Monday, January 11, 2016

The Watson-Kasabian Dynamic

I think that one of the most overlooked relationships amongst the people connected with the Tate-LaBianca murders was (and is) the one between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian. Going further, I would also contend that the personal interaction between Watson and Kasabian had much more to do with the murders on Cielo and Waverly Drives than any sinister plan on the part of Charles Manson. 

Charles "Tex" Watson


Linda "Yana" Kasabian


Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian had one of the more identifiable relationships of all of the characters living at Spahn's Movie Ranch in July and August of 1969. That relationship was based on two things: sex and criminality.

That Watson and Kasabian were bonded by sex is well known, because by both of their accounts their lovemaking was profound.  In his book Will You Die For Me? Watson remembered Kasabian's arrival at Spahn's Ranch on July 4, 1969 and their subsequent night together: "Linda joined the Family that same day, without even meeting Charlie, and that night I introduced her to our truth. Linda later said that when we made love it was like being possessed. For me it was a more complete sensation of oneness than I'd ever known with a woman. It was as if our two bodies literally became one and it was no longer possible to feel where I ended and she began. Linda and I talked very late that night, just the two of us in a little room in the ranch house. I told her she should steal some money that the man she'd been staying with had inherited, and when she protested that she couldn't do that, since he was a good friend who trusted her, I quoted Charlie and told her that there was no wrong, no sin; everything anyone had was meant to be shared. Linda had already given the Family whatever she owned and the next day she went back to Topanga and returned a little while later with $5,000 she'd ripped off according to my instructions." (all emphasis added)

At his murder trial Watson elaborated on why he thought he was such an impressive lover of Kasabian: 

 Sam Bubrick (Watson's defense attorney): "The first time you saw Linda, wasn't it about three or four minutes later that you were making love to her?"

Charles Watson: "That is correct."

SB: "What was it about Linda that caused you to be so amorous?"

CW: "Well, I guess the fact that she was a new girl there and that all the other girls, they kind of looked down upon me because they were all with the family before I was and they saw how straight I was when I first got there, and that was always in my mind and their mind too, I believe."

Kasabian was equally impressed by her initial tryst with Watson. Talking to Vincent Bugliosi while preparing her testimony for the murder trial, Kasabian recalled that when she was having sex with Watson she felt as though she was "possessed," and during her testimony at the murder trial (transcript pages 5570-5571) she said:

LInda Kasabian: "Well, first I will have to explain to you the night of July the 4th."

Paul Fitzgerald (Attorney for Patricia Krenwinkel): "Okay."

LK: "I met Tex, and Tex took me into a dark shed, shack, whatever you want to call it, and he made love to me, which was an experience that I had never had before."

PF: "You had never had sexual intercourse before?"

LK: "No. I'm saying that the experience I had in making love with Tex was a total experience, it was different."

PF: "In what respect?"

LK: "That my hands were clenched when it was all over and I had absolutely no will power to open my own hands, and I was very much afraid, I didn't understand it.

"And I questioned Gypsy about it later and she told me it was my ego that was dying."

It's certainly true that a short or even singular sexual relationship can affect a person for the rest of their lives. That is what I think happened here. I think that Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian bonded through their sexual interaction and that a special relationship existed between them. And I also think that that relationship endured throughout the murder trials and indeed continues to this day. 

Watson and Kasabian were also bonded by their shared criminality. Watson's criminal inclinations are well known, from his days in Texas when he drunkenly broke into his old high school and stole some typewriters as part of a fraternity initiation, through his time in Hollywood when he supported himself by low level drug dealing, to his lying to the army to get a deferment, to his amateurish ripoff of Bernard Crowe on July 1, 1969 (just three days before Linda Kasabian arrived at Spahn's Ranch), and finally to his ending up as one of the most notorious mass murderers in American history. 

And Linda Kasabian was no stranger to the shady side of life either. She had been around quite a bit before she even arrived at Spahn's ranch. As her one-time panhandling partner Sandra Good later succinctly recalled, "She was experienced." After the murders at the Polanski and LaBianca residences Kasabian stole a car from a ranch hand at Spahn's to flee the Los Angeles area. Eventually arriving at her father's residence in Florida, he shortly thereafter evicted her because he suspected her of stealing items from his apartment and selling them to buy drugs. And before she was finally arrested at the beginning of December of 1969 she evasively never mentioned the crimes she was involved in to any member of law enforcement or "the Establishment" even though she had ample opportunities to do so.

Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian were partners and soul mates -- both in love and in crime. 

*      *      *

Linda Kasabian came to Spahn's Ranch on July 4, 1969, brought there by Catherine "Gypsy" Share, who had met her at the home of mutual friend Charles Melton. (Kasabian had been briefly staying at Melton's while attempting a reconciliation with her husband Robert, but the reconciliation didn't work out.) Upon her arrival at the ranch one of the first persons she met was Charles Watson. On that first day the pair hung out together, made love, shared drugs, and at some point decided to steal $5,000 from Melton, a theft that Kasabian carried out the next day before she even ever met Charles Manson. (Kasabian says that Watson encouraged her to steal the money. Watson denied this while testifying at his own murder trial, but later, in his book, said that he suggested that she take Melton's money.)

That this $5,000 theft was a major indicator of Kasabian's criminal nature was recognized by Manson Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who succeeded in having any mention of the theft excluded from the Tate-LaBianca murder trial based on the legal principle that a witness's criminal history can only be mentioned if they have been convicted of a crime. In the case of the stolen $5,000 there was no legal process leading to a criminal conviction. But the technical fact that Kasabian never faced any legal consequences for the theft doesn't make the theft any less serious. (And to give the reader an idea of just how serious that theft was, consider that $5,000 in 1969 dollars would be worth a little over $33,000 today. In other words, Linda Kasabian stole a substantial amount of money.)

The primary driving motive for the Tate-LaBianca murders was to commit a series of copycat murders that would convince the police that Bobby Beausoleil didn't kill Gary Hinman. (You can say that it wasn't, but it was. There might have been other considerations in the minds of the people who killed on August 8 and 9, 1969, but the primary reason why they drove away from Spahn's Ranch on those two nights was to do something to help Bobby Beausoleil, who had been arrested for Hinman's murder only a few days previously.) Everybody at Spahn's Ranch wanted Bobby Beausoleil out of jail. But nobody did more so than Charles Manson, who knew that Beausoleil had killed Hinman to keep him from going to the police after Manson had cut his ear during an earlier violent underworld occurrence. When Manson wanted something done to free Beausoleil he summoned the people who owed him favors and told them to "do something."

All of the people at Spahn's Ranch owed Charles Manson generally for his shooting and presumed killing of Bernard Crowe to protect them from his threatened retaliation after being ripped off by Charles Watson. But some people owed Manson more than others. Charles Watson, of course, owed Manson because he was the one who put the drug burn in motion that led to Manson's shooting of Crowe in the first place. Susan Atkins owed Manson for times when he had resolved problems brought on by some of her careless social interactions, including her thievery involving hashish. Linda Kasabian owed him for when he smoothed over the problem of Robert Kasabian and Charles Meltion coming to the ranch and making a big stink about her stealing Melton's money and threatening to turn the theft into a huge law enforcement issue, or worse.

But the biggest debt by far was owed by Watson, who had forced Manson to (he thought) commit murder in order to straighten out the Crowe mess. Thus was Watson sternly assigned by Manson the task of "doing something" to get Beausoliel out of jail. Out of that command arose discussions around the ranch of what could be done. Out of those discussions arose the half-baked and stupid copycat motive. Was Linda Kasabian a part of those discussions? No one knows for sure, but it is not unreasonable to assume that she had some input into ways to deal with the demand that Manson put onto her lover and partner in crime.

At the murder trial Catherine Share testified that the "copycat motive" was Linda's idea. Certainly anything Share says should be taken with a Death Valley salt flat, but it is not too hard to imagine Kasabian being part of the discussion or planning that led to the ill-conceived copycat plan. She was, after all, criminally inclined, as her eager theft of Charles Melton's $5,000 demonstrated. Also, because of her intense and impressive sexual encounter with Charles Watson, she very possibly held him in a special regard, despite her denials during the trial that she loved Watson any more than she did any of the other men she made love with during her six weeks at Spahn's Ranch (including, not incidentally, Bobby Beausoleil). Thus she might have been especially interested in coming up a with a plan that would both free Beausoleil and get Watson off the hook with a furious Manson.

