed inside very much. I understand why he would spend the rest of his life seeking change. I think he has spent all of this time and effort trying to convince himself more than anyone else that he has changed. Because I think he has come to terms with what happened, and what he did, and now he needs to make himself feel better. And that is not an easy thing for him to do. Tex says he has found salvation, but I don't think that is true. God couldn't help Sharon Tate, or any of the victims, and he can't help Tex in this case either. God doesn't pass out amnesty cards to murderers just because they start spouting his name. Tex will face his judgment at some point down the road, and when he does- no amount of preaching or praying he has done expo-facto of the heinous crimes he has committed is going to help him. Tex hasn't seemed to grasp that when you do so much damage to others, you don't get to forgive yourself. Tex wants to determine his own time-table for repentance, but he doesn't get to do that in my book. Someday, Tex will meet up with his Savior, and my bet is that his soul will not be saved. I believe he will finally have to answer for his sins. If I am still walking this Earth on that day I will take a big hit, drink a beer and smile. For Sharon, Jay, Abigail, Rosemary, Leno, Steve, Shorty and Voytek will have finally gotten the real justice they deserved....

  - Your Favorite Saint





107 comments:

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

But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek.

The autopsy report of Aug 10th 69 makes it clear that there was no stab or slash wound to Sharon Tate's face or cheek. Some people think they see such a slash wound when they view the photos (and try to make a pattern of behaviour by comparing it to Folger's terrible facial slash wound) but it is in fact described as an "irregular abrasion, associated with ecchymosis". In other words, a friction or scraping injury with bruising or bleeding under the skin. Similar marks are recorded on her throat. It is a rope burn not a slash, and the similar abrasion on her throat showed evidence of fingernail scratches to the skin. At some point she was fighting for breath.

So, sorry Tex, try again. A good imitation of an honest confession, a good likeness, but try again.

Saint C, even this candid responsibility-accepting is a fiction, a cobbled together patchwork of other people's accounts and interpretations. There is no Tex Watson, there is only a hollow vessel, an empty, soulless psychopath, a liar by nature.

equinox12314 said...

Hi St Circumstance (my favourite saint!!)

Thank you for the post - you have done a lot of work here!

I was wondering how you reconcile the above post about Tex with your earlier post on 2 July 2015 where you heartily support 'Helter Skelter' as the motive. Regarding the above post, it suggests Tex was acting of his own free will because he is an inherently evil person. But on the other hand, if you believe 'Helter Skelter' to be the motive (as per your 2 July post), you would have to acknowledge Charlie as the guiding influence, which would minimise Tex's culpability.

OFF TOPIC I just noticed over at the excellent CieloDrive.com, that Bobby B's parole hearing has been postponed yet again. I am devastated. It was going to be the highlight of my summer - listening to yet another version of the crime!!! Apparently, they are still investigating the 115 violation. Crikey!!!

St Circumstance said...

i don't support the HS motive I just don't rule it out. I chose that one and made my best case for it since it was the one motive nobody else seemed to want to defend.

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

You said that better than I did lol

equinox12314 said...

St Circumstance said...
i don't support the HS motive I just don't rule it out. I chose that one and made my best case for it since it was the one motive nobody else seemed to want to defend.


OK St, thanks. I see where you're coming from.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Michael: You KNOW what a stuffed "Teddy Bear" is to a child. In American society, that "special" relationship is slowly transfered to the the priest, pastor, rabbi, minister, religious confidant.

One Charlie Manson simply became the "Teddy Bear" for a bunch of transitioning kids.

'TEX" Watson apparently became the "Teddy Bear" for a bunch of immature "Bad-guys."

The POPE is like the Supreme "Teddy Bear" for those who got lost in the transition process.

AND the "Teddy Bear" is the "$$$$$$$$" guy in the world.

equinox12314 said...

Robert Hendrickson said...
Michael: You KNOW what a stuffed "Teddy Bear" is to a child. In American society, that "special" relationship is slowly transfered to the the priest, pastor, rabbi, minister, religious confidant.


Hi Mr H,

I hereby nominate you as the "Teddy Bear" of this MansonBlog.

St Circumstance said...

:)

bucpaul2812 said...

Great post, St. I too often wondered how Tex became the key actor in the TLB killings. It's been told time and time again how the other Family members had residual baggage that Charlie tapped into and used to his advantage, most of which seemed to be issues surrounding parents.

By most accounts, Tex had a near idyllic upbringing and the worst thing he had to deal with was, I suppose, being bored in bucolic Texas. It's never been suggested there were any mommy or daddy issues at all, and up until the belladonna arrest, the worst thing Tex was involved with was college-related hijinks involving a typewriter being stolen. Hardly the blueprint for a potential spree killer.

Another thing I never understood is the amount of agency Tex had as a Family member. He walked away from Charlie no less than three times and came back; he said he pretty much spent a total of 9 months in the Family, so it's even more difficult to comprehend how he was able to lead the carnage on those nights.

Considering the verbal, physical and sexual abuse Bruce Davis dealt with growing up, I thought HE, much more than Tex, would have been Charlie's first choice to initiate the mayhem (what with all that sublimated rage at the straight world). Having said that, Charlie obviously knew Tex was the "perfect" choice...I just wonder "how?".

equinox12314 said...

bucpaul2812 said:

"...Charlie obviously knew Tex was the "perfect" choice...I just wonder "how?"

It could come down to something as straightforward as Tex owing Charlie for the Crowe shooting. However, you would think that the Cielo murders would have been enough to pay off that debt, so why was Tex along for the second night? What was in it for Tex?

The fact that Tex was able to come and go might have been down to him having more financial independence than the women. You could then argue that Tex would not have been as indoctrinated in 'Helter Skelter' as the longer resident Family members.


D. LaCalandra said...

There has been a global conspiracy theory since the 80s' that claims a super secretive network of Satanists are engaging in everything from drug trafficking to infant sacrifice. Yet, the only thing I see criminals using as a front is Christianity. From Berkowtiz to Watson, they make "inspirational" figures out of these con men to help further there cause. They cozy up in bed with serial killers and mass murders to sell their so-called "good" religion.

Ted Gunderson was responsible for a lot of this. After, however he became a private eye for Jeffery MacDonald. Remember him? The lone survivor of a home invasion that claimed the lives of his entire family at the hands of kill crazy hippies? One of which was holding a candle chanting "Acid is groovy! kill the pigs!" before writing pig on the wall? It took Gunderson less than 24-hours to decide he was innocent (after he was told he would be paid $100). Then Gunderson spent over 30 years accusing others of covering up the most heinous crimes.

The world is backwards. Most offensive is that you can be an absolute deranged madman, but hide behind the guise of a born again and you are OK. Refuse to do that like Charlie has, and you get rat posion in your tang and nobody gives a fuck.

St Circumstance said...

The Ultimate Evil

Mr. Humphrat said...

