Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Sylmar Standard Station And Rosemary LaBianca's Wallet

"Charlie gave Linda Kasabian the woman's wallet and told her to put it in the bathroom in the gas station and leave it there, hoping that somebody would find it and use the credit cards and thus be identified with the murders…."  Helter Skelter, page 245 (1975 paperback edition)

"Charles Koenig, an attendant at the Standard service station at 12881 Ensenada Boulevard in Sylmar, was cleaning the women's rest room when he noticed that the toilet was running. Lifting the lid off the tank, he found, on top of the mechanism, damp but above the waterline, a woman's wallet. He'd checked the driver's license and credit cards, saw the name "Rosemary LaBianca," and immediately called LAPD."  Helter Skelter, page 255 

"After driving for a long time, [Manson] pulled off the freeway and stopped at a nearby service station. Apparently having changed his mind, Manson now told Linda to put the wallet in the women's rest room. Linda did, only she hid it too well, lifting the top off the toilet tank and placing it over the bulb, where it would remain undiscovered for four months.
"I asked Linda if she could remember anything distinctive about the station. She remembered there was a restaurant next door and that it "seemed to radiate the color orange."
"There was a Denny's Restaurant next to the Standard station in Sylmar, with a large orange sign.
"While LInda was in the rest room, Manson went to the restaurant, returning with four milk shakes.
"Probably at the same time the LaBiancas were being murdered, the man who had ordered their deaths was sipping a milk shake."  Helter Skelter, page 365


Visiting a location related to a crime serves more than just to satisfy morbid curiosity. It can also give the careful observer insights which lead to possible understandings of what really happened at that location. Such was the case recently when I made a visit to the Standard gas station in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Sylmar where Rosemary LaBianca's wallet was discovered in the tank of the toilet in the women's room on December 10, 1969.

I've often wondered about that Standard station, and if Manson really thought he was in a black neighborhood when the car stopped there, and whether he really had Linda Kasabian plant Rosemary's wallet so that a black person would find it, use the credit cards within, and thus be implicated in the LaBianca murders. I didn't know that there were any black neighborhoods that far out in the San Fernando Valley (farther north even than Spahn's Ranch).The prosecution later said that Manson thought they were in Pacoima, a neighborhood about four miles southeast of Sylmar off Interstate 5 that was a predominantly black neighborhood in 1969. I wondered if a person would reasonably mistake the two areas. 

But I ran into a bit of trouble when it came to tracking down the Standard gas station. In Helter Skelter Vincent Bugliosi gave its address as 12881 Ensenada Boulevard in Sylmar. But according to both Google Maps and my most recent (1990) Thomas Guide of Los Angeles County, no such street existed. 

Left dangling with the thought that the street had been obliterated by urban renewal since 1969 I was surprised to learn from Deb that she and Matt had visited the station on the 2013 Manson Blog Tour.  She referred to it as a "Chevron station."  A little research revealed that Standard Oil of California changed its name to Chevron in 2013. So I googled "Chevron Station Sylmar" and Voila! Up came the street view image of a gas station, but one located at 12881 Encinitas Boulevard, not Ensenada. (Is this an honest mistake in Helter Skelter, or is it an example of more intentional misinformation from the Bug? In The Family Ed Sanders calls the street Encinatus Boulevard.). And as I looked at the Google drive-by image and rotated the scene I saw, next door to the gas station, a Denny's Restaurant. 

Looking at the location on the map I was even more surprised to realize that I already had a personal history with this particular gas station since it is the one I walked to to use a pay phone and call a tow truck to pick up my VW bug after it had blown a generator pulley at the southbound Roxford Street exit during my move from Death Valley to L.A. in 1983. More intrigued than ever, I decided to check the location out the next time I went to the area. That happened in mid-July of this year. 

The first thing I wondered about was whether someone really would have thought they were in Pacoima as opposed to having some other reason for pulling over at that exit. I came to a conclusion on that point fairly quickly.

As I drove north on Interstate 5 in the direction from the LaBianca residence in Loz Feliz to Sylmar (it's a 20 mile drive that would probably take about 25 minutes during late night hours) it became apparent that there were no obvious places where someone would pull off the freeway if they were looking for something like a gas station. Even today accessible businesses like gas stations and restaurants are pretty sparse until you get all the way to Sylmar. The distance between Pacoima and the gas station exit in Sylmar is about four miles, with exits in between that you could pull off if you thought you had passed Pacoima. In this area of the freeway the exits spill out into areas with many buildings such as for small businesses or residences. In other words, they spill out into "neighborhoods."

I wondered if the Sylmar Standard station had the appearance of being in a black neighborhood, if someone would think they were in one if they were there. 

But although Sylmar is a neighborhood, the station isn't located in anything like a neighborhood at all. It is barely off the freeway, and there is nothing around it that even resembles a residential area. Today in the surrounding blocks there are some apartment buildings, but they are obviously of post-1969 vintage. Likewise, the McDonald's and Mobil gas station are clearly newcomers. I stayed in the area for a while, taking pictures and getting the feel of the layout. While my female assistant went into the women's room and took photos of the current toilet (amazingly still a tank model!) I went to Denny's to check out the interior. As a cover for my presence inside the restaurant I ordered a milk shake. The interior had likely been redone since 1969, but it was clearly an older building. The clerk didn't know how long it had been there. (The gas station building, although long since remodeled into a gas station/food mart-type enterprise, was of a basic style consistent with it being the same structure that was there in 1969.)


The whole area had no feel of any kind of "neighborhood." It had the feel of a remote service area right off the freeway.


Above: The Standard/Chevron station at the Sylmar exit off Interstate 5
Below: Another view of the station showing the close proximity of the freeway behind it



The current women's restroom toilet

Rosemary LaBianca's wallet (courtesy of Cielodrive.com)


Above and below: Two pictures showing the relationship of the gas station 
to the neighboring Denny's Restaurant



Above: Inside Denny's 
Below: The receipt for my milk shake



When I asked Charles Manson for his version of the gas station/wallet incident he told me that he knew the station wasn't in a black neighborhood and that he told Linda Kasabian to get rid of the wallet once he realized it was in the car not because he intended it as a false clue but because it was "hot."

Thus, as to the trajectory of Rosemary LaBianca's wallet on the night of August 9-10, 1969, here is what I think could have happened:

After Manson departed the LaBianca house he was joined at the car on Waverly Drive by Charles Watson, who had left the LaBiancas briefly alone and subdued in the house. (Both Manson and Leslie Van Houten have memories of Watson returning to the car.) At the car, Watson passed Rosemary LaBianca's wallet to his partner in love and crime, Linda Kasabian, who kept it concealed as she, Manson, Susan Atkins, and Steve Grogan drove off.

After a night of cruising around Greater Los Angeles (and with more to go), it was time to fuel up Johnny Swartz's 1959 Ford. In those days gas stations were not as prevalent as they are today, and the Standard/Denny's complex would have been remarkable. Because of Manson's awareness it's possible that he already knew about the station and predetermined it as a destination. 

At the station it's possible that Linda Kasabian produced the wallet when time came to make the gas purchase and Manson became aware of its presence and asked her where she got it. When she told him he told her to get rid of the "hot" wallet by placing it in the toilet tank in the women's restroom.


The gas station was picked because it was the only one for miles around, not because Charles Manson thought it was in a black neighborhood. Nobody would think that it was in any kind of neighborhood because the gas station/restaurant was (and to a great extent still is) a remote, standalone complex. The wallet was ditched in the ladies' room because it was "hot," not because it was intended as a false clue.






160 comments:

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Never has a photo of a toilet been so exciting!
And that might explain why Linda put it in the cistern, rather than a less obvious place- she was genuinely trying to hide the thing, not plant it for someone to discover. Or maybe she was just mentally frazzled from having been involved in Murders.

I liked the completion of the circle thing you had going too, George; acknowledging your & Manson's shared connection to this place, and your own shared personal ties, through the simple act of buying milkshakes. Manson buys milkshakes for his groovy gang, 40-something years later George buys a milkshake at the same place, the circle is complete and yet life goes on- with many more milkshakes on the horizon. Maybe ATWA could turn this into a ritual/pilgrimage kinda deal- go to Sylmar Service Station every 10th August, buy some milkshakes, then dump your wallet in the toilets. Ommmmmmmmmm.

Loving the book, btw. It's clear you put a lot of effort into it- it's not going unappreciated.

MHN said...

George, seriously, you went for vanilla?

ziggyosterberg said...


(Vincent Bugliosi voice)

"Manson chose to celebrate starting a race war by drinking a milkshake, because blacks are 4 times more likely than whites to suffer from lactose intolerance."

ziggyosterberg said...


Why is there no picture of the milkshake, George?

Boots said...

Blackie definitely would have went out on the town with those credit cards.

AustinAnn74 said...

So, every, single thing that comes out of Manson's mouth is 100% true fact and everything from the trial is a complete fabrication to frame poor Manson? As Judge Judy would say, "Baloney!"

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

Amen to that, Ann. I sometimes get the impression people think this was a Jesus before the Sanhedrin type of affair. It was a murder trial conducted in the glare of the most intense worldwide public interest any murder trial had ever had; and yet half the world seems to think that every other word out of the prosecutor's mouth was a pack of lies designed to crucify a nobody, a hippie from the outskirts of Laziness, a failed wannabe rock star who had never really posed any real threat to society as a whole. Why? Who the hell heard of Manson prior to the murders? Why was it so imperative to lock him away that a prosecutor would risk his entire case collapsing by fabricating lie after lie?

MHN said...

Wow. Autocorrect on phone changed "outskirts of LA" to "outskirts of Laziness". I kind of like that. Good name for a novel. I might try to write one.

George Stimson said...

Uh-oh, I'm not convincing the Judge Judy crowd....

Josh Bratt said...

Excellent post George!!!
Prosecutor's are in it to win it, so, in my experience they will do whatever it takes to win. Justice and guilt mean little in the broader world of law. With the way things are set up lawyers need wins and winning that case was HUGE for the Bug. He had aspirations and dreams to conquer. I don't think it's that far fetched that the Bug used every chance and trick he had to get a very big win in that portfolio of his. I also see the likelihood of CM being a tad more honest being that he was raised and reared in an environment where liars are dealt with harshly. Just two cents from my pocket though, no crucifixions please.
Hello Everyone!!! ;)

Mr. Humphrat said...

I'll bet they paid less than $4.35 for four milkshakes in 1969.
And what was Denny's thinking when they changed their logo from
that great old-fashioned script? The world is going to hell.
Back to the outskirts of laziness.

D. LaCalandra said...

"and yet half the world seems to think that every other word out of the prosecutor's mouth was a pack of lies designed to crucify a nobody, a hippie from the outskirts of Laziness, a failed wannabe rock star who had never really posed any real threat to society as a whole"

So you say Bugliosi had no reason to lie in order to crucify who you call a "nobody", who "had never really posed any real threat to society as a whole".