The prosecution has always claimed that the only reason ranch newcomer Kasabian went along on the murder nights was because she was the only person at Spahn's Ranch with a valid driver's license. But this contention is laughable and is in no way a credible reason for her being in the car. I mean, if you were sending people out to commit an atrocious crime would you really want to send with them a newcomer that you don't really know simply for the legal advantage of  her having a valid driver's license? And if you were on your way to commit mass murder in a borrowed car bearing the wrong license plates, with a rope, bolt cutters, several knives, and a gun, would there really be any reason to have someone along with a valid driver's license? (In fact, having a real driver's license along on such an endeavor would be the exact opposite of what you would want to do if you thought there was a likelihood that you would encounter the police.) And what, really, is the likelihood that Kasabian even really was the only person with a valid driver's license amongst the fifteen or so "Manson Family members" who were present at Spahn's Ranch on those nights? 

Kasabian's activities at Cielo Drive are also inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent bystander. There, Watson sent her around the house to reconnoiter the layout and accessibility of the premises. Later, he had her stand lookout by Steven Parent's car while he and Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the house. Neither of these tasks are  assignments that would be given to a group's weakest link. After the murders, Watson chewed Kasabian out for abandoning her lookout post and returning to the car at the bottom of the Cielo Drive cul-de-sac after her nightmarish encounter with a bludgeoned and bloody Voytek Frykowski at the front porch of the Polanski house. And as the killers were fleeing the scene, Watson assigned her the task of ditching the murder weapons and had her hold the steering wheel while he changed out of his bloody clothing. 

(Much of all of this, incidentally, is at variance with the testimony that Watson gave at his own murder trial in 1971. While completely uninformative as to why the group went out to commit murder on the first night, he says that Kasabian was driving the car while he rode in the back seat. He also says that Kasabian provided him with the bolt cutters that he used to cut the wires leading into the Polanski property on Cielo Drive and that she drove the car when the killers left the murder scene.)

Lending further credence to the possibility of a special Watson-Kasabian dynamic are the details of the killers' recollections of the second night of murder, when the carload of people from Spahn's Ranch went on a supposed city-wide search for potential murder victims. At his own trial for murder Watson testified that he didn't remember much of the ride that night before the group arrived at Waverly Drive. But by the time he wrote Will You Die For Me? seven years later his recollection accurately mirrored that of Linda Kasabian. Did Watson actually later remember the exact same chain of events that Kasabian did? Or was he merely parroting the story put forth by his former lover in order to provide her version of events with false corroboration?

And yet another bond between the Watson-Kasabian pair is an apparent affection that the two have demonstrated for the type of drug generally referred to as "speed." 

Charles Watson's affinity for the drug is well known. He has recalled his extensive use of speed many times in his book and elsewhere. At his 2001 parole hearing he remembered, "There was a friend of mine across the street, that had the ranch across the street. He had obtained an ounce of it and had given me a jar of it. And Susan Atkins and myself and one other was sniffing the methamphetamine." Was the "one other" Charles Watson referred to at this parole hearing Linda Kasabian? And was Watson still being protective of her by not naming here over thirty years after the murders because he still had special feelings for her?

On Linda Kasabian's part there is not much contemporary evidence of her favoring speed in 1969, but the substance was Watson's drug of choice at that time and it is therefore highly likely that she indulged in it with him while they were together, perhaps even from the first night that they met. Also, Kasabian is known to have had experiences with speed later in her life, some of which experiences led her to have negative encounters with law enforcement. 

In the 2009 History Channel "drama-documentary" Manson, Kasabian made her first extensive public statements about the murders in almost forty years. In the program she practically beamed when talking about her early idyllic days at Spahn's Ranch. She described Charles Watson as gruff and creepy but with beautiful eyes and a beautiful smile. She was attracted to him. Regarding their love-making she said, "He made me feel like I'd never felt before." Although Kasabian's theft of Charles Melton's money was recounted in the show there was no mention whatsoever of the Bernard Crowe burn and the resulting threatened and real violence. Thus, the "Family's" sudden transformation from a peace and love commune into a paranoid and armed camp was left unexplained. Kasabian did say that the killers in the car the first night had taken speed (white pills supplied by Charles Manson) and also that she took Steven Parent's wallet from his corpse after he was shot to death and scouted out the rear area of the Polanski house. In recalling the actual murders she affected weeping but there were no tears. At the conclusion of the program she said, "I could never accept the fact that I was not punished for my involvement in this tragedy. I feel then what I feel now, always, and forever, that it was a waste. It was a waste of life that had no reason. No rhyme. It was wrong. And it hurt a lot of people. Still now, today, and always forever."


Linda Kasabian -- was she really just a poor innocent hippie girl who accidentally fell in with a group of ruthless murderers? Or was she a tough, amoral, and criminally inclined individual who willingly participated in (or maybe even instigated) some of America's most infamous murders? And are she and Charles "Tex" Watson still engaged in a life-long special relationship based on their shared experiences at Spahn's Ranch? Are they like the characters in German folklore known as Doppelgänger (literally "double goers"), biologically unrelated persons who nearly or completely resemble one another? In the folklore when someone meets their Doppelgänger it is an omen of impending death. Perhaps Watson and Kasabian are life-long soul mates, and perhaps they are not. But whatever the true nature of the relationship between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian was or is, no one can deny that death followed in the wake of their fateful introduction to each other on July 4, 1969.






76 comments:

Sun King said...

Funny how one forgets some of these details over time and that she actually took the wallet from Steve's pocket. What became of the wallet anyway?

Yea, obviously the bond was quite strong between Tex and Linda and probably remains to an extent today.I suspect Linda stayed stayed on for Tex more than Charlie and her bond with Tex makes perfect sense why she went along on those 2 nights in Aug.

People say Clem was lucky but Linda is by far the luckiest to have been taken under Bug's arms and spared from prosecution. From what I have gathered from reading about her in the news through the years it seems like she really never turned her life around like so many other from "the family" had.

Good post!

St Circumstance said...

Well written George- your a great advocate for your beliefs!!

Let me ask this...

It is ridiculous to assume that TLB murders happened at the instigation of a much older life long career criminal/con who- it has been proven and testified to by many had, at least, a little influence over the others for over a year and a half

but not ridiculous to think it was instigated by a quiet young girl who had been with them for a few weeks??

also- Tex Watson in will you die for me- repeats almost exact quotes that pertain to him that were already given by other people in books, movies, and interviews- quite a few times. He actually ranks the Manson related media in one of his monthly views. He is well aware of the stories out there and I feel he either verify or denies these various stories based on his own self interest. Linda saying Tex " rocked her world" like never before- is a very complimentary tale to retell..

Maybe Tex was the mastermind and used Linda to help the way some think Charlie used the others to help? I dont know - haven't seen any real proof of that...

But I think Linda is getting too much credit here. almost all of the girls in the family committed petty crimes and were not ideal kids. They all had issues with there parents and had been kicked out or ran away. They all stole. Using those examples to show Linda was more capable of planning or participating in murder is like pointing in a fish tank and saying one of the fish swims lol if that is the background of a murderer- than almost every girl in the family could be put in that category.

And we know again from REAL EVIDENCE AND REPEATED, CONSISTENT TESTIMONY- from the actual participants that Pat,Susan, and LULU did actually , physically help murder people.

We know from the same that Linda either would not, or could not- but either way- did not. In fact she led them away from a potential murder when she had the choice. She led them to the wrong apartment.

Nobody got killed when it was up to Linda to lead them to find someone- did they?

Hmmmmmm......

I think this is a well done post and makes sense in a few ways, but Linda as a possible instigator I have to think about a little more....

Manson Family Archives said...

Only recently has it been discovered that her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders! This why she wasn't allowed to see Bobby Beausoleil the day after the murders to deliver a message to him.

If that fact came out, not only would Bugliosi be forced to come up with another pathetic excuse as to why his little angel went along for the ride, but it would have also given validation to the "free bobby" motive he so adamantly rejected as being the motive.

Another similarity between Kasabian and Watson is that both had good lawyers that built a wall around them.

If one would remove Manson from the scenario, this case could be called the Kasabian/Watson murders.

She answered the phone when Bobby called to let Charlie know he was busted.

I can see a situation where she being the newcomer and wanting to prove her loyalty to the group, came up with the idea to commit a copy cat murder. Based on what though? Gypsy said during the penalty phase she suggested the Tate house because of a drug burn.

Watson and Kasabian both really, really liked drugs. Watson was most certainly an addict.

Both took turns behind the wheel.

One went in first, the other stood look-out

She answered the phone when Bobby called, she was the one who went to send him a note

Both got super good lawyers and stuck with them the whole way.