For people who are open to Christianity and the born-again experience as a genuine reality for some people, this blog must consistently appear hostile to them. I was involved enough in Christianity and the born-again community that I don't take it likely or write it off as bogus. I'm guessing the people who express skepticism about born-agains in prison probably have some accepting feelings towards some Christians. It's understandable that people think Tex is hiding behind and using religion and I think he may be. But I have to react to how he comes across to me on video interviews, that I don't see any obvious tells of deception. So despite his heinous past I still give him the benefit of the doubt. The same goes with his relationship with Susan LaBerge. The interviews with them seem genuine to me. I think for people who have traumatic things happen and have rage against someone and it eats them up, it makes sense if they become born-again, to reach out to the person their rage was directed against in an effort to heal themselves, and I think it's probably not uncommon. And for people for whom Christ is real they don't picture a heaven in which they would look forward to seeing someone punished but only look forward to seeing them redeemed. So if they look over and see Hitler if they even recognized him as Hitler, they wouldn't scowl and think "what's he doing here!" they'd be overjoyed. It seems like a lot of people don't accept that concept. I don't think Tex should be released and I don't think he should have been allowed to father children and be married, but I'm guessing he didn't make those rules either.

equinox12314 said...

Mr Humphrat

Your post has helped me understand the 'born-again experience'. However, my feeling with Tex is that if he were truly 'born again', that he would come clean about his role in the murder of Donald Shea.

St Circumstance said...

Fair enough...

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

I wonder if Watson believes he's forgiven for the blow jobs he received from other inmates, that led to his divorce? Is that on his webpage?

St Circumstance said...

Lol nope but the life of Tex in the clink would make for a good post as well. This was just about the website

Robert Hendrickson said...

Thank you for the compliment EQ, but I shy away from "LABELS" (even the GOOD ones).

IF anyone could actually obtain the TRUE staus of being a child's beloved Teddy Bear, they would surely dwell in the kingdom of heaven - here on EARTH.

Hump, Michael, etc, YOU guys are taking this discussion to a whole nother level. AND I think it's GREAT.

Because WITHOUT thoughtful and meaningful communication, WE are ALL just willd animals. Thus, it is merely the LEVEL of "communication" that separates US from other species.

Mr. Humphrat said...

beauders said: I wonder if Watson believes he's forgiven for the blow jobs he received from other inmates, that led to his divorce? Is that on his webpage?

beauders I never heard about that one before. Thanks. I'm not specifically trying to say Tex is a true Christian/saved. I guess anyone who considers themselves saved still has to deal with their own contradictions. I think the whole concept of being saved vs. someone else not being saved is filled with contradictions and questions that make it too much for me to believe in. I just think for some people it is a real experience.

equinox said: ... my feeling with Tex is that if he were truly 'born again', that he would come clean about his role in the murder of Donald Shea.

equinox: I agree about coming clean on Shea, but I also think he could consider himself born-again and still not have the courage to come clean.

Robert Hendrickson said...

This post quotes from Watson's book that: "And Charlie's tape whined "Kill Her!" inside my head...."

Well, wait a minute. Is TEX revealing that Charls Manson specifically told HIM to "Kill Her" (Sharon Tate)- because IF that is TRUE - then the WHOLE murder "motive" takes on a different meaning.

Like how did Manson KNOW Sharon or any woman would even be there ?

AND WTF happened to Helter Skelter ?

And TEX says: he "shot" Frychowki outside ! While Frychowski SCREAMED !
From the Tate house front porch, those SOUNDS would have echoed through-out the valley. I Guess ALL patrol cars were on their hourly break (rest period) at the time.

AstroCreep said...

Nicely done, St!

It's always interested me that evil people like Tex ultimately end up "finding" God. I wonder why God didn't allow Tex to find him instead of Manson back in the late sixties when he really needed a purpose. For me personally, I refuse to believe that acts of goodness make up for the evil acts one commits. We all gain wisdom as we age and in the criminal justice system in the U.S.A. we hold people accountable for the person that they WERE not the person they've become.... THANKFULLY!

I believe the same with final judgement to some degree. One can't just say sorry, I'm Godly now so I get to go to heaven (or wherever/whatever you may believe in). Never mind that I raped a child or whatever other sick act one commits.

None of these people will ever get out of prison no matter how Godly they think they've become. It's too bad California didn't keep the death penalty so everyone could be spared from this kind of bullshit. Tex, you're going to rot in hell and hopefully live eternity being treated like you treated your victims. May you feel the cold steel as it pierces your skin over and over forever. POS.

Mr. Humphrat said...

RH said: And TEX says: he "shot" Frychowki outside ! While Frychowski SCREAMED !
From the Tate house front porch, those SOUNDS would have echoed through-out the valley. I Guess ALL patrol cars were on their hourly break (rest period) at the time.

RH I thought you were the one in the post about what people could have heard in the canyons that night who said sounds can play tricks, get absorbed by bushes etc.

St Circumstance said...

Amen lol

sasha11papers said...

Thank you for the provocative & thoughtful article about Tex. One thing I would add about the statement "he came from a good family with no history of mental imbalance" , is that you don't always know for sure. Just because he was in a nuclear family with two parents in the home does not mean that there weren't problems. Families tend to close ranks and keep any harmful stuff secret. It would be interesting to hear what Tex's older sibs have to say now about their home life.

St Circumstance said...

Fair point!

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said....
"This is basically a book of 200 questions and Answers. It only lists Tex as the Author, so I assume he is posing these questions to himself? He never really says where they come from..........So, in this book- we get lots and lots of questions answered, but both the questions and answers are edited by the person who is trying to benefit from the excersize of going through them? I am confused.......Isn't that last question both strong and yet weird sounding if he is posing this to himself ?......So that should give you an idea of what type of Q/A Tex has with himself. If you want more- there are about 195 more of them you can read if you care to. I found some of these questions to be interesting, and some to be self serving. Again, probably in both cases, calculated and purposely so. I did find it to be worth reading if you are interested in the perspective of Tex...."


Interestingly enough, I've spent the last couple of weeks reading this book again {it was my latest 'Lou Reed' ie, what I'm reading when I'm gonna be a while in the toilet} and in the acknowledgements, when talking about those that helped make it "successful" it says "first, the clergymen, radio personalities, video interviewers and others who have helped to generate the questions for the following interview....." and the next paragraph says "our thanks to the many high school and college students who have had to ask us countless questions about the Manson family and the murders due to assigned reports. Hopefully, this interview will be of help to you. We did it with you in mind." Even in the question that precedes the one you mention about Bugliosi's 85% accuracy, he says, in reply to why he's doing the interview, "well usually when people ask questions, I just tell them to read my book 'Will you die for me ?' or Bugliosi's book 'Helter skelter.' A person can get a lot of answers that way, but by giving this interview I think I can probably offer some new insights after three decades. I still get letters all the time from students doing research and from inquiring minds."
It kind of reminds me of the reasons of Hunter Davies, the guy that did the authorized biography of the Beatles back in the late 60s, for doing the book. He said that from '64 to '66 wherever they went in the world they were constantly asked the same questions and got sick of it so the idea was to do a biography that gave all the answers that one would need in discussing where they came from and how they got to where they were.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES Hump, so look at pics of Tate house THEN. Little to NO obstructions.

But because of higher-up hill property the sound would have carried louder straight across (above)the valley below, even up to a mile away at that time late at night / early morning.