If your sentiments about Manson are true, then you have to admit that Bugliosi, DID lie because he elevated Manson into the "maharishi of murder" who wanted to "kill as many people as possible" and who had an uncanny ability to control his "boot licking slaves". Your view on Manson is total contradiction to what honest Abe Bugliosi laid out.

He cast Manson into the role of the absolute villain, thus making him the hero because he saw the attention the case was getting and knew it would elevate his career. It's not a consequence Helter Skelter was released at the exact same time he ran for attorney general and to think a power hungry prosecutor wouldn't lie, cover up, twist the truth, etc. to win what he called the "most bizarre murder case in American history" is stupidity. Especially since the media attention focused on Manson pretty much gave him moral license to do whatever the hell he pleased. Remember, he was brought up on perjury charges and denied slipping William Farr information.

It's funny how Manson could never tell the truth. But a girl working for full immunity is. Or a prosecutor who wants to keep his name in the press are. They have no reason to lie. What's funny is that originally, Bugliosi told Kasabian's lawyer to shove his proposed deal up his ass when they had Atkins. After using her for what they wanted, it's odd how there just happened to be one "sweet little innocent" angel in he crowd of devils. Despite being there on both nights. How convenient.

MHN said...

George, no need to be rude - I learned everything I know about the majesty of the law from watching Judge Judy :p

Your 'female assistant' hehe. I wonder if Manson ever used that phrase. I bet he ordered vanilla too - wouldn't want no chocolate milkshakes huh?

I love the passive language here George:

"After Manson departed the LaBianca house" - instead of, "After Manson had incapacitated the married couple in their own home so that they could be stabbed to death with less commotion than had ensued at Cielo, and returned to the car"

And -

"it's possible that Linda Kasabian produced the wallet when time came to make the gas purchase and Manson became aware of its presence and asked her where she got it".

Yeah. It's possible. You make Manson sound like Obama - whenever some scandal is uncovered (IRS, VA, Fast & Furious etc etc) his response is the same - 'I only found out about this, like most folks, from watching the news last night' Seriously - what was Manson doing while Tex left the couple to give their wallet to Kasabian - cleaning his fingernails? doing a crossword? I don't believe for one minute that the wallet was given to Kasabian and not Manson. And that has nothing to do with Judge Judy. Manson was not a passenger in this.

Why a milkshake, George? You like milkshake? Or did it strike you as an amusing little tribute to what took place that night? You even photographed the receipt, so my money's on the latter.

Because hey - they may have been disposing of a wallet taken from a couple whose house they had entered with the intention of knifing them to death, but the IMPORTANT thing to remember is that they weren't planning a race war, and the prosecutor made questionable claims about their precise motives for disposing of a murdered couple's wallet in a particular gas station, right? Here's the thing for me George; if Bugliosi suddenly claimed that Manson chose this gas station because John Lennon appeared in blackface floating on a cloud and told him to, it would be a laughable claim that would STILL not detract one iota from the horror of that image of Leno's dead hands, tied up how Manson left them, so he could be stabbed repeatedly, carved into, left with knives and forks sticking out of his body to add insult to fatal injury.

Hope the shake was good.

Nothing personal - I always enjoy your contributions, but no I'm not fully convinced, and if that makes me part of the Judge Judy crowd, I can live with that.

MHN said...

LaCalandra, you're using circular reasoning. My view on Manson is not that he was no threat to society as a whole. You misunderstand my argument. My argument is that IF Manson was not the ringleader, the instigator, the brains behind these murders, the guy who wanted this to happen and therefore put these thoughts into the heads of his crew, THEN the prosecutor would have no conceivable reason to risk his whole case by trying so hard to tie it all onto Manson.

Why lie and scheme to frame a hippie nobody? Manson may be a superstar now but at the time Bugliosi was assigned that case, if he had thought "I'm gonna make a huge name for myself by being the man who brings down Charles Manson even if he's essentially innocent" it would have made no sense, because nobody knew who the hell Charles Manson was. If he was essentially blameless in all this, there was no reason to tie him to it. Bug would still have been the man who successfully prosecuted the Tate-LaBianca murders, and Manson would still be an innocent nobody who once wanted to be a pop star but left the city because he didn't fit in.

D. LaCalandra said...

As Bugliosi once said, when he took the case early on he kept seeing the name "Manson" and pretty much assumed he was the mastermind. Yet later he said he had to bring him in on circumstantial evidence and that it's possible he could have walked without Kasabian's testimony, which means it was in fact mostly assumption on his part that he was the ring leader. Based on that, it appears the only thing Bugliosi saw earlier on is that Manson was obviously an important person to these people, but as for involvement in and planning of the murders, he had little except hearsay. Take Manson out of the picture and you have a handful of girls involved in the murders since the principle butcher was sitting in Texas watching TV and having his mom prepare him home cooked meals while not saying a word. Every good guy needs a bad guy. Saying that you knew a man HAD to be involved in murders that would get him the death penalty, while also admitting there was little evidence, to the point where it was possible he could have walked...doesn't sound very good, does it?

Side note: one question I never see people ponder is that after supposedly attempting extremely half-hearted attempts (if you can call them that) to commit murder (guy at a traffic light, opps...he got away! Priest: oh well, not there, random house: oh nevermind, they have kids)....Manson decided to go to a house he remembered as being empty. In 1970 in a private interview with Stoviz, Harold True DID confirm that when Manson would party over there, the LaBianca house was in fact empty. So on that night, you had Manson drive to a house he remembered as being empty.

D. LaCalandra said...

You're also grossly underestimating Vincent Bugliosi's imagination and flair for dramatics. He did after all moonlight as a fiction writer. Despite Manson being little more than a petty criminal, ex-con and folk singer, he still saw the name and knew he could elevate this guy into what he later called a name "synonymous with Evil" and knew it would make his case all the more stronger and bigger spectacle. You can call him a hero, but he used the corpse of Sharon Tate and everyone else as nothing more than a stepping stone for his ambitions and turned what happened into entertainment.

It wasn't just Bugliosi, but he his buddy from the DA's office who contributed to it too. With the case Bugliosi was laying out, it gave the defense a defense that otherwise would not have: diminished capacity on the grounds they were brainwashed by Manson and under the control of LSD he gave them. Caballero went as far as saying Atkins was under the "hypnotic spell of Charles Manson".

So in other words, the only different between Bugliosi and the early defense attornies were the words "and" and "but". Bugliosi said, "and Charles Manson made them do it" and the defense said "but Charles Manson made them do it"...leaving Charles Manson up shit's creek without a paddle. So if you want to believe the myth, wake up to the reality that it was partially created by attorneys working to get the actually killers OFF.

MHN said...

OK, Manson chose to enter a house he remembered as being empty.

And once inside, he did what?

George Stimson said...

Boy, you can tell who hasn't read my book.

MHN said...

Judge Judy told me not to.

MHN said...

In fairness, I was responding to a post you wrote on the Manson Family Blog, not to your book.

And I did read the detailed analysis of your book on this site. Did it entirely misrepresent you?

George Stimson said...

I didn't write the analysis, I wrote the book. The analysis was off in several regards, which you would know if you (sigh) read the book.

D. LaCalandra said...

I'm not going to speculate or share my feelings about the night the LaBianca's were killed, as I'm not interested in being questioned by people who're only going to look for an argument. But I'll say that I don't believe he entered the house alone, I think this time, Watson was right behind him.

What is funny is that Krenwinkle, Atkins and Van Houten seem to have a perfect memory of nearly everything.....except when it comes to Manson's exact role that night and what he said and did. Suddenly their memory gets foggy. None of them have given a straight and consistant answer as to what took place prior to the LaBianca murders. With the exception of Watson. He says they entered together, he tied them up, Manson took cash and split. Then the girls entered and he, Watson asked if he said to kill them and their nodded yes. But none of them have explicity said he used the words kill, murder, etc. just to "help Tex" and Van Houten always seems to draw a blank about what he said.

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starship said...

Nah. It is what was already reported exactly. It didn't have to be a black neighborhood. Manson knew that because there was a Dennys there, just off the highway exit, that there would be black people frequenting the place.

I always wondered how it would have been had the wallet been found and someone tried to use the credit cards within, only to be denied for being maxed out. If that sort of thing could have even happened back then in 1969.

MHN said...

If they had no evidence Manson was the bogeyman pulling the strings, if you ignore Manson's antics, if you take Manson out of the picture ENTIRELY and focus only -only- on what was done in those two houses over two nights to those seven people, and to the demeanour and actions of the girls in court, do you really, really think this wouldn't have been damning enough of the hippie movement, if that was the aim? They needed a counterculture hippie to blame? They had that in spades already, with or without Manson.

George - I may get round to your book one day. Rest assured I shall refrain from comment on your excellent posts here until I have done so.

MHN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fiddy 8 said...

I never realized it was THAT Denny's! Of course, I've read Bug's piece of Helter Skelter "evidence" before, but never connected it to my history with the same place.

The location of this gas station/Denny's complex is as George describes. The feeling is of an Interstate 5 truck stop, the Sylmar neighborhood and shopping district is miles away. (Sylmar is not a city unto itself, but a simply a nameplace part of the city of Los Angeles.)

This is the most famous Denny's in all of Southern California to folks trying to put together weekend excursions into the Sierra Nevada mountain range with friends from Los Angeles/Orange County. This one spot is the perfect rendezvous point for friends before proceeding to the Sierra Nevada. Club trips, and just informal trips, meet here because three major freeway corridors converge just south of here (405, 5, 210), and then a few miles north is the I-5 and Highway 14 split, where you decide to go west side or east side of the mountain range.

It even works to leave cars not needed for the rest of the trip there for a few days. During the 70's gas crisis, the gas station would let people wait in line with a few gas cans even without a car, in that way we could consolidate enough gas to get into the Sierra.

Thanks George, great post!

D. LaCalandra said...

I don't think Bugliosi really used the case to discredit the hippie movement, but the media and politicians certainly did. Regardless, I think people are, sorry to say, absolutely ignorant and totally stupid in regards to how cases, especially murder are handled. A prosecutor will do everything in their power to make the jury hate the defendant and think they are the worst example of life, while playing on their emotions by painting the victims as being absolute angels from heaven.

You see it in a lot of murder cases. Sometimes you get a wife who killed an abusive husband or a girl who killed a molesting father and use that as a defense. Even if it's true, a prosecutor will do their best to discredit their claims and make them out to be liars.