In Watson's book, he talked about how he took one of his old lady friends from Texas up to Melcher's house to show off like a hot shot. Linda being new to the Family, isn't it possible he did the same with her in the days they were together while Charlie was up at Big Sur? There whereabouts in the days leading up to the murders are a mystery, yet they went to great lengths tracking Manson's activity in those days.

Isn't it possible that as that intense relationship was blooming, Watson might haven taken her up to Beverly Hills where a dope deal was made? With a portion of that $5,000?

Manson Family Archives said...

I need to add: I think that $5,000 had a lot more significance to it rather than something that was brought up simply to discredit Linda and make her look bad.

Charlie really pushed Fitzgerald to ask about that money. Based on what I know about him, I seriously doubt he would call somebody out on stealing cash simply to make a person look bad. I don't think that's his style. For him to bring it up, I think it had to have a deeper significance. One that would really make the prosecution sweat and it did. Bugliosi was quick to answer for her and his answer was vague. "I believe she gave it to___". Now that is a man that also supposedly demanded absolute proof. But in that case, "I believe". She gave it to Leslie? Why? Watson said in his book it went directly in his hand.

The way he white washed that girl was ridiculous.

Bugliosi said that when he took this case, right off the bat, he KNEW Manson had to be involved. In other words, it was a hunch really. Doesn't it strike anyone as being way to convenient that out of that pack of devils, there was one little innocent angel? What are the odds? Then Watson basically put on the "I was Charlie" act. One would have to assume that Bugliosi had a crystal ball.

Izzy Cumming said...

The Lord has forgiven Tex. He should be paroled.

St Circumstance said...

Bugs exaggerated Linda as a good person because it suited his needs. Just like he exaggerate Helterr Skelter significance to include Charlie. That is what Bugs did. He made arguments to support his point.

Frankly, The jury sat there watching three dark haired girls come in and laugh in the face of murder, and cutting X's into their heads and dancing around while others greived. Sadie/Pat, and LULU looked scary as hell. They were monsters and devils in the words of Bugs- and they acted the part completely. Then you have a quiet blonde come in who actually shows remorse and acts in a way normal people can understand- so it may have looked angelic to some. Even though we know different.

By the way, lets not forget if not for Susan Atkins 360- Linda never would have gotten immunity. She was a last resort. so he made her into what he needed....


"Almost immediately, her attorney, Gary Fleishman, proposed to prosecutors a deal whereby Kasabian would testify against other Family members in return for complete immunity. Having previously made a deal with Susan Atkins, Prosecutor Vince Bugliosi initially rejected the proposal."

So Bugs didn't design this case predetermined to make Linda into his knight in shining armor. It may have ended up that way though lol

HellzBellz said...

Good story, gives me some perspective other then I had/thought in this. Let alone some things that maybe I have wrong, but sugested the Bobby ,,atractive,, to Linda, so she could be part of the plan, because her 6 weeks Spahn was including Bausoleil. But in fact that was only 20days ,so 3 weeks. That makes it lot less time spending. Then also Atkins told in interview that She (SusanAtkins)and Tex always had their own secret ,stash, of Speed where Manson knew nothing about.....So Linda was sure not the only one for Tex to have that kinda ,,Rendez-Vous,, just makes me wonder....

St Circumstance said...

by the way- I have read alot about the Crowe shooting. did some catching up today...

I have found just as many things to read that say Crowe was a known person to the family as I have that it was a random stranger that Tex planned to burn. again it is speculation either way and rumor, but if it can be proven that Charlie and/or Tex knew Crowe- and there are several quotes from people who say they did- that would pretty much eliminate the whole Charlie thought he killed a panther thing no?

and if you dont want to count quotes from people about otherwise unfounded rumors- that's fine, but there goes most of the copycat motive along with that rule. Because the hard evidence just doesn't support copycat. without the "he said/she said" stuff- there isn't much else to back it up in my opinion. There are alot of people out there who say that Copycat, or drug burn makes alot more sense than Helter Skelter, and I get that. I really do in a big picture way. Call me crazy but I just cant get over the fact that they printed Helter Skelter at the scene of the crime. I still think about hearing all the testimony and the word "War" carved in Leno. "Rise" "War" "Helter skelter" that was what was on the minds of those who did the killings. doesnt sound like "revenge" or "free Bobby' to me. sounds like exaclty what they say Charlie was preaching.

I still trust what I can see over what someone else says- someone else said- almost every time when given a choice. I hear copycat from Charlies friends. I heard Helter skleter from those involved in the crimes. One of these motives is more beneficial to Charlies case. Call me skeptical lol :) But I am open to the possibility. I just need to see more real evidence than has been put forth to date.

By the way:

Tex must have thought he owed Charlie an awful lot. Charlie shot one guy

For that Tex had to go out and murder 7 people over two nights- plus I guess he still owed him more cause he helped with Shea as well...

Tex really got the bad end of that deal...

St Circumstance said...

Tex going out and killing one person or committing one act would be settling a score with Charlie...

but what Tex did was alot more...

does carving up people and printing words like War and Helter Skelter in blood on walls and hanging nooses around necks and stabbing people over and over in such a savage way sound more to you like:


A.) getting even for you shooting someone for me

B.) committing brutal acts of violence to spread our message of coming trouble, and doing shocking acts and leaving messages which completely jibe with the stories, prophecies we have been hearing.

which makes more sense to you?

I sometimes wonder if some people just need for there to be more to this story.

and then I remember if you support Charlie- you really do need for there to be more....

flip said...

I thought this was a well-written essay; however, I don't see any big contradiction between the Helter-Skelter theory and the "copy-cat murders to get Bobby out" theory. They coexist very well, IMO. It is very clear from a number of sources that Manson had been preaching fantasies about Helter Skelter to his adoring band of groupies well before any of the Family murders transpired.

Using impeccable acid-drenched lifetime-criminal logic, what better way to advise Bobby to mislead the cops about Gary's murder than to suggest that he write "political piggy" and leave a Black Panther paw-print on the wall in the victim's blood? And if you're apprehended, Bobby, just tell the cops you bought Gary's car from a mysterious black guy...

Then, the ultimate deception spawned at Spahn: What better way to Free Bobby than by ordering up those copy-cat murders, and thereby igniting full-blown Helter? It seems very probable to me that Manson and his neediest sycophants really did imagine that they could light the fuse to Helter Skelter and, once ignited, no one would be paying much attention to the Family. Not the smartest exit strategy I've ever heard of, but not too much more stupid than Jim Jones and his kamikazi klones down in Guyana, or the Heaven's Gate fools.

orwhut said...

Manson Family Archives said... Only recently has it been discovered that her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders! This why she wasn't allowed to see Bobby Beausoleil the day after the murders to deliver a message to him.

Somehow, I missed this. Can someone please tell me where I can read the details.

John Seger said...

While this theory is imaginative, and adds to conspiracy theories, I simply do not think Linda Kasabian was a mastermind behind murder. Sure, the chick has hardly led a "good" life, by most standards, in the decades since. But I don't Linda was a murderer. Nor was she smart enough, or a member long enough, to give that theory much gas.

Sun King said...

Wonder why it was that Manson was so concerned that Leslie "get her hands dirty" at the LaBiancas, yet let Linda slide on even participating there after she didn't get HER hands dirty the previously night?

If Manson was so worried about covering his own ass I would think that would have been a good opportunity and a safety measure to keep Linda quiet about the previous night?

I can just picture the disappointment on Charlie's face the next day when he found out Linda & Sadie struck out. Had they been successful, that coiler Susan left behind in the stairway could have been as good as a fingerprint to tie her to being at a murder scene had they gone thru with it?

Also that must have taken a bit of Chutzpah on Linda's part to not follow thru and defy Charlie's order?

Professor said...

That's an interesting article George, and very thought provoking. It did make me go back and revisit the Current Affair interview that she did back in the late 80's and rewatch her reaction to being asked questions about what Tex and the others were like. She responded pretty emphatically, and very quickly...."tall, dark, and handsome, with deep blue eyes." She sounded infatuated by him still at that point.

Here is the link if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQPHWoZC0U

At about 1:40

orwhut said...

"I could never accept the fact that I was not punished for my involvement in this tragedy. I feel then what I feel now, always, and forever, that it was a waste. It was a waste of life that had no reason. No rhyme. It was wrong. And it hurt a lot of people. Still now, today, and ALWAYS FOREVER."

I believe I've heard those last two words in a song somewhere. Maybe I'll remember who wrote the song.

alwaysamy69 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
alwaysamy69 said...