Also remember, most everyone in the wealthy areas contracted with Private Patrols. This raises the question, WHY didn't Polanski have one under contract. I mean this guy was a JEW in Nazi Germany AND a big Hollywood Director, so HE of all people KNEW what bloody havoc "criminals" could do.

OH ! Maybe that was the kid Garretson's job - protect the rich folks against the BAD guys.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said....
"I am starting to believe some of them now that they are older, more mature, and have had plenty of time to clear out their heads. So call me crazy, but I believe some of what Leslie and Pat say at their most recent parole hearings. And as well, I believe some of what Tex says in the various documents on this website"


You're always going to face problems with this case; we all are. And one of your main problems is going to remain sifting what you believe from what you don't. How do any of us quantify and decide ? How much is the bias we bring to making some kind of judgement, regardless of age or knowledge ? Why do we believe some things and not others ?
That's why we'll possibly all have lots to discuss and argue about until we're sick to death of TLB !
In 1974 Vincent T. observed "the Manson case was, and remains, unique." I think it's uniqueness has only increased with the passage of time. Many murder cases have a certain fascination about them but there is a "Je ne sais quoi" about TLB and it's attendant package that teleports it into a section all of it's own.

St Circumstance said...

I agree. My posts are almost always opinion pieces. They are just my opinions.

grimtraveller said...

Charles Watson said....
"That call, and Willis's to the ranch that followed, set up my lie about the F.B.I. having come to my parents' home in Copeville, accusing me of murder. And that lie stopped the killing and sent us all to the desert where, nearly two months later, I refused to murder again for Manson and headed home to Copeville"


I neither believe nor disbelieve this at this point but it would be interesting to find this Willis person to verify it, if they're still alive. The story is plausible......but also there is the rather obvious clanger of Shorty Shea. The killing didn't stop. My main reason for feeling hugely uncomfortable with Charles Watson, re; the killing of Shorty, is that it's his brother in Christ, Bruce Davies, that drops him in it. Steve Grogan does too, to be fair, Paul Watkins back in 1969 or 70 said Clem told him Tex was involved and Kitty Lutesinger told the police back in '69 that "possibly Tex" was. Charlie, for his part says in George Stimson's book "I don't know whether Tex was there or not. I know some of the people that were there." But Bruce in his 1993 parole hearing drops Tex right in it in a fascinating section where he's giving his reasons why he doesn't think Tex should be paroled. It may be 22 years out of date but for me, that's a biggie. So when Watson says it was 2 months later that he refused to kill again and ran off, I can't help wondering about those 2 months. Shorty was murdered in that period..........

Jenn said...

Tex is a psychopath He has no conscience. He didn't need a reason to do what he did. Manson simply gave him an excuse.

equinox12314 said...

beauders said...
I wonder if Watson believes he's forgiven for the blow jobs he received from other inmates, that led to his divorce? Is that on his webpage?

Beauders,

Quite right. Add into the mix his abuse of funds raised for his ministry. I think it was good old Bill Nelson that exposed the fraud, which was probably the only useful thing Nellie ever did.

equinox12314 said...

St Circumstance said...
Lol nope but the life of Tex in the clink would make for a good post as well. This was just about the website

St Circumstance,

I wonder if inmates run in the other direction when Tex approaches them on the yard to do some bible bashing. Do you know if he has been attacked in prison, because Charlie seems to have come off rather badly over the years in that respect? CM has to be kept in a protective housing unit and he didn't physically kill anyone over the two nights, and yet Tex seems to be at less risk.



grimtraveller said...

bucpaul2812 said...

"Another thing I never understood is the amount of agency Tex had as a Family member. He walked away from Charlie no less than three times and came back"


That very agency could be seen as evidence of how much Tex was in thrall to Charlie. I mean, think on it for a moment ~ the night they listen to the White album and Charlie's lightbulb dings on, Tex heads on out. Nothing to do with murder or Helter skelter or approaching, impending violence. But he goes.
And he came back !
When Tex writes that he was weak, had no solid personality formed and was rebelling against his boring background, I believe him. And I think Charles Manson could see this clear as the snow on Mount Blanc. It wasn't lost on Charlie that Tex came back after 3 months. Just as drugged up and degenerate as when he'd gone before. His coming back was like a clarion call of his need to be around Charlie love and I reckon that over the next few months, Charlie really tested that to the max.
But agency wasn't limited to Tex. Paul Watkins went off. Susan Atkins went off. Barbara Hoyt went off.


bucpaul2812 said...

"It's been told time and time again how the other Family members had residual baggage that Charlie tapped into and used to his advantage, most of which seemed to be issues surrounding parents.

By most accounts, Tex had a near idyllic upbringing and the worst thing he had to deal with was, I suppose, being bored in bucolic Texas.....Hardly the blueprint for a potential spree killer"


A couple of things on this; Has anyone heard of Leopold and Loeb ? Two boys from well to do backgrounds that murdered a 14 year old boy just to see if they could commit the perfect crime ?
It is true that there are mitigating circumstances in the lives of many people that become killers. Even a cursory glance at Charles Manson's life enables one to see that it may not be that much of a surprise that he ended up following a criminal life.
But the vice is also versa. There have been many people with good upbringings that turned to crime, crime of all shades. I've known a number of such people. I often point out that a good upbringing with married parents that love you and guide you, a good education and experience with or belief in God are no guarantee that the child in question will go on to be a productive member of society. They should help but they are no guarantee, any more than being abused and neglected makes it inevitable that a child will do likewise.
Actually, when people profess shock at Tex because of his background, I find myself wondering just how seriously they've taken the 60s narrative of the counterculture in the Western world. Many of the countercultural flower children of that period didn't necessarily come from broken homes. A sizeable number did, for sure, but the 1960s in Britain, West Germany, France, the USA and other Western nations saw a questioning followed by a rejection of the values that had marked previous generations. While it may be true that not everyone did a Tex, the general shift in him was pretty much mirrored by a huge number of people, some of whom became radicals who had little problem with social agitation or the violence {after '68} that sometimes accompanied it.


St Circumstance said...

I have not read on his site or anywhere of him getting beat up or attacked in prison.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

"It's always interested me that evil people like Tex ultimately end up 'finding' God"


Not if you know God ! God is out there and in here for every one of us. Lots of people from pretty much every group or walk of life may find Christ or not make a decision that way or be in Christ but leave at some point for whatever reason.
But a person who commits Tex like crimes is not necessarily that different to you and I in lots of areas.
I've long found it interesting that Malcolm X isn't berated for finding God while he was in jail.
You can never really tell at what point a person needs to be at in order to give God a call.


AstroCreep said...

"I wonder why God didn't allow Tex to find him instead of Manson back in the late sixties when he really needed a purpose"


There was absolutely nothing stopping Tex finding God back in the 60s other than the fact that whatever he was searching for, it wasn't God's idea of God. Tons of searchers baulk at the idea of Christ actually. One of the interesting things about so many of the family, especially those that took Charlie to be Christ and not simply a Christ like figure is that what they saw was formed in their own image or an image that was filtered through their own desires. And Charlie played up to that, giving each person what they wanted as opposed to what they needed.

AstroCreep said...