Bugliosi in the end didn't even believe his own bullshit. He claimed the killers were the boot licking programmed slaves of Charles Manson who carried out his orders. I think he used the term zombie assassins at one point. But later he pat himself on the back for shooting down Watson for playing that exact role that he in the beginning cast him in and basically took pride in proving himself wrong. People also don't realize that Manson's most loyal disciple Susan Atkins was the first to sell him out in a deal and Leslie was right behind her wanting to do the same.

Perhaps the most interesting detail of all of this however, is that Bugliosi for whatever reason, did not tape his private conversations with Kasabian. He recorded pretty much all his conversations, but no tape of what they talked about in private exists.

anonymous said...

Thank you D.La-you said it all. So true!!! :D

anonymous said...

Read more info and you'll see. He also was not a wannabe rock star. Talk to Neil Young.

anonymous said...

Thank you for those points!

Kevin Marx said...

I wonder how different things would have been if Tex had been extradited in time to stand trial with the others - the dynamic in the courtroom would have been completely different. From day one the jurors would have been staring at the man who actually wielded the knife.

As for the wallet - it was a poor effort at hiding it, they knew it would be found sooner or later. Why not burn it or bury it? That would make too much sense I suppose.

anonymous said...

DeL., again, this info is appreciated - it helped answer several questions I had. Manson had mentioned at one point he could have gotten 7 years and freedom for a plea bargain (?), but he wasn't a snitch. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that with most of his years in prison that was the code he lived by and he wouldn't change it. Any thoughts?

Robert Hendrickson said...

PLEASE excuse me for getting between Mr. Stimson and Michael. BUT there is a very relevant issue here. The matter of whether a "comment" blogger "buys" a product being discussed also relates to my MANSON stuff.

Of course, it would be nice IF the product was purchased, especially when one would want the product "creator" to CREATE some MORE of HIS work.

BUT the internet has produced an entirely NEW type of social participant, which includes not only average JOES, but also ISIS killers. It is a wide open frontier for ALL.

A famous radio host just today discussed this very matter of a new generation wanting ALL media content for FREE. AND they will eventually get exactly what they wish for, BUT at what cost ?

Today I shipped MY last book copy of "Death to Pigs" for $100 and wow am I glad that's DONE. A primary reason I created the book was for copyright purposes - to establish that the words spoken by the Family were 'copyrightable' and that I owned that dialouge under a "work for hire" relationship. That is why it contains the word-for-word transcriptions.

AND I have the audio tapes to back-up ALL of it.

Th second point is that some folks like Michael have a valuable perspective that is really worth hearing, even when HE does NOT have ALL the background knowledge.

As some of you know, I have been questioning whether to even complete the 5 hour mini-series - cause I don't even have a new hook to attract needed attention to it. Then the other day, I received a letter thanking me for doing the book and DVDs - that HE enjoyed the experience of actually visiting REAL history. That motivated ME, but still did NOT provide a "hook." Yesterday, I pick-up an old true dectective magazine and a paper fell out. I picked it up off the floor and IT contains the HOOK I've been lookong for. It is a campaign brochure from Eugene McCarthy for President. The subject is ALL about BLACKS, riots, racism, Vietnam, and the WAR.

I realize that many folks, like Mr. Bugliosi, would say: "yeah, well what's that got to do with the EVIL mastermind of Helter Skelter" ?

Helter Skelter may have DIED with Bugliosi, BUT ignorance will always survive as an inherent nature of mankind.



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

Robert: "I realize that many folks, like Mr. Bugliosi, would say: "yeah, well what's that got to do with the EVIL mastermind of Helter Skelter"

I hate people who talk about themselves in the third person.

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ziggyosterberg said...


MHN said...

Robert: "I realize that many folks, like Mr. Bugliosi, would say: "yeah, well what's that got to do with the EVIL mastermind of Helter Skelter"

I hate people who talk about themselves in the third person.

-----------------


ziggyosterberg hates those people too. Except for Panamint Patty. ziggy likes Patty.




ziggyosterberg said...


Excerpt from Helter Skelter :

"According to Linda, Manson had wanted a black to find the wallet and use the credit cards, so blacks would be blamed for the murders. My whole theory of the motive was based on this premise. Why, then, had Manson left the wallet in a white area?

In point of fact, the freeway exit Manson had taken was immediately north of Pacoima, the black ghetto of the San Fernando Valley."

----------------------------

This is one of Bugliosi's little white lies.

The city of San Fernando is "immediately north" of Pacoima and there are 2 freeway exits (Brand Blvd and San Fernando Mission Blvd) "immediately north" of the last Pacoima exit (Paxton St).





christopher butche said...

I was interested to read the Manson anecdote about serving 7 years with a plea bargain. Many times Atkins mentioned a similar figure. It gives an impression that long before Manson was singled out to become a synonym with evil incarnate, the prosecutors may have been fishing around for the really evil one before settling on Manson.
Atkins was offered a deal, then when they had Kasabian she was then offered one and Atkins lost hers. A scenario can be imagined in which Atkins, van Houten and Manson could have been charged with a lesser offence in exchange for testifying for the prosecution. Leaving the full wrath of prosecution invective for Watson and Krenwinkel as the actual murderers with Kasabian either prosecuted for conspiracy or joining the prosecution as a plea bargain witness..

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

So... does that mean in some hypothetical parallel universe we're all sitting around blogging about the terrible deeds of the Watson Family?

AstroCreep said...

Imagine you and a friend are in a car driving and have a casual conversation wherein you say something off the cuff and with zero explanation. Later, during the car ride, you crash and die. Fast forward 45 years and what do you think the friend remembers about the conversation? Does he know your motivation for making the off the cuff statement? Were you being sarcastic? Or does he just remember the words?

We have the benefit of hindsight. Looking back at Charlie saying something like "hey maybe some black dude will pick it up and use it and take the rap" may have been sarcasm... Or, maybe not. The people involved in the crimes didn't have 45 years to examine every word that was said ever between everyone involved and they certainly don't get to ask questions of one another to clarify anything.

The main thing that I come back to, is that Bugliosi is vilified and the real POS that lit the fuse is given the benefit of the doubt. Lighting the fuse is a perfect analogy in that one knows the potential outcome should one choose to light the fuse. What Charlie says is that once he lit the fuse, the firecracker had a choice and free will. The firecracker didn't have a choice, it blew up after he lit it.

Question: has Charlie EVER accepted any responsibility in ANY capacity? I can't find any example of Charlie owning up to lighting the fuse. Reminds me of our current commander in chief... Not my fault. I didn't know. It wasn't me. It was him. It's their fault not mine. Excuses excuses excuses...

Robert Hendrickson said...

MICHAEL: I thought I was giving you a compliment, BUT "HATE" - that's a Jesus people THING. Like, Hate the Christ Killers and stab them with your pointed hats, but LOVE everyone else.

DAWES: Very elequent! So what does YOU are "entitled" to USE other folks WORK, but NOT for FREE mean. The TATE / LaBianca KILLERS felt THEY were "entitled" to TAKE the lives of certain other people, just as Mr. Policeman feels "entitled" to take the life of ANYONE he "thinks" may do HIM harm. Doing as you please, simply because you "think" you are "entitled" to seems to boil down to: What is the "work' or "life" actually worth.

PLEASE understand - I am one of those caught in the middle - not unlike Mr. Stimson. BUT I think YOU have helped ME realize that putting my 5 hours of Manson Family footage out there for the pickings, at this time, is likely to be INSANE. "Selling" IT all to one of those TV companies who make those wild and crazy Helter Skelter type movies - not so much.

william marshall said...

I realize were on to another topic is anyone still interested in the information of Col. Tate trailing the bikers from Cielo back to Sphan ranch ? I'm home now & looked it up in the book.Restless Souls for MHN as promised & anybody who has the book it's on pages 93-95=Hello Eauinox my friend good luck with your studies & ecams I'm sure you'll ace them

D. LaCalandra said...

In regards to Col. Tate visiting Cielo and then following members of the Straight Satans back to Spahn Ranch....

Debra Tate has said that passage was not in her father's original manuscript. I believe her, as that entire story sounds too cinematic and comes off as really bad fiction. Like the naked people walking around like zombies in the morning at the Ranch (most people who worked on the ranch claimed they didn't see half of what was said to go on and they were still doing horse rentals)

I read the book and every so often I would come across some stories that made me wrinkle my brow in doubt and sure enough, they were all the parts that Debra said were not apart of the original manuscripts. We know she spiced the book up with fiction, as evident from her almost voyeuristic account of the murders where the smell of Watson's body was making Sharon sick and all that. Just typical fiction. Watson and the gang slaughtered a bunch of people, so spicing things up with fiction to drive the point home of how radically different and bad they were is just unneeded.

In short, Restless Souls belongs in the trash can.

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

@ D. LaCalandra - I won't debate your opinion of Alisa Statman, but I will dispute Debra Tate's track record for truthfulness because it's an established, proven fact that she's a pathological liar. So much so, that I dare say that if Tate's lips are moving, she's lying.

On Statman's website, SharonTate7.com where she responded to Tate's allegations on this very subject and others, along with a challenge to take a polygraph test, Statman writes this response about Paul Tate's manuscript: "This question is a non-starter because we never claimed to use this unpublished manuscript as a substantial part of Restless Souls - and for the record, only one paragraph was lifted from the Manuscript...

...PJ Tate actually wrote two unpublished manuscripts during the period of 1970-1972. By the time of beginning Patti’s autobiography, much of his thoughts in both manuscripts were outdated, therefore, a majority of PJ’s information came from discussions with him and his actual files that he kept."


As for the debate on who's being truthful, Statman or Tate, at least Statman agreed to take the polygraph. On her website she wrote this response to Tate's asking her to take a polygraph: "...My answer is and always will be, that I’m more than happy to take a polygraph test—but Debra Tate and Robin Olson have to take one along side me. To date, I’ve not received a response."

Since Tate (smartly) seems to have declined this invitation, I'm inclined to believe Statman over Tate until Tate agrees to take the polygraph with her.

MHN said...

Robert - I hope you didn't misinterpret my joke - "I hate people who talk about themselves in the third person" - the implication of the joke being that Mr Bugliosi talks about himself grandly as being 'the evil mastermind of Helter Skelter'.

They say if you have to explain a joke then it isn't really working. THANKS ROBERT! :D

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

William Marshall, now that its authenticity is being so heavily disputed I'm more interested in the details than ever. However, given the way this thread has been going I should say I will buy the book and find out for myself rather than asking anyone else to do my legwork for me. But if you've done it and want to share I'm all ears.

william marshall said...