Charles Manson was a hippie drug dealer who took in strays....the fact that some of those strays went off the deep end and got caught simply gave the Media a new Monster to focus on right here at home to divert the attention of the American public from the monstrosities being committed by their government. It'ssad that in a world where OJ Simpsons glove got him a quitted Charles Manson remains in prison. I would love to see this trial attempted today. He would walk out a free man. He was a petty criminal. I hate seeing his face on serial killer sites...where are the faces whose hands were bloody. The whole thing is rediculous. Not that he wouldn't have eventually ended up in prison again...but the notoriety given to him seems a little misplaced. He liked sex, drugs and music...
And people loved him. He was a good example of the 60's...not a monster.

St Circumstance said...

Charles Manson is right where he belongs and Charles Manson has himself to thank for that friends...

Lets say that the girls and Tex did TLB for their own reasons and Charlie did not plan it at all- just for the sake of argument. ( I dont believe it but for this argument lets say its true)

Charlie Manson raped people including underage girls. Charles Manson gave drugs to children half his age. Charles Manson beat people physically- including younger girls. Charles Manson shot a man in the stomache which was attempted murder under the circumstances it happened - not self defense by any real legal definition.

Charles Manson went on trial for the murder of several people, and in front of there grieving families and shocked jurors- he made no real attempt to defend himself in any way. He was given a chance to defend himself- which he abused. Then when it was taken away- he resorted to theatrics and disruptions.

He tried to attack the judge in front of the jury for chrissakes.

Charlies supporters argue he didn't get a fair trial ,and I argue the victims family didn't a get a fair trial. The defendants made a show out of the whole thing. Acted like complete jackasses, and then cry that they weren't given a fair trial- because Charlie wasn't allowed to go off on his own tangents in any direction he chose endlessly. It seems because they wouldn't change the rules for Charlie, or bend them so he could make up his own rules as he went along- that means it wasn't fair for Charlie..

Charles Manson is right where he belongs and he did more than anyone else to get himself there and I guess its not so goddamn funny any more for some of them is it???

Besides Charlies is happy there lol Just let him be :)


“The mind is endless. You put me in a dark solitary cell, and to you that's the end, to me it's the beginning, it's the universe in there, there's a world in there, and I'm free.”

- Charles Manson

St Circumstance said...

Ok -one last thing lol its been a long time since I got anyone fired up but I am going to take a shot here and defend Deb Tate...

If someone killed my sister and then I saw those responsible laughing and joking about it in front of my crying mother....

I would spend the rest of my life trying in any way that I could to make sure those people paid for what they did. These people were guilty of slaughtering others in a viscous manner.They showed no remorse, compassion, or respect to anyone- most importantly the families who lost these people- for doing so. In fact they made a mockery and joke of the whole situation in front of them...

and ever since then- all we hear is how unfair it was to Charlie????

Really?? find some humanity people. I dont want to be Vera here- but is Deb Tate really the enemy? Because she wants to make sure that the other side gets heard when these matters come up in places where it really matters like court rooms and television cameras?

Cry me river for Charlie Manson. He had a group of people who cooked and cleaned for him. Girls who slept with him at his bidding. Men who would work for him and run errands upon command. He got to hang out with rock Stars and go to great parties. he never had to work a real job, or worry about any real responsibility that others have to...

But that is not good enough, so he starts breaking laws and hurting others, and taking things when people stop giving them. He is repeatedly arrested and all the while on probation. the probation rules he totally ignores.

finally- he is brought to justice to answer for some of the crimes, and he refuses to play by the rules and makes a joke out of the entire proceeding. He just ignores the rules and makes it his own personal theater. Speeches, attacks and all. which of course Bugs watches happen with a big grin because he knows that Charlie is just going to dig his own grave and make into reality, right in front of the jury, the fantasy story Bugs has just delivered.

and instead of just being honest and saying that the Genius wasn't so smart after all and blew it due to his own ego and lack of intelligence-

Instead,lets say that he wasn't given a fair trial because Bugs made up H/S, Charlie wasn't allowed to defend himself any way he wanted to, and Deb Tate is fat and omni present at parole hearings...

Yeah that must be it lol

:)

Jenn said...

Right on, St.

alwaysamy69 said...

How is Charlie more responsible for their actions than they are...or their parents are... how did he become so notorious. I've known a dozen men just like him. But you can't blame the method cook or drug dealers for the actions of the users... they are who they are and that starts at birth. Not everyone in the Family went out murdering people. It was not by far the only community in the 60's. Would Jesus Christ have been responsible for the actions of ALL of his followers...

alwaysamy69 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
alwaysamy69 said...

Maybe these murders were Tex attempting to prove himself and impress the others. It's just always seemed as if they were not Manson's murders...but the actions of idiots...which Charlie was not. He just got the notoriety and fame... he made a name for himself... knowing he was going to jail anyway.

alwaysamy69 said...

When looking at anything written about serial killers it just always seems like Manson does not belong in the category. And his face is always there.

St Circumstance said...

Amy69- you must have a very interesting circle of people around you lol

I dont think Charlie was more responsible for anyone elses actions- my comments were about HIS actions.. I agree the parents share blame as well- did a post about it once.

He became notorious because his friends committed gruesome murders of semi- well known people in a famous area, and then when the world was watching him- he carved an X into his head, gave the impression he thought he was Jesus and the Devil at the same time, and acted like the type of maniac nobody had ever seen before in a court room packed with police and guards. He shaved his head, gave threatening speeches, and all the while his friends in and out of the courtroom ( but all in front of the cameras and world) all mimicked him.

dont you think that might have had something to do with it? I guess if your around people like this al the time that would explain why it is no big deal to you...

?? really

St Circumstance said...

I am not saying Charlie belongs on a list of serial killers. In my original comment- I said we could leave TLB out of it...

Even without those two crimes- Charlie is a life long criminal. He started breaking the law as soon as he was old enough. He was only our of jail for around two years total, and broke the law and violated parole the entire time...

Since he has been back in jail- he gets in trouble constantly inside.

He himself says his whole life has been about prisons.

At what point to we stop making him into all these other things and just admit what he was?

there are lots of people who love the environment, and that play music, and help animals who dont rape and steal, and beat on others.

It is that simple. find someone to befriend or worship or whatever who doesn't hurt other people. there are tons of options out there. When you seek out such people to defend and to hold up as examples of leadership and friendship- it says as much about whats in you as it does about whats in them....

and you gotta own that ;)

xreles said...

Epic pro-Manson smack down by St Circumstance... careful St, any rougher and you'll get those forehead gouges a bleeding. Well done indeed.Wow.

St Circumstance said...

Bryn Lukashevsky was present during the shooting, and he subsequently informed Wilson of the event several days later.


I know Col did posts on this guy way back when- but this guy knew both Crowe and Wilson and was able to identify Charlie? Sounds to me like he knew all 3...

Are we sure Charlie thought he killed a panther? Are we sure that even if Charlie didn't know Crowe that he still couldn't have known people who did- which would have enabled him to know that Crowe was not a panther?

???

St Circumstance said...

just reppin the Anti-Manson " good-guys"- they need to be heard from too

lol :)

Matt said...

xreles said...

Epic pro-Manson smack down by St Circumstance...


Yes, he is indeed in the zone today.


George Stimson said...

"When you seek out such people to defend and to hold up as examples of leadership and friendship- it says as much about whats in you as it does about whats in them....

"and you gotta own that ;)"


You got that right. (And I do!)

St Circumstance said...

Yes you do George...

And I own my friends as well :)

Kevin Marx said...

Hey Saint - I can picture the steam coming out of your ears right now! lol

I don't agree with everything you say but i respect and admire your conviction. The "anti-manson" and "pro-manson" tags get abused a bit i think - there is a huge grey area in the middle of those two extremes and thats where my opinion lies (and I suspect a lot of other peoples too).



St Circumstance said...

I am there myself Kevin. I am fascinated with Charlie that's why I am here. I just know the difference between curiosity and admiration or at least I think there should be a difference

The other day someone made a comment about " don't you hate it when the pro Manson bad guys win" so my anti- Manson comment was just a joking stab back ( poor choice of words?)

Anyway- just trying to bring a dose of sanity and reality once in awhile when too many posts at one time praise Charlie or get too sympathetic for his plight.

I may fail miserably but I try to be a voice of reason lol.

If it doesn't work just let me know. I'll go back to slamming beers and getting high :)

George Stimson said...

Go back to?

St Circumstance said...