"For me personally, I refuse to believe that acts of goodness make up for the evil acts one commits"


They don't. Speaking from a Christian perspective, it's about a life that God turns around. You don't do good acts in order to balance up or wipe out the bad ones. From God's perspective, that would be rather insulting to God. For one thing, it would render the almighty somewhat redundant, which is the source of the problem with humanity in the first place.
When Christ gets into someone's life, from there on that person is on a journey. The reason it's referred to as being 'born again' {a term I personally hate though I understand it} is because it signifies a new start. From when a child is born, they begin the process of going through many progressions, changes, regressions and marking time, staying still. From when a believer is born again, the same thing happens, just that this time it's with a consciousness, however dim, of God's input and hopefully, leading. It doesn't make us better than other people at all, at all, at all. In point of fact, the opposite is true ~ God shines that light within and it shows up the ugliness. Believe me, even with God saying one is loved and forgiven, it's not a pleasant experience. That many of us progress, regress, stand still, get things wrong, become proud or afraid or stubborn, do & see wonderful things and are filled with insights etc is part of life in Christ. And though we learn in different ways and at different speeds, learn we must.
Christians are not just one homogenous mindless agreeing lump. There is tremendous diversity among people that believe in Jesus, just like there will be among any grouping of people.


grimtraveller said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

"So, sorry Tex, try again. A good imitation of an honest confession, a good likeness, but try again.

Saint C, even this candid responsibility-accepting is a fiction, a cobbled together patchwork of other people's accounts and interpretations"


Bear in mind that that was written in 1978. Do you remember in that thread where we were discussing how if you're not looking to get caught you won't be looking for details that you might need once caught ? I think that happened with him here. I think he's filled in gaps that he doesn't recall with things he's heard subsequently. I doubt on the night he stood back to study his handiwork so with all that stabbing, he might have less idea than the rest of us exactly what was done.

Robert Hendrickson said...

"This post quotes from Watson's book that: "And Charlie's tape whined "Kill Her!" inside my head...."

Well, wait a minute. Is TEX revealing that Charls Manson specifically told HIM to "Kill Her" (Sharon Tate)- because IF that is TRUE - then the WHOLE murder "motive" takes on a different meaning.

Like how did Manson KNOW Sharon or any woman would even be there ?"


I think it's more of a general quote to signify that he was so under the influence of Charlie's instructions that anyone he came across was to be killed. Because earlier, he says "Then he laid out how he wanted the murders themselves done. He apparently didn't know who was living in the house or how many people we might find, but whoever and however many it was we were to kill them all, mutilate them ("Pull out their eyes and hang them on the mirrors!"), and write messages on the walls in their blood."

christopher butche said...

I always find it mildy presumptuous that someone equipped with a human brain and a maximum life span of around 100 years reckons they have a handle on the mind God. who's to say that the impact of something Watson has to say about the nature of Christian forgiveness won't impact on a life that will not begin 1,000 years from now.
Remember a women was about to be stoned to death for breaking the law of Moses when they asked Jesus what he thought. He told them if you haven't sinned stone her, and one by one they all left. He told her he wouldn't judge her but she should sin no more. Tex hasn't killed anyone for nearly 50 years.
St Paul used to persecute Christians before his conversion, he would have killed way more people than Tex and 2,000 years later we regard him as a good guy for being a big player in breaking out Christianity from Judaism.
God's mind is unknowable. Judge not lest ye be judged. By AD 3000 we could be posting about Saint Tex.

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

"For people who are open to Christianity and the born-again experience as a genuine reality for some people, this blog must consistently appear hostile to them"


It's a genuine everyday reality to me and has been since 1985. The spectrum that carries skepticism at one end and outright open hostility at the other {with a whole lot in between !} is par for the course most places one goes to in this world. It goes with the territory. Many Christians just get on with life and don't advertise whatever positive things they may do because life is a continuum; there are good days and lousy ones.
If what I understand about God's perspective on human nature is right and I'm not just imagining all this, then it seems to me that some opposition {whether mild & friendly or antagonistic and violent} would come at the very moment one says "this is the way...."
Through my own observations, sometime actions or words and a real honest look at church history {it's not pretty, after a good start}, I'd have to conclude that we have to shoulder much of the responsibility for some of that hostility.

Mr Humphrat said...

"I was involved enough in Christianity and the born-again community that I don't take it likely or write it off as bogus"


No, it's not bogus though there are always the half hearted and the frauds. We are like any other grouping ~ a mixture of different men, women, girls & boys that have been impacted by Christ, in different degrees at different times, through different cultures & countries, in a dizzyingly different array of situations. Some of us have been ignorant, some of us remain ignorant and some of us have yet to be tested to find out what and where our ignorance is so that God can change that ~ if we let God change us.

Mr. Humphrat said...

"It's understandable that people think Tex is hiding behind and using religion and I think he may be. But I have to react to how he comes across to me on video interviews, that I don't see any obvious tells of deception. So despite his heinous past I still give him the benefit of the doubt"


I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, partly because I've seen change occur in the most unlikely of people {my younger sister says that about me}, but also because I can't truly know where he's at with Christ. I've never met the man.
I know some people are very swayed by anything a person says, I've been there myself too so I think I can understand it without being unjustly critical. But there's so, so much more to following Christ than having a website or saying "the right things" because in the ultimate analysis, none of that counts for anything if the person's heart and motivation isn't where it needs to be with God.
Talk is cheap and thoughts are free.
I think I understand where Charles Watson may be coming from and some of the internal struggles he may have undergone over the last 40 years. Obviously not totally because I'm not him. But many Christians go through similar things, if not exactly the same so we can sort of identify a bit more with one another's experiences, rather like the way immigrants from different countries settling into a new country can maybe have a better idea of each other's lives than maybe someone that is a native of the country.

Matt said...

Hey, welcome back Chris.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

we regard him as a good guy for being a big player in breaking out Christianity from Judaism.

A phrase St Paul would undoubtedly have disowned vehemently. Paul's Christianity was not "broken out" from Judaism, quite the opposite; it was grafted onto it. Romans 11: "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you."

God's mind is unknowable.

Oh. God has no ability to reveal God to us? Someone should've told him that, he seems awfully keen to try... Now, how would you know God's mind was unknowable. Indeed, if God's mind is unknowable, how is it knowable that there is a God?

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

"By AD 3000 we could be posting about Saint Tex"


I think the term 'saint' needs some clarification. It has come to mean someone that is exceptionally good and God like but biblically, this is not the case at all. It is a translation of a word that turns up around 234 times in the new testament and can mean 'holy' {and most of the time it's the 'holy' that prefixes 'Holy Spirit'}, 'devoted to the Lord', 'God's people' or 'Saints.' In each of the 45 or so times that it's translated as "Saints", it clearly means "God's people" or those that are following Christ. It refers to ordinary Joes & Josephines and is related to a verb that means to set apart, to make fit, to clean up so it can be used. In other words the saint is not some wonderful superhero with mystical superhuman powers of good, but rather, a fallen person that now recognizes this, locks into what Christ has done and is being cleaned up, little by little, bit by bit by God so they can be useful to God, the human race and the earth in general. That is essentially what a saint is. The follower of Christ has no say in the matter ! They are a saint, even if they don't think of themselves that way. It's not some honourable title one confers on oneself with gleaming smiles and beaming pride. It's something outside of yourself that has been conferred on you by dint of the fact that you've admitted your weakness and sought to change ~ on God's terms.
Internally it's a lovely thing between oneself & God. Externally it's really less of a deal than people throughout history have made it to be.

christopher butche said...