Above Cielo drive another cul de sac provided a vantage point of the whole neighborhood through field glasses I'd watched dozens of car's trek up to the gate from Mercedes to Datsuns the curious came from every lifestyle Midnight struck the faint roar of Harley Davidson motorcycles reverberated from the canyon below shadowing the echo a pair of headlights rolled side by side up Benidict canyon road I tracked the bikers to Cielo Different from the other curiosity seekers they operated the Harleys with a confidence of knowing their destination They parked at Sharon's gate they climbed the chain link vying for a better view when two guard dogs bounded around the corner The aggesve dog's should have sent them scrabbling yet they stayed taunting the animals until a neighbors light illuminated the street & sent them scrabbling There is only one way in or out of Benidict canyon south into Beverly hills or north towards the valley I gave them a half mile lead before following their trail north I closed the gap between the Harleys as we headed deeper into the valley towards Venture boulevard 30 miles into the trip they exited into Topanga canyon riding towards desert terrain the road was so desolate forcing me to cut my headlights I chanced the turn down the isolated Santa Susana pass I matched the speed of the bikers to their 25 second trip at the next driveway I stopped near a splintered wooden sign Sphans movie ranch for a better look at the layout I backtracked to Topanga then up Devil's canyon highway to the first platue above Santa Susana pass The rising sun turned the evening s frostiness into a furnace a melange of people from toddlers to elderly began emerging from the buildings and tents there was however one commonality among the residents the toilet was an ignored contraption what the Hell was this place

william marshall said...

Hope you enjoy reading this MHN The book is definitely worth a read it's definitely one of the better one's out of my 16 or so Manson Tate/Labianca books

william marshall said...

Oh you can email matt if you promise to return it I have no problem lending out my copy

MHN said...

So much advice on this thread, I love it. I don't know what to do first in my quest for objective facts - read a book by a friend of Manson, or "Talk to Neil Young."

I'll compromise - if Neil Young hasn't got back to me by next weekend I'll read George's book.

william marshall said...

For those who dispute the authenticity of Col. Tates story my question is what would be the point in fabricating it it's pretty well known he went under cover trying to find his daughters kilers THE saddest part of the book for me was the image of him cleaning the crime seen up just heartbreaking

MHN said...

William Marshall - thanks a lot sir, really appreciate that. Now I can spend the evening on google streetview. I can't really borrow anything, living across The Pond, but I'm very grateful for your kindness.

william marshall said...

No problem MHN if you want a copy of the book go on.Amazon check used books lot's of times you can find used books in.excellent condition for pennies on the dollar

william marshall said...

No problem MHN if you want a copy of the book go on.Amazon check used books lot's of times you can find used books in.excellent condition for pennies on the dollar

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
william marshall said...

IDK maybe just out of curiosity no ? Look how many people still go up to the gate of a property of a house that was torn down in 92 if I remember right 46 years later

Matt said...

@Dawes - Bikers could have taken curious female family members and didn't Manson have a bike?

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

I've never seen such a clean and tidy gas station bathroom.

orwhut said...

I haven't gotten around to reading Restless Souls, but, I did a search of my Kindle copy. On page 152, someone named Jake and someone named Gunter are talking presumably, to Col. Tate. Jake SPECULATES that the bikers who were followed were PROBABLY Straight Satans. Gunter mentions that one of their members hung out at the ranch. The only other mention of Straight Satans that I found was about Al Springer and didn't seem to have anything to do with Col. Tate following bikers.
It seems possable that the bikers were curious lookies who were touring locations related to the crime.

william marshall said...

Straight Satan's very possible there's no way he could get close enough to see if they were flying colors without blowing his cover wishing everyone a good & safe weekend heading to Scores tonight a high end strip club in Atlantic city Peace all

TomG said...

Well, you know what? The intrigue for me has always been how did they behave in the hours after the murders? I mean madness takes on its own momentum and once you have begun a gesture it is fatal not to follow thru. But how does a normal, sane human being react, like a Van Houten and a Krenwinkel and sometimes I think an Atkins, respond to what they have done once it all wears off? It must be an awful and horrible time.

We are all a hop skip and a jump from some action that ruins us for all time. I believe that compassion, even for the very bad, especially for the very bad, is the way to go. But if you want to hate and scold all the way to the grave, I guess I can see that.

equinox12314 said...

@William Marshall

Thanks for your kind message of goodwill, William. Hope you are keeping well. See you soon.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Most likely, the Family may have also gased-up at that station on their way to Death Valley - WE did.

BUT what we are really trying to imagine here is whether the wallet was intentionally placed in the toilet, in order to help ignite Helter Skelter, OR whether it was placed there for a different reason.

For ME, I frequently ask myself: What would the aftermath have been like IF "Helter Skelter" was actually brought to fruition ? Would the BLACK people have been pissed-off at the Manson Family or would they have been GLAD the racial injustice played upon THEM in America was finally a moot issue.

Of course, we will never know the answer, EXCEPT that the FACT that Charles Manson is still alive, and NOT killed in prison, likely means HE would have been THEIR hero.

Mr. Humphrat said...

TomG that's the way I feel too.

George Stimson said...

That's a very good point, Robert. The gas station is right on the way from Spahn's Ranch to the desert and is an obvious fueling-up point. Manson would have been very familiar with it and would have known that it was not in a black neighborhood.

Matt said...

When we as a group visited that spot a couple of tears ago I was blown away. Michael Channels told us where it was so we went straight there after departing from George Spahn's grave.

It's kinda in the middle of nowhere (for SoCal, anyway). I remember thinking that either we misunderstood Michael or BUG completely fabricated his story about it being in a black neighborhood.


ziggyosterberg said...


@Matt - He flat out lied in "Helter Skelter" when he said that the Sylmar exit that Manson took was "immediately north of Pacoima".

As I said in my post yesterday, the city of San Fernando is "immediately north" of Pacoima and there's at least 2 exits in San Fernando after the last Pacoima exit and before the Roxford St, Sylmar exit that Manson took.




ColScott said...

it has gotten so I just can"t

Atkins didn't "lose her immunity deal" she threw it the fuck away.

Some idiot believes Orca Tate over Statman?

Stimson continues to believe Charlie had nothing to do with anything.

Robert, who has been talking miniseries since the 90s still know fuck all about copyright. How did that suit against eBay work out for you Sir? Lol

Matt, you want me to come back? The shit I teach people is forgotten every six months!

It is crazy some of these posts people.

Of course Bug lied. All the time!
Of course Charlie tied up the LaBiancas.
Of course Linda was hiding the wallet.

Man I need some Talisker right now.

You all should stick to Ouisch impersonators and Suzan LaBerge Facebook fotos.

D. LaCalandra said...

Statman is a parasite and a phony.

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

She was also hanging out with Susan Atkins' attorney and talking pictures of the property to be given to Susan with little things circled and notes. Then years later of course, she is calling them "monsters" and repeating the same ol' tired lines about the pressing killing the victims a second time. According to Ill Bungalow Bill, her original book idea was one consisting of recreated crime scene photos. Take that into account with the voyeuristic, almost fetish-like account of the murders in her book and it's obvious she truly was just another obsessed freak who weaseled her way into being a somebody through the case. She was Bill Nelson with a vagina (I think), only better at what she did.

I doubt I'm somebody Debra Tate would ever call a friend and I don't agree with everything she does, but I'll take her word over Statman's any day of the week.

Matt said...

D. LaCalandra said...

I doubt I'm somebody Debra Tate would ever call a friend and I don't agree with everything she does, but I'll take her word over Statman's any day of the week.


You are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, Alisa Statman IS MY FRIEND - and I know what kind of person she is.

Now we're dredging up Atkins attorney, press-whore, Debra Fraiser, who was head-over-heals in love with Atkins but dropped like a hot rock when Whiteshouse passed the bar? Just watch Fraiser during the parole hearings and the way she looks at Atkins - after 19 years of marriage, I don't look that lovingly at my wife 100% of the time. I doubt Statman would have taken photos for Nelson but if she did, she's already copped to the fact that she was basically a kid who thought Nelson was doing an HBO documentary with Doris Tate's approval so why wouldn't she try to help Nelson with a photo - recollection during his Atkins interview? It's no big deal. I don't think that makes Statman the demon you try to portray.

If Statman's original book idea was a thoughtless coffee-table book of crime photos that would take as much effort to put together as Debra Tate's photo book on Sharon. Why was that not the book that Statman touted around town for 15 years instead of taking the time to write a tribute-memoir of a troubled family? Seems a way easier route to money than actually writing something. After Patti and Paul Tate's deaths she was free and clear to do anything. Why not do it now in the wave of self-publishing? So I call bull-shit on that one.

Calling her the obsessed-freak that weaseled her way into the Tate family makes as much sense as OJ Simpson being framed by the entire LAPD, CSI, and Coroner's office. It's a back-handed slap to Patti, Paul, and Patti's children that you assume their stupidity that after a 9 year relationship of living together that someone didn't see that Statman was there just to profit from the misfortune of this family. I mean, come on, it may have taken Doris Tate a couple of years to figure out Nelson, but 9 years? With Paul Tate, tack on an additional 5 years before he passed away allowing Statman to care for his grandchildren in his home. But now after 23 years, Patti's children haven't caught on to Statman's supposed under-handed ways? Yet see right through their "aunt" Debra's nastiness? Are they morons? I'm gonna say you are inaccurate on that one too.



Robert Hendrickson said...

GEE Matt, Has the Col got "morning sickness" or what ?

Hope HE realizes, I still love him.

BUT "Col" I know you like to investigate judicial matters, so why NOT do some serious reasearch on "Hendrickson vs EBAY" and how the case was discussed at the 9th circuit. Did you know I got Amazon for "willful" copyright infringement ? You got connections - give G. Rivera a call and ask how his "Hendrickson cases" went. Know anyone at Universal, Paramount, Disney, etc. ? It's kind'a like the Manson cases - YOU really think Charlie LOST ? David is DEAD, Goliath will LIVE forever !

As for the 5 hour mini series, I don't know. I'm now thinking maybe a tight 2 hours that finally drags AMERICA out of the closet - just in time for the "election." Trouble is: Right now, I'm 70 years old and having TOO much fun working on my bucket list.

HellzBellz said...

@ Dawes says ,, Was it ever proven that the "thong" (whatever the heck that means) came from one of Charlie's outfits anyway? ,,

Manson did admit that in one of the prison interviews ,, Remember the leather thong I use to wear ??,, Then Manson calls them Outlaw Handcuffs.
I do not know excactly in wich interview it was, but I am sure he admitted tying up the La-Biancas

Suze said...

LOL. Morning sickness. Hysterical...

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

To call Fraiser a "press whore", but not Statman who was recently on CNN as a "family friend" and who has appeared on nearly every damn "Manson" special since her book is kinda off. I can only recall one TV program that Fraiser was on. To say she loved Atkins is kinda off the mark too. Susan Atkins was a client of hers and I doubt she loved her very much because she did little for her that wasn't absolutely detrimental to her release. To ask why the crime scene photo book wasn't the book eventually released is a simply one. She didn't have the credentials to write Restless Souls at the time since she was just another "Manson Buff" living in the guest house of Cielo, before she integrated herself in the family.