Lol. Good point. ;)

Manson Family Archives said...

Getting down on Charlie for doing it with teens is stupid. So did Terry Melcher, Dennis Wilson, Gene Simmons, Guns N' Roses, Led Zeppelin, Jim Hendrix, John Phillips...pretty much ever rock star anyone in the world calls a "hero". Bugliosi's buddy DeCarlo was bragging about it on the stand and everyone was laughing.

They all had young women following them too. But when it comes to others, it's just good ol' rock and rock decadance. With Charlie, it's like everything else: more proof he's some fire breathing demon guilty of mass murder.

...and what chance exactly was he given to defend himself? Last time I checked, the defense rested. Furthermore, defend himself against what? With his being in every newspaper full of bullshit story after bullshit story, the cover of LIFE, two books, a joke defense team and fabricated evidence, what defense would you put on?

As got Debra Tate, I cannot help but to think she's just using the case to give herself an identity at this point. Mamma Tate never bothered with Van Houten or Beausoleil or Bruce Davis. She was responsible for getting Bobby moved. Now who the hell is she to have ANY Jurisdiction over his life? If you throw a monkey wrench in the parole of one criminal who had nothing to do with your sisters, death, then why not just show to every parole hearing of every criminal up for parole?

St Circumstance said...

Look... I probably got a little personal and that's my bad. I dont want to be nasty about this. I love everyone- especially George ( my sometimes room-mate) and I am as interested in the family, and Charlie as the next person. I flew across country just to stand in an empty field because they once partied there lol I am not one to be passing judgement on anyone else. I am sorry I sometimes come across that way. My parents did there job. I preach much better than I practice though lol

I will take this last one and then someone else can have the last word :)


Deb Tate was a young person who lost her hero and big sister. she was at a very impressionable age. While her and her mother suffered this terrible loss- she saw a group of people. Not just one or two. A group of people who looked scary as hell, and acted as strange as hell- walking in and out of the court room with knives and X's carved into their heads. They were outside on the corner. They must have seemed to a scared young girl like they were everywhere. They were laughing and joking and mocking. threatening.

None of them were sorry or apologizing. This what she saw. this is what she had to make sense of while trying to mourn the loss of her hero and big sister. Charlie had his supporters then and nobody was keeping them out of the court room right or from voicing there opinions right? from sticking this behavior right on front of her and her families faces and every camera they could get in front of. It was all a big joke then. Fun and games skipping through the court house holding hands signing. Imagine if those were people who just destroyed your pregnant relative. you have to sit and watch that...

But instead of being scared and running/hiding the rest of their lives- her and her mother fought back over the years and got what little piece of satisfaction back they could- from a GROUP of people who terrorized them in their worst moment. and that's not fair huh? She should mind her own business...

Thats what Charlie and his friends did for her family after all-right????


and just because lots of people did something wrong doesn't make it right. If anyone else on that list stole, beat, raped, and drugged underage girls- I wouldn't want to reach out and be friends with them either. There are plenty of talented musicians to listen to who are not perfect at all like me, but not animals either like a person who does things like that.

Hey I stopped liking Bill Cosby when I found out lol.... there are other comedians right?

:) Peace lol

Fiddy 8 said...

Does this mean Saint and Saint won't be bunking together again this summer at camp?

orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Veritas said...

It is the measure of this blog that comments such as those above from Joseph Esposito are tolerated. The moderators need their heads looked at if they think his puerile comments are acceptable. Perhaps it is the case that they let such comments stay for a certain length of time to create a bit of controversy.

Robert Hendrickson said...

"...raped girls half his age." BINGO!! Therein may lie the answer
on how to write a new LAW. Just THINK, if Wild Bill had to pass a math test
before Monica would be allowed to molest HIM, maybe Hilary could WIN.

We could also have a new LAW that prevents "mass school shooters" from killing anyone
under the age of 21. AND if the NRA doesn't go along with it, we can pass a law
that says that you have to be at least 98 years old to join the NRA. Double BINGO !!


Matt said...

Veritas, we delete espo as soon as we spot him. We don't even read them anymore. But, sometimes it is hard to check the blog between work, family and other such things. We have - you know - lives outside of this blog.


orwhut said...

Sometimes I get he feeling that some of our trolls are the same person.

Matt said...

Same troll, new names. Yawn...

orwhut said...

Maybe the troll will make up enough names for a sports team.

CrisPOA said...

flip - you have a good point there. It made sense to me.
ST - good point there too!

Sometimes i think that even the family members didn't know clearly what was (were?) the motive behind the murders. And maybe they still don't.

Very interesting thread so far!

Jean Harlow said...

Mr. Stimson, what do you think of the idea that Mary Brunner might have been asked/told to go to Cielo Drive instead of Linda if Mary hadn't been arrested earlier that day (August 8) with Sandra Good?

The boy wonder said...

Your assuming " the Lord " exists and that's a fairly large assumption.plus if you read the Bible " the Lord "is actually quite vindictive cf rending 40 children apart with bears for having the audacity to laugh at one of his prophets for being bald.

George Stimson said...

I don't think that Mary would have been "asked/told."

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

I think that Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian bonded through their sexual interaction and that a special relationship existed between them. And I also think that that relationship endured throughout the murder trials and indeed continues to this day

She bonded with him and loved him so completely that the first chance she got to get away from Spahn and Tex, she did, never to return, even at the "risk" of leaving her daughter there. She loved and bonded with him so completely that she was not only willing, but actually testified against him at his trial, knowing full well for months on end, over a year in fact, that her words were going to land him in the gas chamber and indeed, did precisely that.
It should be pointed out that it was Charles Manson she said she was in love with while at Spahn and even while testifying for the prosecution. That it was Charles Manson that she thought was Jesus. That it was Charles Manson that she was "brought to" and who was the deciding factor in whether she stayed. That when her husband and Charles Melton came up to Spahn to get the $5000 back {and maybe the acid she nicked too !}, that it was Charles Manson that defended her and put it to Bob & Charles that they should be on their way. That it was Charles Manson she announced her pregnancy to and that it was at Charlie's behest that Tanya was separated from her and she complied with it.
Really, other than that first day fizz whizz {which includes the sex and the $5000} and at Cielo Drive {in which Tex's mood towards Linda ranged from bossy to angry to pissed off}, we have no info to suggest anything happened between those two. Yeah, in 2009 she got wistful and doey eyed when remembering Tex. And in the same documentary, she gets pretty much the same way when remembering Leslie and their connection {whom she also helped on her way to gas chamber extinction} and indeed when recalling Gypsy's words to her about the man they'd been waiting for {Charlie, whom she said she was in love with....as she helped him on his way to the gas chamber}.
There are memories I have from 20, 30, 40 years ago that I can convey with something akin to the joy or bitterness I felt at the time though I may not be feeling anything like it those 20, 30, 40 years later. It makes old memories real, rather than to do a John Lennon and just debunk everything because you feel bitter how things turned out.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

his ending up as one of the most notorious mass murderers in American history

It is notable that going through a number of lists of American murderers, be it rampage or spree, Charles Watson doesn't even make the lists. He should have been but the reality is that he pales in interest in comparison with Charles Manson {who also doesn't make any of the lists I saw} and he did so back then.
Whatever one wants to say about Charlie, "colourless" is not a word one could justifiably apply to him. Whereas "colourful" is not exactly a term one would readily apply to Tex.

After the murders at the Polanski and LaBianca residences Kasabian stole a car from a ranch hand at Spahn's to flee the Los Angeles area

Not to quibble over shoelaces but at which point did it become theft ? When Charlie sent her down to the jails with a message for Bobby and the ladies or the point at which she took a different turn and fled ?

And before she was finally arrested at the beginning of December of 1969 she evasively never mentioned the crimes she was involved in to any member of law enforcement or "the Establishment" even though she had ample opportunities to do so

How do you evasively never mention something that no one is asking ?
But it's true, she didn't go to any cops. But she had told at least 5 other people, three of whom {Bob Kasabian, Joe Sage who hadn't believed her and Jeffrey Jacobs} verified her story. And she did state that she didn't want to go through the entire saga while pregnant. She did turn herself in in the end though ~ which none of the others did, barring Bruce.
No one is pretending she wasn't a scummy crook at times with loose morals. That doesn't make her a murderer.