"I always find it mildy presumptuous that someone equipped with a human brain and a maximum life span of around 100 years reckons they have a handle on the mind God"


It's not a matter on having a handle on the mind of God, rather, it's living in the light of what one knows from God, as you go through each day. As God is a mover, what you know will be subject to change and movement.

christopher butche said...

"God's mind is unknowable"


I couldn't disagree more or agree less. Yes, the almighty is way beyond us and our level of comprehension. Yes, the thoughts of God are not always in tune with the thoughts of humanity. But the thoughts of an adult are not always in tune with that of a child. Nor are the thoughts of a man always in tune with that of a woman.
But it doesn't make either unknowable.
If God's mind is truly unknowable, then God can't say a thing to us about anything. Even the examples you gave demonstrate the opposite of what you said. Far from being unknowable, you can glean plenty from the two examples about what was in God's mind.
I find this is a paralysing error of Christianity that has dogged it for at least 19 centuries ¬> the idea that somehow any communication from God stops around the time the last documents of the new testament were written and circulated and somehow, we have to work it out from the huge puzzle that is the bible. You can try that, but if we're not interested in a dynamic rather than static relationship with God that is ongoing and includes ongoing communication that is fresh and relevant to this moment, then as far as I'm concerned, we may as well push snowballs uphill through the desert.

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

Michael Hlousek said: "Paul's Christianity was not "broken out" from Judaism, quite the opposite; it was grafted onto it." I don't know anything specific about the organization called Jews for Jesus, but it has bothered me when I've heard Christians say you can't be a Jew and be for Jesus. I say why not? I guess those Christians would say you can't be a believer and think you still have to follow Jewish theology (I don't know the right word to use so I'm saying theology-but at any rate there is the notion that you can't remain Jewish and be a new being in Christ and I think that is wrong.) Maybe some thoughts from my knowledgeable night owls across the pond.

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

If Frykowski was sleeping, why were his dress shoes on and fully-dressed?

beauders said...

I don't think Watson had that great of a childhood. His mother was extremely controlling. She told him how to dress and laid his clothes out for him daily in high school. She also told him who he could or could not date. As the daughter of a controlling mother it messes with a person, and I would assume it's worse for the sons, it messes with their masculinity,(is this what Manson means when he says Tex is a mama's boy) it's no wonder Watson spun out of control once he was away from his mother.

MHN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
richko62 said...

I've fallen a sleep fully dressed and with my shoes on many times

ziggyosterberg said...



One of the humorous aspects of Tex's book, is when he tries to peddle the "but Charlie kept drawing me back", "but Charlie still had a hold on me" bullshit, while admitting that he had no contact with Manson, and that he was having the time of his life banging chicks, selling drugs and getting high in Hollywood.

People might forget all the stunts that Tex pulled in a calculated effort to avoid prosecution for his crimes. He fought extradition from Texas, after which, when extradited to California, he went on a hunger strike and stopped communicating in an effort to appear mentally unfit to stand trial and ended up in a mental institution for evaluation. He was later deemed fit to stand trial and had his lawyers enter an "innocent by reason of insanity" plea.

Tex only accepts responsibility for the Tate/LaBianca murders with the condition that Charlie made him do it, and also that he's totally forgiven because Jesus and Suzan LaBerge said so.

Anyone see a pattern here?

I'm reminded of what Jack Nicholson's character, Melvin Udall, said in As Good As It Gets, when answering the question of how he writes women characters so well - "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability".



grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

Michael Hlousek said:

"it has bothered me when I've heard Christians say you can't be a Jew and be for Jesus. I say why not? I guess those Christians would say you can't be a believer and think you still have to follow Jewish theology (I don't know the right word to use so I'm saying theology-but at any rate there is the notion that you can't remain Jewish and be a new being in Christ and I think that is wrong.)


Jews for Jesus aren't the only Jews for Jesus, if you catch my drift !
Aside from the fact that virtually the entire first church were Jewish, there are many Jewish people that love and follow Christ and if they refer to themselves as anything at all, it's as Messianic Jews.
I've known a number of them.
For understandable reasons, the term 'Christian' doesn't thrill many Jews.
And I think some confusion arises with the word 'Jewish' because it's not always clear whether that's a reference to the people culturally or strictly religiously.


MHN said...

"Sorry - this thread was supposed to be about Tex Watson. Apologies St C, I'm done"


It is about Charles Watson and as you will find in many conversations between people, the topic expands and sidetracks to other areas. That's what humans do. The game "Chinese whispers" is only really a humorous extension of what human beings do anyway. Good conversations stray all over the place.
Besides, in pretty much every thread I see about Watson, there is always at least one person that attacks his beliefs and then that often spills over into comments that denigrate the substance of those beliefs. If this was a thread about Gary Hinman and someone made some derogatory remark about homosexuality and the thread sidetracked there for a while, would you announce that you were done with the thread ?
Fact is, there are people of all shades taking part here and many of them have got something to say.

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

Were you wearing like air Jordan's and dickies? I doubt you were wearing a tux vest, dress shirt, tight slacks and DRESS shoes. I wear what Frykowski wears EVERYDAY since i left college and would never keep that stuff on no matter if I was at a friends pad crashing on the couch or not

AstroCreep said...

Hey Grimtraveller, couldn't agree with you more. My comment was about calling BS on Tex and his finding comfort in God. He can't have it both ways- late 1960's does the devils work and now because he needs to find comfort in his heinous actions serves God. At least that's how I see it. I blame the prison system (which is really society for allowing it to happen) for allowing Tex type of inmates to have such freedoms. There is no rehabilitation. He's never getting out. Anyone who feels that consecutive life term inmates should have such freedoms probably hasn't had evil done to them or a family member. I honestly don't think we should waste taxpayer dollars on parole hearings in these types of cases. If new evidence comes to light, there's a process for that.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Michael and Grimtraveller for your thoughtful replies. I think it is important when talking about Tex's life to get into some discussion of religion. I think this has been a good exchange so far. : )

AustinAnn74 said...

Tex Watson, in my opinion had a normal childhood from an "outsider looking in" point of view, but I do believe it was anything but, considering he had a complete nazi-type camp guard as a mother. His "mother" issues, are probably the root cause of his personality disorders. He couldn't fart without that old bag's permission. Neither could his father. She was a dominating, aggressive old battle axe. She probably was giving Tex enemas when he was already in his early 20's. She even picked his what his college major was going to be. He had to get her permission to travel to California and he was already a grown ass man. There is definitely something wrong there. I think whatever happens to you in childhood affects the choices you make as an adult. Also, Tex was just souless. He wasn't born with a conscious and killed with absolutely no problem. I am so convinced he murdered other people that we don't know about. Karl Stubbs comes to mind. I've read his website before too and I almost threw up from the nausea of all his bullshit. He is and will always be the stuff of nightmares. Those horrendous eyes, that drawl in his voice (which, unfortunately, I have) and the way he completely omits from his religious ramblings the fact that he stabbed Shorty is all too frightening. No wonder Bugliosi always called the killings "nightmarish." He wasn't exaggerating. "Tex" and "Winkel" are almost the same, in my opinion. Winkel being my nickname for Pat. These two were/are cold, calculating and completely without true remorse for the actual act of mentally torturing their victims before slicing them to death AND forcing Sharon Tate to watch before letting her know that she was going to be done the same way. I hope none of them ever get released, EVER! When you imagine what they put their victims through, it makes absolutely no sense to even consider that they've done enough time. I include Mr. "Child-spanking-illustrator" in this too. Gary Hinman suffered longer, actually than any of the other victims. What was it, a weekend that they held him hostage with his face sliced open like a cantaloupe? Na, life imprisonment for all these creeps, including "Father Time" over there in Corcoran.