To assume the stupidity, or rather nativity of the Tate family isn't really a back handed slap. The truth is, they weren't the brightest bulbs when it came to stuff like that. Mamma Tate called a lot of people her "friend" who just wanted to exploit her dead daughter. Be it Geraldo, who'd place his arm around her in one show, while using the death of Sharon and unborn grand child as cheap entertainment and saying the baby was "apart of the Satanic sacrifice" or Bob Larson who put her face-to-face with James Mason, Boyd Rice and Michael Moynihan knowing they would say hurtful things so he had a good show to sell his fake Christianity or Maury who did the same crap or Bill Nelson who weaseled his way into their lives so good, he traveled Europe with her.

Doris Tate died in '93. I don't think Statman even met Patti until '92. By reading Nelson's book, it's obvious that she didn't know the Tate family in '91, so I believe Debra.

Matt said...

D. LaCalandra said...

To ask why the crime scene photo book wasn't the book eventually released is a simply one. She didn't have the credentials to write Restless Souls at the time since she was just another "Manson Buff" living in the guest house of Cielo, before she integrated herself in the family.


So after Statman, the monster, gains her street-cred by ingratiating herself into the Tate family, lets go of this dream of putting out a crime scene photo coffee table book that would take absolutely no effort to produce, at a time long after all those involved could be upset or stop her, and instead opts for the tedious, time consuming 400-page written narrative that makes the Tate family out to be nothing short of heroes? That makes about as much sense as saying that the Tate family weren't the "brightest bulbs when it came to stuff like that".

You have a Lt. Col of the United States Army that worked his way up through the ranks the hard way. You have a housewife that changed the face of victims rights in this nation so much so that she was honored by president Bush as one of his 1000 points of light and a second housewife that took on Axl Rose, Guns N Roses, and the entire Geffen empire - and won. Anyone there sound the least bit dim-witted? As for Doris Tate being exploited by "friends" like Rivera, did you ever think that maybe Doris Tate was smart enough to know she was being used, but even smarter to use them back to get her word out on national television?

If you think those three individuals were dim-witted, then, I say with utter confidence that you are not thinking this through. Especially if you're going to start quoting Nelson, the self-serving-pathologically-lying-pedophile as your source of reliable information.



HellzBellz said...

@Dawes, Yes your right, sorry My Bad. It IS Manson denying tying up Labianca, in saying somebody did & didnt knew how to make the ,,Outlaw HandCuff,, I just gave that comment by head ,without searching for the Interview again. And yes you refreshed my Memmory, it was Bill Stout asking Manson about it. But annyway , glad I could be somewhat of a help to you....

grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"I don't think it's that far fetched that the Bug used every chance and trick he had to get a very big win in that portfolio of his"


It depends how you look at it.

Now, I don't hide the fact that I think Helter skelter played a part in these killings, as did other things but that's another conversation for another time. Suffice it to say, you'd have to be close to if not utterly insane legally and colloquially {!} to present that as one of the wellsprings behind these deaths, especially given the publicity that was attached to the whole business prior to the trial.
I'm still curious as to why there is such backlash against Bugliosi for hanging so much of his hat on HS. If you look on CieloDrive.com, there are some fantastic documents relating to 1969 and from a variety of sources, some "family", some not, Helter skelter in a number of different forms keeps on coming up. Whether it's interviews with Susan Atkins & Leslie Van Houten or Danny DeCarlo, Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham or Al Springer and Brooks Poston or trial testimony {also to be found on truth on Tate/LaBianca} or police reports/files, blimey, I for one have been surprised just how frequently it comes up.......and the glaring paucity of anything to do with getting Bobby Beausoleil out of jail. In fact as a side note, even Bobby's actions after the Hinman killing have a touch of the skelters about them ~ blame the killing on the Black man....
Bearing in mind some of this stuff came up before Bugliosi was even on the case, what was he supposed to have done ?
You follow the evidence.
Once things are pointing in a certain direction, you have a job on your hands putting together a coherent case and something that a jury can understand. Even Bugliosi said it wouldn't take him 2 seconds to dump HS if something else came up. At that point, everything pointed that way but he couldn't see what tied it together to the extent that people might be willing to kill.
In his book "Death to pigs" Robert points out that Paul Crockett wasn't used by the prosecution even though he gained an insight into how Charlie would have 'programmed' people, if indeed he did. But if you listen to Crockett speak, I'm not surprised the prosecution didn't use him because he wasn't a good communicator of what he was saying. If that was a prosecution "trick" then more power to 'em. This wasn't art. This was a murder case.
For us with hindsight, perhaps we can see some of the art but that wasn't for then.



D. LaCalandra said...

"So after Statman, the monster, gains her street-cred by ingratiating herself into the Tate family, lets go of this dream of putting out a crime scene photo coffee table book that would take absolutely no effort to produce, at a time long after all those involved could be upset or stop her, and instead opts for the tedious, time consuming 400-page written narrative that makes the Tate family out to be nothing short of heroes? That makes about as much sense as saying that the Tate family weren't the "brightest bulbs when it came to stuff like that".

It makes total sense. Why waste time with a useless book of crime scene photos when you can now release and sure-to-sell book that makes you out to be a close confidon of the Tate family? Tell me what is more interesting. Especially when you can co-write it with Brie Tate, who oddly never used that last name prior.

"You have a housewife that changed the face of victims rights in this nation so much so that she was honored by president Bush as one of his 1000 points of light and a second housewife that took on Axl Rose, Guns N Roses, and the entire Geffen empire - and won. Anyone there sound the least bit dim-witted? As for Doris Tate being exploited by "friends" like Rivera, did you ever think that maybe Doris Tate was smart enough to know she was being used, but even smarter to use them back to get her word out on national television?"

Collecting signatures to keep killers in jail and using public out cry to rally against Geffen doesn't take a rocket scientist. Not giving in would have been commercial suicide. The fact they even gave a shit was silly. But I guess there was money to be made.

"If you think those three individuals were dim-witted, then, I say with utter confidence that you are not thinking this through. Especially if you're going to start quoting Nelson, the self-serving-pathologically-lying-pedophile as your source of reliable information."

I didn't quote Nelson, but I can't find any reason for him to lie about Statman in late 90s. She was a nobody then. I don't judge based on personality, even though Bill had a rotton one. I go by their conduct. Bill was an awful human, but on another hand, I admire certain small aspects of him. He dug up some interesting stuff and the shit people are doing with blogs today, he was doing at a time when very few people cared to.

These are just my views. I feel you might be a little bias as Statman is your "friend". Or did she buy you buy offering to do a Q&A on your blog? Kinda like how you can't say anything bad about Schreck to Mr. TLB Radio without him doing off the rails. Because Schreck made him his exclusive media outlet. Kind like the other guy recently who got me tossed out of a group because he got angry at me not buying into his obsession with hypnotized women and promoting Peter Chiaramonte because he sent him Leslie from Leslie to jerk off to. Can't say anything bad about his pathetic book because he bought the guy.

grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"I also see the likelihood of CM being a tad more honest being that he was raised and reared in an environment where liars are dealt with harshly"


Actually, it's snitches that were dealt with harshly, not liars. I've hung with tons of criminals in my time and not one would I say didn't lie or were honest to a fault.
Charlie Manson back in 1970 was no more honest than any other person that lived outside of the law and in his trial testimony he made it very clear that he lived outside of society's laws. He said it was the only way he could survive. In the same speech he spoke of Robert Beausoleil being arrested for something he had not done. He well and knew that Bobby had done what he was arrested for. So when I constantly come across this "Charlie never lies" bit, sorry, that is not true. When we're in trouble, virtually every one of us will lie or has lied. Especially if the consequence of copping to your shit is death.
A side thought ~ if Charlie had "snitched" on the girls and Tex, who was going to come and deal harshly with him ?
It's been mooted a few times recently that he could have been tried separately and would have got a lighter sentence, but we don't know that at all. We don't know if that was ever even on the table for serious discussion. And there's a very good reason why he lumped in with the other three ~ he'd already been indicted because Susan was talking, Leslie's now infamous Marvin Part interview plonked him squarely in it and it later transpired that Pat Krenwinkel had told a psychiatrist that he was behind things so far better to be together and stop them from talking. Which is what happened.
Yet within a few years, when it no longer mattered, then they started saying what they were saying when separated from him in '69.
I've never heard anyone comment on the fact that they all pleaded 'not guilty' only for the women to confess to murder in the penalty phase, two of them confessing to killings they'd not even done. One wasn't even at the scene of the killing she confessed to being part of.
To be honest, hanging your hat on anyone's innate honesty in this case is really risky. As a Christian, I can understand to some degree where Tex and the late Susan Atkins were/are coming from in later years and I'm less cutting or cynical than most on their words and stories of what went on. But even I have to concede that total honesty is lacking and some of their stories give me real problems, no matter how much I would want to take them totally at their word.

grimtraveller said...

D. LaCalandra said...

"It's funny how Manson could never tell the truth. But a girl working for full immunity is"


Charles Manson said tons of things that were true. In HS, even Bugliosi pointed out that there was "a strange sort of honesty about him." That doesn't mean that everything that emanates from him is or was the truth. Neither does it mean that everything that emanates from him is or was a lie.



D. LaCalandra said...

"What's funny is that originally, Bugliosi told Kasabian's lawyer to shove his proposed deal up his ass when they had Atkins"



Well why wouldn't he ? If you've got Susan Atkins, who at the time was the pipeline to the solving of the Tate/LaBianca murders, on board, even if Charlie and Tex had angled for deals, the prosecution would've said "no." Because they weren't needed. And be complete in your pointing out ~ when the DAs office told Bugliosi that they were going to cut a deal with Atkins, his response was "we don't give that gal anything !" He didn't want Atkins.
However, he didn't need Linda Kasabian when he had Susan Atkins. But also don't forget, he said he preferred Kasabian but was stuck with Atkins. That's his word, stuck. So he would've had Linda because from his viewpoint "she hadn't killed anyone."


D. LaCalandra said...
"After using her for what they wanted, it's odd how there just happened to be one 'sweet little innocent' angel in he crowd of devils"


At trial, he referred to her as "frankly and repulsively truthful" and he also said "Mr Kanarek told us that LK wasn't the all American girl. Of course, she's not. We never told you so...."

Few people on either side of this business came out smelling fragrantly.
Just like us in real life.....


ColScott said...

D. LaCalandra is a fucking simpleton. This is your reader level now?

beauders said...

Alisa Statman does not need money from the book, she is a director on "Modern Family." She wrote the book to honor Patty and Colonel Tate.

D. LaCalandra said...

And look here, obnixious slob. I'd watch who you call a simpleton. Others might tolerate your low-life big mouth, but it might come back and bite you with me.