But the technical fact that Kasabian never faced any legal consequences for the theft doesn't make the theft any less serious

Ditto Charlie with Lotsapoppa.

but the primary reason why they drove away from Spahn's Ranch on those two nights was to do something to help Bobby Beausoleil

Pat, Linda and Susan all say they did not know what they were going to do on the night they went to Cielo, let alone why. Only Tex clearly states that part of the motive was about Bobby. But he is just as clear on the other reasons ~ get money to bail Mary & Sandy, ignite helter skelter. He's also crystal clear on whose idea it was and who sent him.
Seems to me you can't have one without the other. Tex's stuff comes as a package.
As for Leslie, even back in '69 HS was her motivation.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

after Manson had cut his ear during an earlier violent underworld occurrence

An earlier violent underworld occurrence ? The man had had a gun held on him, had been beaten about the head with it and was currently surrounded by five members of the same troupe ! You make it sound like it was fair sides, 2 opposing gangs or something.

When Manson wanted something done to free Beausoleil he summoned the people who owed him favors and told them to "do something."

And what did he have in mind ? Perhaps one of the Cielo 4 confessing to the Hinman murder to get Bobby off the hook ? Maybe storming the jail in a daring Hadley Chase style raid ?
By the way, interesting use of the phrase "told them" to do something. I thought Charlie never "told" anyone to do anything.
In the straight world, we tend to have this thing where we want clear unambiguous commands so we can say "X did this, Y said that" or whatever. That does not fly in the psychedelic world, especially during the countercultural 60s. Disarming straight sensibilities and taking the power out of the way the dominant culture worked was partly what the counterculture was about and those that had even a loose affinity bought into that. Charlie used a fascinating conceptual speak that seems like gobbledegook to many that hear it but to those that bought into it, they were aware of what he meant when it came to important things like this. So his "do something" was not "go up into the hills and dance !" His "the child is the leader" in reality meant anything but that. There are a number of ways to say something without using words that seem to say it. If he was saying "Bobby needs to be freed, you guys do it and by the way, here's some glasses to throw the police off the scent" {which, interestingly, it did for quite a while}, there is no other drastic action that could be taken and if freeing Bobby was the case they knew that.
It's a bizarre situation. The copycat makes him as culpable as HS and plonks him right in the heart of the conspiratorial gravy, something you went to a lot of trouble in your book to show he {Charlie} was not.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

The primary driving motive for the Tate-LaBianca murders was to commit a series of copycat murders that would convince the police that Bobby Beausoleil didn't kill Gary Hinman. (You can say that it wasn't, but it was)

Aaron Stovitz believed that to be the case. He gave an interview to Rolling Stone in March 1970 {it came out in the June 25 issue} saying he thought it. He added that it was a hunch on his part that he couldn't prove. No one from the Family came to him or the DA's office to help with this hunch or to even introduce it to him. No member of the crowd that expect us to believe in love for brother came to help Bobby at any of his trials and demonstrate love for brother. None of the defendants spoke of it. On the other hand, by March 1970 tons of people {including 4 of the defendants} had spoken of HS, people in and out of the Family had helped build the prosecution case on its, admittedly circumstantial, basis.
The Family didn't even introduce the copycat until the 4 defendants had already been found guilty. Charlie in his testimony was still pushing the "Bobby should never have been arrested" line even though he knew better.
Subsequently, the waters are permanently muddied. Pat has said in one of her parole hearings that they never sat around discussing killing anyone, Sandy & Squeaky told Laurence Merrick {in Robert's book} they didn't know about the killings, Brenda said she knew about both nights but insisted Charlie was nowhere near any of them and concocted a tale about sewing some leather trousers for him and having to go to him to fit them. She insisted she wasn't protecting him. Then Charlie himself comes out {in your book} and states he was at the LaBianca's and chatted with Leno. Susan says it was the copycat, calls her last book "The myth of Helter Skelter" then proceeds to mention on several occasions how HS formed part of the thinking of some of those that went out to kill, with Charlie at the wellsprng of it, though she says none of the men believed it. Yet Tex says it was part of his motivation and Leslie says it was hers and going back to Susan, she started off in 1969 all the while talking about HS and only started talking about the copycat in the penalty phase ~ a period she categorizes as one where Charlie made her lie, threatening the well being of her son and lying her blaggers off about Linda masterminding the murders.....Her support for the copycat involves a trade off of Charlie as even more of a svengali than Bugliosi ever made him.
And that's just the brief version. The whole thing is a mish mash of mush.
So though you say "You can say that it wasn't, but it was" it ain't that simple. There are contradictions within both camps.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

The prosecution has always claimed that the only reason ranch newcomer Kasabian went along on the murder nights was because she was the only person at Spahn's Ranch with a valid driver's license. But this contention is laughable and is in no way a credible reason for her being in the car

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is in no way a credible reason for her being in the car because it is, but I do agree that it's flimsy at best. Well, I think it's flimsy. It wouldn't keep you dry in the rain.
Now that I stop and think about it, I've never heard one definitive reason from the killers why anyone in particular was selected to go kill on those two nights, except for Leslie and the reason she was selected is because she says she wanted to go after the opening night's performance. Susan, Tex and Linda have said the reason Charlie was along was to show them how to do it. But the rest apart from Leslie have been theories.
LK was apparently fined in the May that year for not having a valid licence but could easily have renewed or received one by August. It also occurs to me that a driving licence was not the only form of ID a person could use. Perhaps what she tried to use at the jail to see Bobby couldn't cut it. She wasn't family {no pun intended}. After all, Charlie did send her back the following day so the ID question can't have been insurmountable.
Actually, the thing about the reason Linda was chosen being because of her licence came from Vince Bugliosi who admitted it was his own conclusion. It certainly was never a fact. It's a bit like Steven Kay at parole hearings when trying to ramp up the White album influence quoting from "Blackbird" and saying the murders occurred in the dead of night, as per part of the lyric or VB focusing on the last verse of "Piggies" which speaks of forks and knives and relating that to Waverley Drive.

Kasabian's activities at Cielo Drive are also inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent bystander

I disagree but I'd never use the term "Innocent bystander." She was in a milieu where she was told not to ask why and question. She was told to do what Tex said. She did. For the most part.
Interestingly once the killing started, she disobeyed. She lied about the window at the back. She got into Steven Parent's car when Tex told her to get the wallet, but here's a thing ~ nowhere does she say she took the wallet ! The wallet was listed with the property effects in the property report and it had money, cards and other effects in it. She never took the wallet. She was a shaky lookout who went and hid in the bushes then deserted her post and ran down to the car and hid in it. Susan said her & Pat were out looking for her but they couldn't call too loudly because they didn't want to attract attention. Watson was flaming mad at her when they all got back to the car.
Her actions show she was at best a petty crook with little stomach for the heavy weather and big deal touring of crime. She wasn't the only one.

Watson sent her around the house to reconnoiter the layout and accessibility of the premises. Later, he had her stand lookout by Steven Parent's car while he and Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the house. Neither of these tasks are assignments that would be given to a group's weakest link

Depends on whether you view committing murder as lesser than checking for an open window or being lookout. In the grand scheme of things, her tasks were exactly what one would dole out to the weakest link.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Much of all of this, incidentally, is at variance with the testimony that Watson gave at his own murder trial in 1971

Charlie boy lied his blaggers off during his trial. I find myself cringing with embarrassment for him when I read his testimony. It's even more cringeworthy than Susan and Pat in the penalty phase of their trial. He put as much as was humanly possible on the women, including Linda. He denied telling her to nick the $5000, he placed Charlie at Spahn on the morning of the 8th August when friend and foe alike all said he wasn't there, he said that morning he ran into Sadie & Linda dressed in black having gone out and nicked some credit cards, he had Linda driving to Cielo and inferred she knew where to go, he had Charlie telling him movie stars lived at Cielo, he had the girls telling him to cut the phone wires, he didn't see his accomplices till he was in the house, he walked right in the door.....the list goes on and on and it is so embarrassing.
It's a good thing he put out his two books after. That trial testimony would be one hell of a thing to be remembered on !

But by the time he wrote Will You Die For Me? seven years later his recollection accurately mirrored that of Linda Kasabian. Did Watson actually later remember the exact same chain of events that Kasabian did? Or was he merely parroting the story put forth by his former lover in order to provide her version of events with false corroboration?

I've frequently noted that his recollections of the nights of murder don't appear to come from his memory but from what he's read. He uses a combo of Atkins and Bugliosi for Cielo and his take on the White album is straight out of Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter." Neither were his former lovers. Susan got him indicted, Bugliosi got him convicted.
I don't see his LaBianca memories as being a case of providing false corroboration for his former lover. Part of the Family schtick was no one belonged to anyone. And besides, her words played a huge part in putting him in the flaming gas chamber !