Robert Hendrickson said...

NEWS Flash !!!

IF you separate "TEX" from HIS religion issue, it's like separating Charles Manson from the Christ issue, the Vietnam issue, the Black and White issue and the revolution of the 1960's issue. So many try and that's WHY their books and movies are mucho FICTION.

TEX's MOTHER was NOT unlike Carrie's (Jesus-freak mother) in that famous movie.

Chaplan Ray (being a Jesus kind'a guy) HAD to tone the book down regarding that primary issue - otherwise HE would have received a late night call from the POPE.

The FACT is the Jesus thing is "working" for TEX now. It's likely the ONLY thing that keeps HIM alive in prison.

AND how can anyone discuss the Manson Case (in a comprehensive manner) WITHOUT mentioning all the little shit that is still relevant TODAY.

Say Bill Cosby for instance. Then YOU got to think Roman "Polanski" EXCEPT nobody is going to mention taking away HIS OSCAR - WE gave it to him KNOWING he was a child rapist. Then BOTH Cosby and Polanski lead US back to the Playboy mansion and Hugh Hefner where drugs and rubbers were laying all over the place.

Try mentioning any religion WITHOUT saying the word "WAR."

OR - just try to imagine the Manson Family issue as one day being obsolete.

equinox12314 said...

AustinAnn74 said:

"...I've read his website before too and I almost threw up from the nausea of all his bullshit."

Right on, Ann. My impression when I read his book was that he just overdoes the religious stuff -'methinks he doth protesteth too much'. When he was in the parole hearing with Doris Tate, it was noticeable that he couldn't look her in the face.

If Tex wanted to be truly Christianly (LOL), he would give permission for his tapes to be made public in their entirety. What is he hiding?

Ann, I burst out laughing at your "Mr. "Child-spanking-illustrator" label. How sad that due to the latest postponement, we are going to have to wait even longer for his latest version of events. LOL.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Ann where should I read to find out about Tex's mom more? I read will you die for me.
I read one of Bill Nelson's books.
Happy Saturday.

grimtraveller said...

MHN said...

"Sorry grim - didn't realise I needed permission to drop out of a thread"


You don't need permission. Or an announcement.

MHN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Hendrickson said...

P.S. TEX did NOT "kill" Sharon Tate - HE was "killing HER" (his mother).

AustinAnn74 said...

Mr. Hump, I honestly don't remember where I read the stuff about Tex's mother exactly. I know Bill Nelson's book had a lot of info and also from Tex's own book. Various stuff over the years, ya know? Happy Saturday to you too. :)

AustinAnn74 said...

Equinox, I knew you would like that. I wonder if a new & updated version of the vicious butchery of Gary Hinman will be revealed this year?

equinox12314 said...


Hi Ann,

Yes, we should start a thread where you guess what story Bobby will come up with next, and the length of his next denial. I have said already that I was gutted to read over at cielodrive.com that his parole hearing has been postponed yet again. I am champing at the bit to find out what the 115 violation was all about. It sounds to me like he must be fighting the violation hard because he knows that this could be his last ditch attempt at getting out while he is still able to walk without a frame!!

I am hoping that when the hearing finally takes place, and a transcript is available that you will do a post for us.

Mr. Humphrat said...

thanks Ann.
On another Tex observation, people say he is soulless and talk about his vacant eyes. I definitely see what you mean with the eyes BUT I also think we sometimes
get a perception of someone from their eyes that could be at least in part to genetics and that's just what their eyes look like. I think of Germanic or Nordic people with blue or blue/gray eyes which sometimes look steely.
Then there are people like Manson with dark eyes and some people I think have said his eyes appeared black and evil. I wonder if people's eyes really can turn blacker than normal when they are angry or whatever.
Also, with Tex, he IS very scripted sounding to me when he talks about his faith, but that is a frustration I've had with a lot of Christian testimonial. There seems to be a rigid attitude that they are careful not to veer from.

Mr. Humphrat said...

"There seems to be a rigid attitude that they are careful not to veer from."
What I mean is more like a limited vocabulary to talk about their faith, and a lack of original thought, which makes me think they are parroting what they think they're supposed to be saying. I think there's a very good reason for people's frustration with not getting more they can grasp onto out of Tex.

grimtraveller said...

MHN said...

"When I need your advice on how to do things here on these boards believe me I'll ask for it"


It wasn't advice.

MHN said...

"you know where you can stick it pal"


I wish I did. So many choices, so little time......

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...


"Also, with Tex, he IS very scripted sounding to me when he talks about his faith, but that is a frustration I've had with a lot of Christian testimonial. There seems to be a rigid attitude that they are careful not to veer from"


There is a lot of that. Some it stems from the need to be compact in the attempt to make an impact. I mean, I find it really difficult to give a succinct explanation of most things that have happened in my life because there turns out to have been, more often than not, a number of interconnected threads that make a simple story impossible. Many Christians want to hold the attention of the person or persons they are trying to communicate with and keep them focused on Christ so there is a tendency for a lot of testimony to sound limited and samey.
That said, many of the basics very similar. I'd compare it to the processes that songwriters and bands in the recording studio go through. If you read enough biographies and interviews, it's quite an eye opener just how similar the thoughts and stories become after a while.

grimtraveller said...

"There is a tendency for a lot of testimony to sound limited and samey.
That said, many of the basics are very similar"


Thinking about it further, I find Doctors, politicians, sports people, actors, union leaders and actually many differing groups to be composed of people who are very similar sounding once I've begun to hear a lot of them. And dare I say it, I think many of us as parents are a bit like that. So often a kid has said to me something like "that's just what my Mum/Dad says !" when I've pointed something out or explained something or given a reason why. Even listening to a variety of descriptions of acid trips doesn't necessarily net a whole load of different wording. I'm struck by the limited and similar descriptions of what is obviously a mind expanding and out of the ordinary event.

AustinAnn74 said...