She is a big one, yeah. But I saw a picture of you, heart-attack-waiting-to-happen, so I wouldn't be so quick to throw stones there with the orca jokes. What's your obsession with her anyway? Did she refuse to talk to you for your shitty blog?

Matt said...

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I like spirited debate.

grimtraveller said...

D. LaCalandra said...

"Bugliosi once said, when he took the case early on he kept seeing the name "Manson" and pretty much assumed he was the mastermind. Yet later he said he had to bring him in on circumstantial evidence and that it's possible he could have walked without Kasabian's testimony, which means it was in fact mostly assumption on his part that he was the ring leader"


Assumption ? With Susan Atkins telling her cellmates that he sent them to Cielo ? Assumption ? With the things that Kitty Lutesinger, Danny DeCarlo and Al Springer were telling the police ?
When one begins a case, one often starts with very little and it takes a while before a picture begins to emerge. If you compare where you end up with where you started, there is likely to be a major difference with a whole lot of ground covered in between.
It's also interesting that you bring in circumstantial evidence. Unless an eye witness or CCTV is used then arguably, most evidence may be circumstantial. Fingerprints at the scene of a crime don't prove the owner of the prints did the crime. So circumstantial evidence has to often be put together to form what the prosecution allege to be the picture.
Incidentally, even with Kasabian's evidence, Charles Manson could have walked. But you'd have to talk to the defence about that one.


D. LaCalandra said...

"Based on that, it appears the only thing Bugliosi saw earlier on is that Manson was obviously an important person to these people, but as for involvement in and planning of the murders, he had little except hearsay"


Manson once made an observation that just because someone is convicted of something doesn't mean that they were guilty. Conversely, people have walked that were guilty but couldn't be convicted because all that was against them was hearsay. So if all you have is hearsay and you believe what that hearsay relates, it stands to reason that you have to find whatever way you legally can to put away the one to whom the hearsay relates.
On some of the trial transcripts {for instance, Kasabian, DeCarlo, Bernard Crowe}, there is so much dancing around of legal questions and what can be submitted and allowed and why and why not. It does not make for smooth reading if you just want to know what the witness said, but it does enable one to see just how much jousting takes place between prosecution, defence and judge before a simple 'yes' or 'no' can be said. So while it is easy to castigate the prosecution and cast all kinds of aspersions their way, to take the view that convicting Charles Manson was a simple fait accompli that could carry no other outcome is naive.
Though he gets nothing but criticism for it, I would encourage anyone to read "Trial by your peers" by William Zamora, one of the jurors in the case {I think it also goes by the name "Blood family"}. There's stuff to be irritated by but overall, unless one is simply going to dismiss everything that goes against what one believes, it's eye opening and provides much food for thought.

Dawes said...

"I don't think you can say that "of course" Charlie tied-up the LaBiancas either- or at least not single-handedly. Maybe he told Tex to do it. Maybe he was there helping Tex do it"


Tex said he did it. It may have been with some direction from Charlie, but Tex has clearly stated in his first book that he was the one.


Vera Dreiser said...

The Cols says in the next thread, D. LaCalandra is Debra Tate. Well, if that's the case, I want Debra's money to buy D. La's services as my ghost writer, too! I don't agree with everything he says, but he's pretty damn good.
And we really can see clearly here why Col. Scott/Don Murphy's movies suck so bad, he has absolutely NO IMAGINATION. His automatic go-to defense of Statman is that anyone critical of her fiction is Debra or me(yeah, because I'm Robin Olsen).
And one last thing, Matt, your argument defending the ridiculous Col. Tate story about following the bikers to Spahn's is about as smart as the Col's lame attacks on me, Debra and anyone else who sees what a utter friggin' buffon he is. Do you honestly think if that story actually happened Col. Tate would've kept it out of an earlier version of his book or we wouldn't have heard it from someone in the Tate family before?! Good God, the Col is right at least on one count: the level of the posters here --- starting w/ him and the moderator -- is embarrassingly low.
Now, unleash all your pathetic sycophants to attack old Vera. I'll be out watering my petunias (and, yeah, that's a euphemism for my pussy).

Matt said...

What took you so long?

D. LaCalandra said...

That fact people would even entertain for a split second that I was Debra Tate, only goes to show how utterly stupid and easily lead people can be believing bullshit. You know, like Paul Tate following bikers from Cielo to Spahn Ranch. Bikers who for no apparently reason rode there to shake the gates and tease the dogs. If Schreck wrote that, people would scold him and ask the same mundane questions, such as why the police never made note of it. But Alisa Statman writes it and few have the balls to call BS because she was nice to them or she fits into their agenda, like ColScott's obsession with Debra Tate.

The whole story is as cinematic as Manson's march visit to Cielo. The only thing missing from it are hypnotized hippies sharpening knives as The White Album repeatedly skips on a record player.

HellzBellz said...

Blogger D. LaCalandra said...

And look here, obnixious slob. I'd watch who you call a simpleton. Others might tolerate your low-life big mouth, but it might come back and bite you with me.

TRUTH !!

HellzBellz said...

Blogger D. LaCalandra said..
Hypnotized Hippies, sharpening knives as The White Album repeatedly skips on a record player.
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9..ScratchScratchScratch......
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9.
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9.. Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...ScratchScratchScratchScratchScratch
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9
Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9...Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....Number9....

black_love_in_space said...

Awesome.

black_love_in_space said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cindy Lee said...

@ D. LaCalandra - you're so quick to minimize the accomplishments and intelligence of Doris, Patti & Paul Tate. You're quick to scrutinize other people's research as BS. You're quick to scrutinize other people's blog posts. You're quick to make the assumption that money-grubber Statman is a monster out to grab her 15 minutes of fame and to minimize her love for Patti and the Tate family.. And you're quick to say that Col. Scott's movies are crap.

So, how about you put your life out in a public forum and let us have la go at ripping apart on your accomplishments in life? Do you have any beyond 6 years of blogging negative energy? How about posting a one-paragraph testament to your life accomplishments on your Facebook page for us to scrutinize? Until then, how about you stop judging others.

D. LaCalandra said...

Judging others? You people judge others everyday. When it's somebody acceptable to judge and the judgement is agreed upon by the crowd. It's only when somebody has an opposing view does it become a problem.

You're also dramatizing my words. I don't think Statman is a "monster". I think she's just another opportunist out to sell sensationalism, but hides it behind the mask of righteousness. Also because she wants to be the Tate-Sister-That-Never-Was. Most likely because Doris Tate's biggest accomplishment was romanticizing being a victim and made an identity out of being a victim's relative. Which isn't hard when you live in a society already kneeling in front of crucified idols and symbols of pain and suffering.

Cindy Lee said...

I can't really think of anything sensational about Restless Souls - it's a memoir FFS. But, whatever, my more important point of contention at the moment is the mere fact that you reduce Doris Tate's work in victims rights down to "romanticizing being a victim" is despicable. What have you done that gains the attention of the president of our United States? You really think Bush made her a Point of Light for romanticizing being a victim? You might wanna read up on what it meant to be made a point of light.

http://www.pointsoflight.org/people/board-members/president-george-h-w-bush

There were no victims rights before Doris Tate pushed the bill through and yes, in her own words, she did that as a result of and due to Sharon's case being so famous that it got the national attention needed to push legislation through. And I find that commendable. She took a negative and turned it into a positive that would eventually help millions of victims in our nation.

So I'll ask again, D. DeCalandra, what have you done to change the world that allows you to minimize Doris' accomplishments? What is your "About D. DeCalandra" that you'd like to put out there for us to minimize down to a poor and pathetic blogger who fills his self-worth by demeaning others? What have you done to help a fellow human being that we can minimize down to BS? Anything? Anything at all? One example?


D. LaCalandra said...

Doris Tate being made a Point of a Light by a mass murderer and warmonger for her crusade against other mass murderers so he can buy votes is funny. Did she defend the rights of the victims killed by him or did they not count because they were brown and not pretty movie stars?

D. LaCalandra said...

It doesn't take much to gain the attention of a president, btw. Ask Manson (Nixon) and Squeaky (Ford). If gaining the attention of a president is an accomplishment, then they succeeded right along side Doris, no? Or I guess that in of of it's self doesn't mean much after all, huh?

Cindy Lee said...

And still, D. LaCalandra, you won't address my question - what have you done????

If those victims you're referring to had called Doris Tate for help or knocked on her door she would have helped them because she never turned anyone away and often put victims before her own family. Doris was the president of the LA Parents of Murdered Children, she was a board member of more victims organizations that you probably have the ability to count up to. There's not many victims rights advocates that make sure their home phone number and address are posted after each TV appearance in case anyone needs help.

MHN said...

Yeah - why did Doris Tate only do what she could for other victims of crime in the US? Why didn't she assume worldwide jurisdiction and defend victims in Iraq? Why didn't she get international law changed? Why didn't she run for the top job at the United Nations?

I agree with LaCal. She was lazy and pathetic - using the pain of her own tragedy to help only others who aren't Iraqis is just lazy. Why didn't she help Iraqis? Clearly, it must have been because of their brown skin. She was a lazy racist!

Why wasn't she out there making a difference to the whole word like LaCal does, not just victims of crime in the USA?

Makes. Me. Sick!

One of the weakest, most brainless, spiteful, cowardly posts I've seen on this site.

Cindy Lee said...

And, as a further note, it may not take much to garner the attention of the president when you've made a negative impact that hurts others, but it does take something rather heroic to gain their attention on a positive impact. Therefor I'd suggest that maybe you have a better chance at getting presidential attention than I first assessed.

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

Come on Cindy - admit it - we could all respect Doris Tate's legacy more had she taken some time out from all that victims' rights stuff to do something really useful like putting a permanent end to war on earth and shit like that.

D. LaCalandra said...

Was blowing the top of the heads off infants as their screaming mother held them in their arms, a heroic act when Calley did it and got all that attention from Nixon who reduced his sentence and had him set free? He got a pardon from the same man who declared Manson guilty.

I wasn't calling Doris Tate a racist, but making the point that...shouldn't all life be equal? In society, it's not. When a pregnant black woman is found murdered in a dumpster it's a blip on the radar. When it's a honey blonde movie star it remains a headline for close to 50 years. When a hooker is found strangled in a motel room, it's no big deal. She asked for it. You see, people judge the severity of murder by the reasoning and life styles of the victims. This is why people are so over protective of the victims reputations in this case. God forbid they might have been people who THEY (society) deem as the kind of people who asked for their own death and this is why anyone who explores that possibility, they are accused of killing the victims twice or blaming them. Because that is how their mind functions. They rationalize murder all day.

What does it matter what I've done? See, you measure people's worth by how much "good" they do. Unaware to the fact there are two motives for everything. You can say a person who does good in the spot light is doing it in the name of good. When most of the time it's for their own self desire to get voted on, win a seat in heaven, ward off whatever insecurities they have, make money or win the acceptance of people like you...who praise the do gooder.