Was the "one other" Charles Watson referred to at this parole hearing Linda Kasabian? And was Watson still being protective of her by not naming here over thirty years after the murders because he still had special feelings for her?

The "one other" was Bruce Davis. That's what Tex says in his first book. It wasn't Linda, he was not protecting her nor exhibiting special feelings for the woman whose testimony played a huge role in getting him sentenced to death. Unless he was a masochist, for as my old boss used to say, you can't hurt a masochist !

CrisPOA said...

Grim i just love reading your comments. Although a little extensive - you need to - you bring back facts and details we tend to forget in thinking the whole picture. Very articulated.
And for most of the time you have said things that go along with my thinking of the case. Good job!

The thing to me is, it doesnt make sense sending 5 people to the gas chamber to save one Bobby. Were they really that stupid? Or they really believed they were not going to get caught - specially leaving so many indications on the crime scene. The Helter Skelter written on the fridge - why? Was the term common knowledge around the blacks and police to be used as a misleading clue? I can only think about the family philosophy and that door at the ranch.
Was it a mistake done by Patricia?

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

But whatever the true nature of the relationship between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian was or is, no one can deny that death followed in the wake of their fateful introduction to each other on July 4, 1969

Death had already begun to flow Familyward before they met. Well, kind of. Everyone thought Lotsapoppa was dead. That was before any of the Family had even heard of Linda Kasabian or she them. And she had nothing to do with Hinman.
She wasn't with Tex at LaBianca. She helped avert more death at Ocean Walk. And Shorty died a good two weeks after she'd gone. Mysterious deaths connected to the Family continued happening {though I don't believe Joel Pugh or Ronald Hughes had anything to do with them} like Zero or even ones with tenuous links like James & Lauren Willet ~ long after Kasabian had fled the scene.
The entropy twins they were not.
I just can't see Linda Kasabian as the death machine. The way her subsequent life crumbled is an indication of that. She seemed to have feelings of guilt even as far away from the killings as 2009. She seemed affected by murder rather than revelling in it.
Whether she was an innocent little hippy at the age of 20 is kind of a moot point. When Bugliosi described her as "frank and repulsively truthful" he was cleverly summing up the yin and yan of Yana....

George Stimson said...

Grim, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you some time!

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Grim, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you some time!

Likewise ! I absolutely love your book. I think it's required reading for those that have an interest in Charlie in particular and this case in general.

grimtraveller said...

Sun King said...

I suspect Linda stayed stayed on for Tex more than Charlie

In this 2009 documentary, check out what she says about Tex and her attraction to him and then compare it to what she says about her excitement about meeting Charlie before she'd ever met him and what she says about him thereafter.
In my opinion, in her mind, Tex is definitely rhythm guitar to Charlie's lead solos !

People say Clem was lucky but Linda is by far the luckiest to have been taken under Bug's arms and spared from prosecution

I don't think Clem was lucky. He merely came to his senses as did a number of young Family members.
I don't think Linda was lucky either. I think a combination of drugs and fragility messed her up good and proper. The ones that ended up in jail had to get clean, even though early on drugs could get into jail.
That hasn't changed !
What they all had in their favour was that they were young and they had enough of a support structure of people that cared about them, be it family members {biological} or crusaders within the jail system. Unlike Charlie in his days as a youngster within the system, they didn't have authority figures that took it upon themselves to make life a living hell, maniacs that were self appointed guardians of what was "right", that made it their life mission to repeatedly 'punish' those they should have been helping. People that deliberately looked the other way when their charges were being violated in ways that one might not even want to see simulated in a gritty movie about jails and young offenders institutions that you know is just a movie.
Arguably, Linda Kasabian didn't have that either. The whole TLB saga did wake some people up and they were determined to try and stem what they saw as a rather dangerous tide. The young Family members that escaped the gas chamber but got life were the beneficiaries of that stemming process. Most of them came through the bumpy ride, if not smoothly or smilingly. But Linda just carried on along the trajectory that she'd been on before she came to Spahn. And burned quickly.
People say that Bugliosi portrayed her as the innocent flower child. Actually, that is not strictly true. Aaron Stovitz is the one that did that in the Rolling Stone interview that came out as "Porfiry's complaint." Bugliosi presented her as a bit of an air head, pliable and malleable, looking for God, a hater of her stepdad, a little estranged from her Mum, a woman of two failed marriages by the age of 20, morally loose, a mother prepared to relinquish responsibility for guiding her child, someone not opposed to stealing or screwing around.
Although Sandy Good cuttingly referred to her as "experienced", LK strikes me as a lousy advert, in many ways, of the notion of young people being the ones to make the kind of deep seated changes that an ailing world was in need of.
Fortunately, the counterculture had more among it's number that were able to sustain some of what was picked up in the 60s. And left to her own devices as she had been from fairly young, Linda Kasabian seems to have imploded to some extent.
Interestingly, in Robert's book, "Death to pigs" Bugliosi says that had Susan not recanted and Linda not testified, he would have gone for 2nd degree murder regarding her. He states categorically that he would never have asked for the death penalty for her though he also says emphatically that she was guilty because of the events of the 2nd night. I would argue that without Susan Atkins, he had no case against Linda.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

They all had issues with there parents and had been kicked out or ran away

Just out of interest, apart from Squeaky, which of the Family members were actually kicked out by one or both of their parents ? While it's true that a number of them were runaways, it's perhaps a bit of a stretch to say that they were not wanted by their parents {barring Susan Atkins}. When Charlie says he found these kids and picked them up when no one else wanted them, that does not seem entirely true. Speaking as someone who himself is a former runaway that never went back after running away, it wasn't a matter of not being wanted, it was a matter of wanting to go. My parents could do little about that.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Only recently has it been discovered that her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders!

The above statement, especially when read in conjunction with the newspaper article that throws the doubt on Linda seems like an open and shut case.......but then, in the thread on Ed Sanders' book it seemed like an open and shut case when it came up that Hatami said he had no recollection of Charles Manson which led some to conclude that Bugliosi had got him to lie. However, some digging and a good look at what actually happened showed an open and shut case to not be a case at all.
The newspaper article in question is dated 7th May '69 and the murders happened over 8/9/10th August. That's three months in which to do something about not having a valid licence.
Being from England a question that I'm interested in is what could "not operating with a valid licence" mean for a 19 year old in 1969? Did it mean that whenever she was apprehended for whatever, she did not have her licence on her ? Did it mean she did not possess a licence at all ? Did it mean she had a fake licence ? Did it mean that she had a graduated licence, that her licence didn't enable her to do what she was doing {such as driving a certain kind of vehicle like a bus} ? I don't know, so if anyone could answer the question I'd be grateful.
In court, she was asked by the defence lawyers a few times about her driving licence and she answered the questions. Given that it would be so easy to check her licence status, it would be beyond stupid to lie about it. I mean, Irving Kanarek went and found June Emmer and flew her over and paid her expenses just for the purpose of trying to show Kasabian to be a liar and unreliable witness. He went to some serious effort there. If there was anything dodgy about Kasabian's licence, I doubt that would have escaped his attentions. Charlie & Pat were caught in daft lies during the trial, things that were easily verifiable. As it turned out it made no difference as the jury never heard Charlie's and Pat had already been found guilty when she made hers. But the point is, there are some false statements that get found out because the evidence to the contrary is readily available. That must surely apply to Linda's licence so can it be said without doubt that "her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders" ? How do we know this ? Is this another red herring ?

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

This why she wasn't allowed to see Bobby Beausoleil the day after the murders to deliver a message to him.

Is it ? Do we know that ? What do we actually know about the day Linda went to see Bobby in the jail ? Again, living in England, it's a different system but there may have been similarities once. I remember the first time I went to see someone in jail, during the summer of '83. It took me ages on the bus to get there and when I did, they wouldn't let me in because I didn't have a VO {visiting order}. I thought I could just turn up to see my mate. It didn't matter what I showed them, they weren't having it.
I suspect that if Linda Kasabian had been family and able to prove it, she might have been able to see Bobby. As it happens, she was a nonentity. Maybe the authorities had stricter policies than Charlie thought and her driving licence wouldn't do. On the other hand Charlie sent her the next day to see Bobby. Why would he do that if there was some problem with her ID ? Come to think of it, has it ever been verified or even suggested what her ID was ? Did she ever say what it was ? It's an assumption that it was the driving licence, in the absence of her confirmation. It could have been her wedding certificate ! Or Tanya's registration bearing her name as mother. Why didn't Charlie send one of the Family that had known Bobby for a long time ? Why didn't someone go with Linda ? Could it be because she was the only one that had valid documents ?
I guess I'm just thinking out loud but being careful not to assume what appears to be obvious until one takes a second glance.