Equinox, the PB hearing of BB might go something like this:


Gary somehow manufactured bogus dope and the Straights got their feelings hurt and got sore, so Danny DeCarlo put the gun literally in Bob's hands and told him exactly how to extract the money from Gary and that Susan Atkins & Danny planned it all, and he was just an innocent bystander who wanted to feel like a man, so he thought he'd go ahead and purchase some made-to-order drugs for his new biker friends, because, as everyone knows, bikers cannot ever score drugs on their own and must rely on some douche bag, who can't even grow a mustache, who has a baby-face, but who is so awesomely talented and that they just wanted to help the kid fit in and be in close proximity to a member of Arthur Lee's band "Love" so they allowed him to be a "go-between" but when the drugs turned out to be bunk, they went back to the same mustache-less, baby-faced 21 year old douche bag to gripe about not being able to get high off the drugs, so they wanted a refund, post haste and Danny put poor Bob in a headlock and had Mary Brunner fart in his face and the bikers also got poisoned from strychnine and the cow jumped over the moon......yada yada yada.....and he was FORCED by Bruce Davis, oops, I mean Danny DeCarlo to hold Gary hostage, because Gary wouldn't give him the bikers money back, because he was too busy looking at communist literature & planning his next meeting with UCLA radicals to care about anything else, except himself, damn it! Bob was only trying to be a man and grow a beard and then, all of a sudden Charles Manson appeared out of nowhere and levitated into the air to slice Gary. He didn't even know who the hell Charles Manson was hardly, but Bob used his quick thinking and tried mending the wound with dental floss, as any normal person would do, wax & all and then, dang it, Gary was still being a jerk and not giving up the money, so he thought it a grand idea that Gary turn over his piece of shit cars, so Bob could pay back the poor, lonely bikers that were waiting with the flies (and Ouisch) at Spahn ranch. Bikers always have to wait around and get refunds on bad drugs and practically have to beg to get a good deal. They will also take hunks of junk cars in exchange for cash, since those cars were worth so much moolah. Anyway, Bob, along with two girls named Sadie & Mary, who belonged to that guy he hardly knew named Charles Manson decided to spend a weekend with Gary, since Mary was a lover of Gary, but by Sunday evening, Bob just didn't want Gary going to the hospital or the police since he might get charged with assault, so Sadie blew smoke signals out of her underwear and Manson called to tell him to be a man and "do what you have to do!" Bob so much wanted to be a man and impress the bikers that he thought it was an outstanding idea to prick Gary a little in the chest area for being so stubborn and threatening him with police action! Of course, he did hide Gary's face with a pillow, because he was so distraught about what he was forced to do. Gary left him no choice, though! He was painted into a corner, damn it! So, ever since 1969, Bob has been oppressed by his talentless captors and demands that he be released on the grounds that he is a famous recording artist who will have instant fame & riches if given the chance! He will also work in his home office, writing tons of Grammy-award winning songs that sound identical to one another and play his syntar daily, while collecting millions in royalty checks from his recording of the Sarah McLachlan song, "Angel." He will even consider giving the parole board (pending a check of his stock & inventory, of course) a print of "Flying Phallus" or perhaps one out of the "Sassy Bottoms" collection. Hurry, while supplies last!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Grimtraveler good points I have to agree. I wince at hearing myself talk to people and saying a lot of the same words other people say and it seems like we're all having a generic experience and yet we feel like we're individuals inside. Having said that I do try to avoid the word "awesome" as much as possible as it's been driving me crazy that our culture seems to be going "awesome" crazy, using the word in the most to describe practically anything.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Ann do you have a crush on Bobby or what?

Terrapin said...

In the Susan LaBerge/Tex Watson interview, Tex clearly says about her "I didn't know she was a member of the Manson Family".
And its been long rumored that Joe Dorgan was an associate of the family.
I don't really know what to make of this... thoughts?

D. LaCalandra said...

DeCarlo was a suspect in Hinman before Atkins was even implimented. This isn't in Helter Skelter and Bugliosi white washed the situation.

I can and will eventually rebuttle the post that says the Hinman murder had nothing to do with Straight Satans or drugs.

Terrapin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Humphrat said...

Terrapin said: In the Susan LaBerge/Tex Watson interview, Tex clearly says about her "I didn't know she was a member of the Manson Family".
Terrapin that is interesting. I just watched it and he does say that, except I hear an abbreviated "if" before "she was a member..." which would make sense because she says she has something to tell him and he is anticipating of some important possible bombshell of information: ..."I was really concerned you know I didn't know [if] she was a member of the Manson Family or what had happened back during that time really I didn't know how our....if it was just something she was going to spring on me or you know...I says OK what is it? She says well my mother was Rosemary LaBianca..."
If you listen to the full statement it wouldn't make any sense that he would state he "didn't know she was a member of the Manson Family" as he's just including it as a possible thing she's going to tell him.

ziggyosterberg said...


@D. LaCalandra - That wouldn't surprise me at all, since Bugliosi had the gall to whitewash the shit out of "true flower child" Linda Kasabian aka Tex Watson's chauffeur.

DeCarlo was greasy as hell - a defacto police informant, due to the fact that he kept getting busted and would rat out his friends to save his ass each time. Funny how the family had a big time snitch living right under their noses for a long time, whom they did nothing about, meanwhile they go and kill a stuntman to solve the snitching problem.

And Al Springer - was he the burglary suspect out of Venice who had information on the Tate murder, mentioned in news reports in Oct or Nov of 69? I take it that Al didn't testify at any of the trials, because much of the info that he gave to police would have been considered hearsay, as he got it from Decarlo. Possibly the same reason why Paul Crockett didn't testify - hearsay from Brooks Poston and Paul Watkins.

I remember reading Helter Skelter some 20 odd years ago and wondering why Bugs glossed over the presence of the bikers at Spahn ranch, and why they weren't considered criminal associates, but rather, just nice guys who happened to be there and heard some things which were very helpful to police, but they weren't directly involved in anything, save for DeCarlo providing the odd murder weapon here and there.

If Bugliosi didn't give us such a Swiss cheese version of the truth, perhaps we wouldn't still be questioning this case 40 years later.

equinox12314 said...


AustinAnn74 said...
Equinox, the PB hearing of BB might go something like this:


Hi Ann,

LMAO. That is so funny! Well done! The California Parole Board probably wish BB would make it as succinct as you have managed.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

equinox12314 said...

@ziggyosterberg,

Yes Ziggy, you make interesting points. Springer did, however, testify at the Grand Jury, here's a link:

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/manson-accused-of-saying-he-cut-off-someones-ear/

I remember reading a comment by a relative of Al Springer where she says that he didn't hang around for a share of the reward money. Maybe I'm being cynical, but if he had claimed it, he might have left himself open to a deeper investigation into his own activities.

DeCarlo played his cards right by doing a runner back to Canada to avoid the remaining charges against him. Bugliosi must have been happy with what he got from DDC because there's no evidence of the US requesting Danny's extradition.


Robert Hendrickson said...

Just a thought:

Everyone gets all excited about a country like Iran "creating" a nuclear BOMB, but there has to be a "delivery system" for such a weapon to be of any real threat. Kind'a like a volcano on an uninhabited island. WHO cares ?

So even IF Charles Manson wanted to IGNITE a Black and White RACE War - how could HE do it / "deliver" the MESSAGE to the rest of the world ?

Remember - back in the day - there was NO social media.


equinox12314 said...

Robert Hendrickson said:

"...So even IF Charles Manson wanted to IGNITE a Black and White RACE War - how could HE do it / "deliver" the MESSAGE to the rest of the world ?"


Mr H,

I hope I am not being unduly naive here, but I always assumed that worldwide tv coverage was going to be the medium.