Cindy Lee said...

MHN, thank you for the laugh.

Dawes, when someone who is still alive is bashed and capable of defending their actions, then by all means, have at it, but that poor woman is long since in the grave. She's not here to go at it with D.La, so I will. She deserves better. And for the record, I've already touched on this, but Doris Tate did not discriminate on who she helped and to say that she did is a ridiculous notion.

MHN said...

Dawes, just because you call it 'hate speech' doesn't make it so. As a Christian I despise those who give us all the reputation as being spineless little whiners and whingers.

"They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, a time is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you these things so that when their hour comes you will remember that I warned you, and you can then whine to the moderators and the government, you will try to get people banned or their comments deleted, you will demand legislation is passed to make it a hate crime to say hurtful words about your faith - and in this way you will negate my prophecy and demonstrate that you are not living in me but in the world, and that you expect the world that crucified me to protect you and cosset you. Which is tantamount to rejecting the cross."

MHN said...

LaCalandra - but is it any surprise? After all, you don't have to be here but you are. There is a whole mix of remarkable and bizarre ingredients that has made the TLB murders of enduring interest. I for one did not find them interesting merely because Sharon Tate was pretty and also not black.

I'm sure you actually know that, when you're not busy defending to the death that slightly unhinged corner into which you've almost accidentally talked yourself.

I'm done. No hard feelings, nothing personal - hope I didn't cause offense to you La Cal.

Cindy Lee said...

DeLaC, I'm not going to get into a debate with you on why our nation's leaders make decisions--Nixon could have made that decision based on other lives that could be saved. Or not. But I don't have those details and neither do you.

As for my question, I don't measure a person's worth by how much good or bad they do in the world--although clearly, those that do bad suck. But when you sit back in judgement of a woman that went above and beyond to help others, demean her actions, or ask why she didn't do more, then it begs the question wtf have you done? I don't care if you're "About DeLaC" is, "I gave food to a feral cat," but lets hear it before you continue on demeaning all the good that Doris Tate left behind in our world, while to date your epitaph remains, "I didn't do squat, but sat in judgement of others who tried to make a difference".

D. LaCalandra said...

The most ironic part about this is I have zero animosity towards Doris Tate and actually liked her. I think she was certainly used by the media who just wanted to sell her pain to the public, but I fail to see how that's an insult. Victim's rights are great, sure. But they only matter when it's in the benefit for the state. All the victim's rights in the world or impact statements and letters don't mean anything if the state has no benefit to keep a person locked up. This is why Michael Alig is out free and Leslie Van Houten is still locked up. His hearings weren't media spectacles and there was no risk of losing votes for future elections in releasing him. Oh yeah, ahd he killed another dope dealer :) Which some in society consider a community service.

MHN said...

And one last thing: one of the first public reactions to the murders was to imply that Sharon Tate HAD been asking for it due to her lifestyle. A whispering campaign so intense that Polanski had to publicly and tearfully slap it down.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

"I wondered if a person would reasonably mistake the two areas"


The key word there is reasonably. After all, one person's 'reasonable' is another person's 'tosh.' Furthermore, whether mistaking an area for something it's not is reasonable or unreasonable is kind of neither here nor there. The fact that you might think something is reasonable or unreasonable has little to do with whether someone else does or doesn't. And whether one accepts Charlie had anything to do with the LaBianca slaying or not, one thing is for sure ~ he knew what would be taking place in the house once he drove away whether he instigated it or not. So that alone puts a different slant on whether one might mistake being in a particular kind of area or not. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he'd seen lots of Black people filling up at that petrol station over the previous year or so.
It struck me a while back that when involved in criminal pursuits that because generally speaking, one is not looking to get caught, intricate details of every move aren't mentally logged. Why would you need to ? And if there's more than one of you, you're not going to be recording every single move and word of the other person. Unless you're doing what Robert Hendrickson was doing back in '69~'72 with camera and audio recorder, actively filming/recording people talking live or whatever, then going out on a caper is possibly a bit like ad libbing in a film/play or improvising while playing a song. It's just something you do. So when people afterwards {and in the case of all the action regarding the TLB killings and beyond, we are talking months afterwards} are called on to recall every detail of every small matter and logically account for every single move made and word said during an event you probably thought you'd never be thinking about again, I'd say there's a good chance that much that gets relayed won't make much sense or will seem illogical.
With TLB, matters are further complicated because the "family" existed outside of the mores that most of the prevailing straight society did or even many of us today.

Kevin Marx said...

D La Calandra said:

"If Schreck wrote that, people would scold him and ask the same mundane questions, such as why the police never made note of it. But Alisa Statman writes it and few have the balls to call BS because she was nice to them or she fits into their agenda"

Yes - would love to see the blog do a "debunking" of Bug, Sanders, Stimson, Statman's theories.

Matt said...

@ Kevin Marx - Bugliosi debunking is one of the main raisons d'etre of this blog. If we believed in the HS motive there wouldn't be a lot to discuss.

Sanders? Others have already kicked the chair out from under that one (think James and Lauren at Sespe Hot Springs). Personally, I view Sanders' book as more of time capsule art. They guy wrote for The Freep, for crying out loud? It's an entertaining book, but I hardly use it to look up facts.

Stimson. If you remember, I wrote a review of that book within a week of its ship date.

To quote myself:

"I knew going in that the slant would be towards Manson's innocence, but I believe that Stimson does consider him innocent. Stimson took great care to cite his sources. He interjects his opinions, but he develops those opinions incrementally and (almost) convincingly. I did not agree with him on a number of things but I won't focus on those. You'll have to read it for yourself. Despite disagreeing on a number of major points, I do though give it a thumbs-up. It is a must TLB read."

We also recruited an attorney to rebut Stimsons chapter dealing with Manson and the law.

Statman. Her book is built around the personal investigation conducted by Col. Tate, writings by Col. Tate, Doris Tate and Patti Tate. The accounts were taken from personal letters, tape recordings, home movies, and private diaries.

The vivid descriptions of the murders were not meant to be taken literally, they were taken from descriptions of nightmares that Patti Tate experienced over and over.

Schreck? That debunk (Part 1) took almost 6 months to put together, and we supported everything we said with publicly available documentation. That is a LOT of work. The reason? people were yammering about that book being some sort of new TLB bible. It needed to be done.

BTW, Kevin if you like we have room on the team for you if you'd like to do the voluminous research and organizing to debunk whatever book you like.

Matt said...

And of course we don't have families, careers and lives to live :) :) :)


Kevin Marx said...

Hey Matt, thanks for the invitation to contribute :)

My interest in TLB comes mainly from having been thru some similar experiences in my life (knife attack, alternative lifestyle, underground music scene etc) and whilst I love reading about it and positing theories, I don’t have the same desire or dedication as you guys do to researching the subject. Tip of the hat!

My opinion on TLB has been formed mainly thru reading the Col’s blog, this blog and the main books. The fact that what I believe is subject to change based on what I read thru these sources is both delightful and infuriating in almost equal measures! Just when I think I have a “clear” idea of what happened someone posts something, which just blows my mind and gets me thinking completely differently. This, of course, is the advantage blogs have over books – they’re constantly being updated.

The reason I said I would love to see a debunking series on all books is because I think there is value in all the “major” TLB books – and yet none contains the absolute truth. In order to try to get to get as close as possible to that “truth” I think it’s reasonable to suggest that all of them should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

If the aim of the blog is to present a balanced and fair analysis of all the books and writings on the subject then imho I don’t think reviewing one book and debunking another is the best way to go about it. Why not review both or debunk both? This way no-one could ever accuse the blog of having an agenda or favouritism etc.

Of course I understand that this would be a massively time-consuming exercise and anyone who undertakes it deserves special praise!

Matt said...

Thank you for understanding, Kevin. You touch on a good point. Each book has its own value. I don't agree with George's conclusions, but I see tremendous value in his source material (Sandra Good's audio collection for example). I also find his point of view fascinating. Conclusions though are subject to opinion. BUT, you have to have verifiable source material, which he has.

With Schreck, he offered no sources. We went and found things like birth records, death records, marriage records, property deeds related to the points he made and concluded that it was all fantasy. That's our opinion based on verifiable public records. I've heard some violent criticism, but not one person has researched his book and put up an argument in his defense using verifiable records. No one. (heh!)

We aren't going to debunk Statman. Why? We.believe.her. Period. If someone else doesn't, debunk away.

I do appreciate you clarifying your remarks. Thank you also for the kind words.


candy and nuts said...

matt you must have seen my embroidery i gave micheal channels,,,,i think i should start a vest for you,,,,,,lol

candy and nuts said...

atwa pilgrimage for milkshakes mhn wow i dont get that before atwa earthday happened and before that native americAns and pagans the people called witches thanked the earth and tried to save it joke about atwa? when you have no water to drink it will not be much of a joke

MHN said...

Matt - well, anyone really - I'm currently reading Restless Souls. Statman has Col Tate writing this, recalling his viewing of his daughter's body:

"Below the scar, I felt a rough edge. When I smudged away the makeup, I uncovered a slash wound that shattered the illusion of her sleeping."

Casual observers often think they see a slash wound on the mortuary photo. It kind of looks like one. And as I discovered here recently Watson even 'remembers' slashing her cheek with a knife.

However, we know from the autopsy report that there was no slash wound to Sharon Tate's cheek. There were two roughly parallel abrasions - a rubbing wound, surface damage, not a penetrating or cutting wound - possibly friction burns from a rope. Her cheek was not slashed. No-one (especially anyone with military experience) who actually ran their fingers across an abrasion is going to mistake it for a slash wound.

That makes me slightly wary. Is this text presented as being transcribed directly from Col Tate's manuscript, or is it... I dunno... a re-imagining based on it? What exactly am I reading?

MHN said...

MATT - sorry - I see you've already answered my question earlier in the thread.

hi candy - sorry, I can't work out what you mean.

Matt said...

MHN, sorry for the delay. I did not want to speak for Statman so I emailed your question to her. Here is her response:

---------------------------------------

Matt, I'm in an extreme hurry to get this to you before my dinner guests arrive so it may be chalk-full of typos and other disasters.

My notes from chapter 2--and yes, I have an entire closet filled with notebooks marking every note for each chapter, where it came from, and every revision due to the fact that I was worried at the time of Debbie Tate trying to claim this was her book. So I was careful to mark/document everything in case we ended up in court.

First, let me be clear again, this was not a transcription directly from PJ Tate's book, Five Down on Cielo that Debbie Tate likes to quote from (there were two books by PJ). I've said this many times, but let me reiterate-- only 1 paragraph was lifted from either of PJ's manuscripts and it is even noted in the beginning of Restless Souls that this work was a culmination of many sources.