TLB was covered internationally, both in the press and on tv. Obviously, it didn't have the desired effect.

D. LaCalandra said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. LaCalandra said...

Most likely not the appropriate place to post this, but this is my unfinished draft of my examination of the Hinman murder in which I attempt to reveal there is very good reason to believe there was in fact a drug deal involving Danny DeCarlo.

https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D861270200634370%26time%3D1437345738%26metadata&access_token=100001848298823%3AAVLZk8Zo8-vm4BnhFhyugc_FMwBdo2eSuvdggcFsJxyrgQ&title=Hinman+Murder.rtf

ziggyosterberg said...


@D. LaCalandra

Thanks for posting that. I hope you post part 2 as well. I like where you're going with this.


@equinox12314

It's been a while since I listened to the Al Springer interview, but if I remember correctly, at one point, he said something like "Charlie and Tex think they run things", which is one of the rare times that I've heard someone put Manson and Tex on an equal level. I found that curious. If Al and the SS were involved in some kind of drug related dealings with the Manson family, then Al would have been more likely to see Tex and Charlie as equals, given that drugs were Tex's area of expertise.


CrisPOA said...

beauders said...
I wonder if Watson believes he's forgiven for the blow jobs he received from other inmates, that led to his divorce? Is that on his webpage?

Caramba, i didn't know this was the cause for Tex's divorce. Where did you get this information? I thought Kristin divorced him because he was not allowed conjugal visits.

Bob Abooee said...

I'm a long-time lurker here and I just have to say that while I always enjoy Austin Ann's posts, her Bobby B slap down in this thread is Pulitzer-worthy. Bravo!!!

Bob Abooee said...

"...as everyone knows, bikers cannot ever score drugs on their own and must rely on some douche bag, who can't even grow a mustache..." Holy sh*t. Rock on AA.

beauders said...

Honestly I cannot remember a source but it was a believable at the time I heard it. Maybe another inmate or the ex wife during an interview.

beauders said...

Kristen though did not say anything about blowjob's but that Watson was not "walking with Christ" and the divorce was Biblically sound. Maybe I read it on the Col's. blog.

AustinAnn74 said...

Hey, Bob, thank you!!

D. LaCalandra said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D. LaCalandra said...

I finished (for now) my complete essay on the Hinman murder in which I believe create a strong case for a drug burn being apart of the situation.

https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D1677713889125588%26time%3D1437485056%26metadata&access_token=100001848298823%3AAVIqFnyyGxMKDEAPpTcCHLJvFgmEFVtjVcC4msIfn8Vx1g&title=Murder+of+Gary+Hinman.rtf

If Mansonblog wants to post it, they can do so.

Matt said...

D. LaCalandra said...

I finished (for now) my complete essay on the Hinman murder in which I believe create a strong case for a drug burn being apart of the situation...

...If Mansonblog wants to post it, they can do so.


D. LaCalandra, thanks. I drafted it. It will run as Thursday's post.


D. LaCalandra said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

"The Catholic Church has never been 'dogged' by this error in its 2,000 year history. It has always acknowledged and treasured as a source of theological truth the apostolic tradition and the cumulative magisterium of the Christian church as the body of Christ. For this it has endured the wrath of those protestants and evangelicals who cling to the relatively recent Lutheran idea of sola scriptura - scripture alone. So in fact the oldest and largest denomination of Christian faith has never believed God's revelation to man officially ended on the publication of a certain book"


Sola scriptura is often misrepresented. It pertains to matters of faith and practice, in the absence of any clarity. Personally, as with many things, I find it paradoxical but this isn't the place to go into all that. Sola scriptura was and has been interpreted as a challenge to Papal authority because if you take it on board, that's ultimately what it turns out to be.
Also, it must be remembered that Luther was a Catholic, not the purveyor of some new "denomination" and he was seeking to call into some kind of line abuses that he felt he encountered within the Catholic church at the time.

equinox12314 said...


@ChrisPOA

This was on Cats' site TOTLB

Source: Crime Library


"Kristin Svege did divorce her husband, Charles, but it wasn't because she met another man, it was because of some of his actions in prison that wasn't becoming of someone who claimed to be what 'he' claimed to be. ... Her reasons were those that the Bible would say were grounds for divorce..."

Kristin obviously overlooked that his actions outside of prison weren't becoming of a human being.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks D Calandra and Matt looking forward to it.

Amy said...

Hello everyone. I have enjoyed this blog for a long time and this is my first post. I have been "obsessed" (as my husband would say) with the Manson family and these murders for many years and have read and watched every piece of information I can get my hands on regarding the events and people involved. This site is my favorite guilty pleasure. :)

Of course I don't claim to be a mind reader, but I feel that Tex Watson is the most fake, lying, incapable of remorse in any form, sack there is. I believe that these murders were not random, that the victims, at least some of them, had connections with their killers, and drugs were very much a factor.

Regarding Tex Watson: Who really knows what his childhood was like? By all outside observer's standards, I had an idyllic childhood as well, and it was very far from it. You never know what happens behind closed doors, and I bet that his family was a prominent one in their hometown, so I bet a lot was swept under the rug.

As far as his being reborn, I find that to be a bunch of BS. Knowing what I do about the prison system (which happens to be more than I'd like), a lot of inmates get involved with religious services because it is pretty much the only activity that is offered to them. If you don't participate in religion based events and services, you pretty much sit around all day bored out of your mind. Plus, it gives you a certain popularity, regard, and safety from the other inmates messing with you, if they look upon you as a leader of sorts. As Mr. Hendrickson said, it is probably the one thing keeping him alive on the inside. Of course I am not claiming all inmates are this way, but I suspect this is the case for Watson.

Thanks to you all for all the good work, research and debates! I enjoy learning and being entertained every time I visit!

Matt said...

Thank you Amy, and welcome to the non-lurking side.

grimtraveller said...

Amy said...


"As far as his being reborn, I find that to be a bunch of BS"


I'm curious as to why.....is it because, having done what he did it's just impossible to trust anything he could ever say again or is it that you don't believe he could be changed by God or that God would want to renew him ?


Amy said...
"Knowing what I do about the prison system (which happens to be more than I'd like), a lot of inmates get involved with religious services because it is pretty much the only activity that is offered to them. If you don't participate in religion based events and services, you pretty much sit around all day bored out of your mind"


Believe me, if you are not a genuine believer and follower of Christ while at the same time going through the struggles that entails and using your own mind to work things out, you're going to be bored out of your gourd. If Charles Watson has kept up Christian pretence for 40 years and it hasn't gotten him any closer to parole, then you'd have to conclude he's an idiot.
If he's been bullshitting about his faith for 40 years but kept up the pretence, then he's some kind of genius. I don't think he's some kind of genius.
It's not hard to pretend to be in Christ. But it is for 40 years !


Amy said...
"Plus, it gives you a certain popularity, regard, and safety from the other inmates messing with you, if they look upon you as a leader of sorts"


Well I don't know about that. In some instances it'll be true. But in others......
I remember seeing this documentary once about homosexual {as opposed to gay} relationships in prison and how many guys who would never have even contemplated such on the outside found themselves in these relationships when they were facing long stretches inside. The guys that were Christians didn't rate any special treatment there !