The note that I wrote from PJ was that he wiped away the makeup to see the damage done to her face below. Now, for better or worse, that's part of the writing process and yes, taking liberty--I personally wanted something more specific for the word "damage".

When I examined Sharon's autopsy file and coroner drawing of her face, there are three markings on the diagram. First, one to the neck, to which the coroner refers to a faint superficial abrasion measuring 3 inches--he notes that this was probably from fingernails.

Second and third are on the left side of the face, one above the other, the upper 2.5 inches, the lower 1.5 inches. The coroner described them as abrasions (loss of skin) "interrupted dark red superficial loss of epidermis". For me, what is "superficial" when you're talking cause of death? Is it a scratch or a wound that is not further than a .5 inch deep? If you look at the diagrams he drew, he notes the one on the neck as "superficial" but does not make that note on the two facial abrasions. He also draws the abrasion on the neck with a thin line, the upper abrasion with what seems to be 5 abraded marks, and then he draws a thick black swerve on the lower. I'm sorry, but for me, that's a slash type wound--whether it was done with a knife or slashing with a hand.


---------------------------------------

DIAGRAM HERE



AstroCreep said...

D. LaCalandra- I respect your opinion, you're entitled to your beliefs. However, I'm not sure what mass murder you believe Bush senior committed. What are you referring to? I think Gulf War part one was probably the most humane "war" ever waged. Or were you referring to the Ranger's invasion of Panama in 1989 wherein two Panamanian airfields were seized and Noriega was captured. Again, little resistance. Very humane and strategic. Quite the difference from the carpet bombings of North Vietnam. Please elaborate.

The only mass murders I've seen in the last 25 years are those being committed online thru a highly sophisticated PR and recruitment campaign by ISIL. I haven't seen any videos of H. W. Bush lining up innocent human beings and sawing their heads off.. Or burning anyone alive.. Or throwing homosexuals off of rooftops.. Or drowning people in a cage in a pool..

It's interesting you select Bush (usually 43 is the target, not H. W.) because the very first Iraqis I encountered in 2003 all said the same thing when we'd storm their residence in the middle of the night. "George Bush, George Bush, George Bush"!!! (These were black list deck of cards folks mind you not just us randomly harassing innocent Iraqis) They were HAPPY to be out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. In most cases, they were forced to be a part of his cabinet and regime or their family would be tortured to death if they abandoned him. By 2005, everything changed and ISIL and the counter insurgency created a new kind of evil to rebel against us infidels.

I'm glad you're in a great nation that affords you the God given right to say what you'd like to say without fear of being exterminated. I mean, you can even slander the dead and call former presidents mass murderers. Pretty fucking cool that even after you slander a dead woman (who tried to make sense of and turn a tragic family event into something positive) people defend YOUR right to say YOUR opinion on this very blog. It's too bad the people being thrown off rooftops or the people being beheaded in the streets don't have anyone defending their rights.

Oh wait, the "war mongerers" who hate brown skinned people would like to do just that, defend them and their rights... All the while, the righteous defenders of "free speech" and "tolerance" call them mass murderers...

Vera Dreiser said...

Matt,
Ask Statman why she thinks PJ didn't include the Spahn Ranch biker story in either of his manuscripts and how she first learned about it, please.
Vera

candy and nuts said...

mhn you will never get it

MHN said...

Matt - you've gone above and beyond, as always. Thank you, and please thank A.S. for taking the trouble to answer a question from an ignorant newbie.

candy - "mhn you will never get it" - that's one way of putting it, sure. I daresay we all have things we will never 'get', candy.

Matt said...

Vera Dreiser said...

Matt,
Ask Statman why she thinks PJ didn't include the Spahn Ranch biker story in either of his manuscripts and how she first learned about it, please.


no

Matt said...

Robin-er, Vera, in hindsight, a curious question hit me for you: How do you know what was or wasn't in either manuscript? How do you know that "PJ" didn't include the story in one or both manuscripts?

BTW, you're getting sloppy. You're forgetting to use proxies.

Mr. Humphrat said...

My interest has been peaked and I ordered Restless Souls. Sounds like it's worth a read and I didn't know I could find it so cheap.

Vera Dreiser said...

Yeah, like I'm going to engage with you now, Matt, when you DELETE my previous exchanges so your readers will only see YOUR argument and not Vera's. That's a real fair fight.
You coward.

Matt said...

That's what I thought...

Vera Dreiser said...

Post my entire exchanges and I'd be happy to respond to any of your questions. Otherwise, why on earth would I continue when I know that at any time -- and EVERYTIME when I nail you on something -- you immediately remove it like the Goddam Stasi you are so your readers won't see it.
And that's why I've left this blog so many times before. It is never a fair debate.
If you weren't so frightened of the truth you'd restore my posts.
But you won't because you are a bullying coward.
How you even run a blog that is so heavily censored is beyond me. And that people return to it, amazes me, but I think I've learned my lesson.
Too bad only Matt will see this.

Matt said...

Robin, you were deleted this morning not totally because of what you said, but because I was growing bored of you. Try showing up once in a while and post a positive comment. You only darken our doorstep to try to bash Alisa Statman. Yawn...


Vera Dreiser said...

Let your readers decide if this was a "boring" post...or just something you didn't want them to see. And let's see how long it lasts:

Vera Dreiser said...
Matt,
Ask Statman why she thinks PJ didn't include the Spahn Ranch biker story in either of his manuscripts and how she first learned about it, please.
Matt said...
no
Vera Dreiser said...
Of course you won't Matt, and you'll say it's because of who's asking (Vera) when we all know it's because YOU DON'T DEAL W/ FACTS WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR SO CALLED "FRIENDS" -- YOU JUST WANT ACCESS. No fuckin better than Bugliosi. And you wondered what kept me away so long.
Pathetic excuse for a blog.
Now go send your little emails to George Stimson and let him regale you with tales of Charlie's surprise when he learned Linda had stolen Rosemary LaBianca's wallet.
My God, this site is a comic book version of these terrible crimes.
I agree with the Col on one thing: time to exit again, no brains here.

Matt said...

Awe shucks, Robin... DON'T GO, PLEASE....


Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Dawes, it's confirmed. I finally have irrefutable proof. It's Robin Olson, a friend (if you can really call it that) of Debra Tate. Her reason to live these days is to troll MansonBlog, Amazon, Ebay and other sites trying in vain to discredit Alisa Statman, eat sugar cookies and aid and abet her own social demise. Sad, really.

George Stimson said...

Well, FWIW (nothing, actually) don't think that Vera is Robin, because years ago I wrote some material for Robin in support of her battle against Bill Nelson and she was always very friendly, pleasant, even complimentary. And I don't mean that as a criticism of Vera, because she's certainly within her rights to dump on me as much as she likes. It's just that if she's Robin and she's turned, she's really turned.

Suze said...

So Mr. Stimson, she was nice to you at one point but now that it doesn’t suit her needs, she turns coat and calls you horrible names?

Matt said...

Hmmmm...

George Stimson said...

Well, if it's the same person....

Vera Dreiser said...

I am absolutely NOT Robin, so bingo George and Dawes, but, okay, let's say I am for the sake of argument, or rather, I'll admit it now -- yes, I am she!
Now go fuckin ask Statman about the Col. Tate story, if not for me, Vera, I mean, "Robin,? then for Dawes and everyone else who would like to know.

Matt said...

Robin, I asked her yesterday. You on the other hand will have to wait for the answer.

Vera Dreiser said...

Sure, you've got to get your story's straight. No surprise. And don't worry about Dawes or any others.

Matt said...

"stories"

beauders said...

Atkins said in her Grand Jury testimony that they chose the station because they saw black people in the "neighborhood." Sounds like she lied surprise, surprise. Was Bugliosi in on this lie?

Dawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
candy and nuts said...

mhn touche

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

"Atkins said in her Grand Jury testimony that they chose the station because they saw black people in the "neighborhood." Sounds like she lied surprise, surprise. Was Bugliosi in on this lie?"


Actually, she said 'area' not neighbourhood. The transcript runs thus;

Q: What happened after you and Tex (sic) and the other members of your Family drove off?

A: Well, we drove around and Charlie said we were going in the opposite direction than we came from.

We drove about in a predominantly colored area, I don't know the area but this is what I gathered.

Q: You saw quite a few Negroes in the area?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, you may continue. What happened next?

A: Charlie gave Linda Kasabian the woman's wallet and told her to put it into the bathroom in the gas station and leave it there hoping that somebody would find it and use the credit cards and thus be identified with the murder and then we left.

Q: Did Linda actually do that?

A: Yes, she said she did. I didn't see her leave it but she didn't come back with it, either.

In Robert's "Death to pigs" when Ronnie Howard is recalling first hearing about the murders from Susan, her version is more or less the same as the ones Susan & Linda gave.
Who knows what was going through Charlie's head on that night ?

grimtraveller said...

So, according to Susan Atkins, it was deemed to be a coloured area because they'd seen a number of Black people in it that night.
No offence but that's not a surprising conclusion for someone that doesn't hang with Black people to come to.

grimtraveller said...

D. LaCalandra said...


Side note: one question I never see people ponder is that after supposedly attempting extremely half-hearted attempts (if you can call them that) to commit murder (guy at a traffic light, opps...he got away! Priest: oh well, not there, random house: oh nevermind, they have kids)....Manson decided to go to a house he remembered as being empty. In 1970 in a private interview with Stoviz, Harold True DID confirm that when Manson would party over there, the LaBianca house was in fact empty. So on that night, you had Manson drive to a house he remembered as being empty

Actually in that same Stovitz/True interview, you neglect to mention that Harold True said that Charlie asked him if he could live in True's house as True was leaving it. True told him to bring it up with his house mates which he did, and they said no.
Charlie says that on the night of the LaBianca murders it was True's house he first made his way up to. But he knew that True had left there some 10 months previously. So the real question to ponder is not why he went to a house he knew was empty, but why he went to a house he knew that True no longer lived in.
Could it be that after having no concrete plan for where the murders would happen, unlike the night before, that after his other attempts tht night didn't come off, he decided to go to one place he did know ¬> the very house where three guys had actually rejected and rebuffed him and his attempts to live there ? And finding that they weren't in but seeing next door that a dog was there and the light was on he decided to go and have a look at this house that he'd always known to be empty ? By his own admission {to Vanity Fair in 2011} he'd been in the LaBianca house before to have sex, in the days when it was unoccupied. With no one in at the former True house, the LaBianca house became almost as remote as Cielo and once he got in, he knew that whatever would happen in the house, there was a good chance there'd be no interruptions.
In this case many of the awkward questions have surprisingly simple and straightforward answers to them. The picking of the LaBianca house is at once random, opportunistic and paradoxical. In other words, it was random yet it wasn't.....