Another similarity between Kasabian and Watson is that both had good lawyers that built a wall around them

You say that like it's proof of some dodgy doggy deed ! Isn't that part of what a good lawyer does ?
However, the wall around Watson did him no good at all. He ended up sentenced to death. Regardless of what anyone wants to say about his lack of public notoriety profile, he got the gas chamber and remains in jail.

If one would remove Manson from the scenario, this case could be called the Kasabian/Watson murders

Not the Watson/Krenwinkel murders ? Wow, your bias shows through stronger than the one on magnetic chrome tape ! Obviously, you won't be going to Kasabian's 70th birthday celebrations !

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

She answered the phone when Bobby called to let Charlie know he was busted

Proving ?
Honestly, you could feed the 5000 with the number of red herrings that you liberally toss out.

I can see a situation where she being the newcomer and wanting to prove her loyalty to the group, came up with the idea to commit a copy cat murder

That would, I suppose, make sense if the general tenor of the group that summer {and therefore, in the lead up to her arrival} was one of violence or open willingness to murder.
You know, they could have easily got Bobby out of jail without killing anyone by simply providing a false alibi for him. Brenda was willing to do it for Charlie. She does it in Robert's book. All they needed to do was have one of the women say that he had been with her for the previous few days before the police found Gary's body. Or have the guys back him up.


Gypsy said during the penalty phase she suggested the Tate house because of a drug burn

Gypsy also said years later that she lied under oath, was forced to lie under oath and say that Linda had masterminded the whole thing. Susan Atkins in her last book also said exactly the same thing. I'd say you could disregard most of what came forth during the penalty phase and given that this would have made up much of the defence had they put one on......

Watson and Kasabian both really, really liked drugs

Making it seem like they were somehow unusual in this regard is a case of trying to make a mighty something out of nothing because the Family per se really liked drugs. As did lots of people in that period.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Their whereabouts in the days leading up to the murders are a mystery, yet they went to great lengths tracking Manson's activity in those days

Their whereabouts in the days leading up to the murders are no more a mystery than that of anyone else. Where was Pat on the 6th ? What did Susan do on the 5th & 7th ? Can Leslie be accounted for on the 4th, the 6th and the morning of the 8th ? What is known of Ouisch, Barbara and Kitty's movements on the Thursday of that week ? Or Clem's ? Or Bruce's ?
And of course they went to great lengths tracking Charlie's activities that week. The prosecution contended he was the lead part of the conspiracy. They suspected that his friends would contend that he wasn't even in the area at the time and possibly build his defence on that. Up until very recently, when she used to contribute to Col Scott's blog, AC Fisher Aldag still maintained that.
Watson and Kasabians's movements that week are irrelevant because Watson's fingerprint, made sometime after Mrs Chapman had washed the door on Friday prove he was there and Kasabian never denied it. She told Bob Kasabian and Joe Sage about it within days.

Bugliosi said that when he took this case, right off the bat, he KNEW Manson had to be involved. In other words, it was a hunch really

That's as maybe. The fact remains that before November 18th and Bugliosi's entrance to the case, there were a number of strands that had Charlie as being either down for the murders or in some way connected. Even if one wants to discount Brooks Poston, Ronnie Howard, Danny DeCarlo, Al Springer, Kitty Lutesinger, Virginia Graham, Joe Sage, Bob Kasabian, Paul Crockett, Jeffrey Jacobs, Steve Zabriske and two unnamed and never before located hitch hikers that Linda gave a ride to on the day she fled Spahn, you cannot discount the second LaBianca police report of October 15th, 34 days before Bugliosi is on the scene, that lists Charlie as a suspect.
But you can keep on trying.

Doesn't it strike anyone as being way to convenient that out of that pack of devils, there was one little innocent angel?

Biblically, Satan was an angel !
Fact is, to start with there was Susan. No holy innocent. But had she not recanted, she would have done what Bugliosi required.
According to Karlene Faith, the police offered Leslie immunity, protection "and maybe money" to testify against everyone else. The prosecution thought these were dangerous people that needed putting away. They needed an insider. They would have taken Leslie had she said yeah. But she said it would have made her feel like Judas.

They were fortunate with Kasabian because she hadn't killed anyone and despite attempts to woo her back, had made a break, psychologically from the family. She was also inexplicably burdened with guilt which was a real plus because it showed her as a real person. When Tex tried to play mad, then the helpless Charlie controlled zombie then Mr Clean & remorseful, it didn't work because it came across as what it was ~ the next in line attempt to get off.

Kevin Marx said...

Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle didn't hit you too hard, I've just about got over it - Rooney of all people! :(

When you say Watson and Kasabian's movements that week are irrelevant I assume you're talking in terms of WHAT happened and WHO did it, rather than WHY?

Because if as Susan Atkins stated Linda was burned for $1000 in an MDA deal in Beverly Hills then their movements could well be relevant in terms of possible motive.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle didn't hit you too hard, I've just about got over it - Rooney of all people!

I don't know which was worse, losing at Anfield, losing to UTD, them having just one shot on target or having an ex Evertonian hit the winner with that one shot !

When you say Watson and Kasabian's movements that week are irrelevant I assume you're talking in terms of WHAT happened and WHO did it, rather than WHY?

Other than the snagglepuss of the penalty phase, there's never really been any doubt as to who did what. As to why, one fact remains: each person had different motives for what happened at Cielo or to put it another way, the men involved {Manson & Watson} were not on the same page as the women who left the ranch not knowing what was going to happen. Bugliosi even says this in his closing argument, which may surprise some.

Because if as Susan Atkins stated Linda was burned for $1000 in an MDA deal in Beverly Hills then their movements could well be relevant in terms of possible motive

I don't know if you've read "The Myth of Helter Skelter" but basically, you can disregard pretty much all that came out during the penalty phase. All three women have said that what came out there was utter bullshit, scripted by Charlie to ensure that he would not be sentenced to death. And they're not the only ones. Gypsy has said the same thing. Lying on the stand was not some groundshaking bombshell where the Family was concerned. And one can understand why they did ~ their way of life was under threat. And people for example have made a big song and dance about Diane Lake lying at the Grand jury without focusing on the reasons she gave for doing so.
The only reason Susan Atkins came up with the MDA story was because it was established that MDA was found in the systems of two of the victims and there was some at Cielo. I notice it was a pattern with the Family that their defences all came in the wake of someone else that was not in the Family having suggested it first.....

Kevin Marx said...

Grim - Sheyi Ojo looks a real prospect, hope to see him regularly in the prem squads.

Yes I read Sadie's second book online and then bought the book, just for the collection! Its been a while since I read it but I remember she put a lot of emphasis on dismissing the testimony in the penalty phase - did she actually mention the MDA comment? I can't recall that tbh. Its another one of those loose ends.


grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Its been a while since I read it but I remember she put a lot of emphasis on dismissing the testimony in the penalty phase - did she actually mention the MDA comment?

While she doesn't specifically mention the MDA, it is equally significant that she doesn't mention the MDA. She doesn't mention Linda getting burned for $1000, hence her choosing the Tate house, as the penalty phase theory went. She does say things like "he’d [Manson] also take every opportunity to try to slander the prosecution’s main witness, Linda Kasabian.....The second most important change was that Linda Kasabian would be portrayed as the main ring~leader in the murders. This would help discredit her as a witness against Manson and give the illusion she was fingering Manson just to remove herself from the picture as much as possible. Once again, to anyone who knew the Family or Linda Kasabian, the charge was ridiculous.....It should be pointed out that Linda Kasabian was not the angel Vincent Bugliosi claimed she was but she was certainly not responsible or culpable in any way for the murders. She was just as frightened and unwilling as the rest of us {during the Cielo murders she actually ran away, and the next night she deliberately steered Charles Manson away from potential victims in order to avoid any bloodshed}.....The final {fictional} version would run something like this; Linda Kasabian was madly in love with Bobby Beausoliel. When Beausoliel was arrested she became frantic to find a way to free him. She then came up with the idea of performing copy cat murders so the police would see the murders were continuing and conclude they must have arrested the wrong man....there was only one hope for all of us and that was to discredit the prosecution’s case. We couldn’t defend ourselves from all his charges, Manson said, but we could throw dirt on Linda Kasabian and completely undermine the Helter Skelter motive. If we could convince the jury the prosecution was completely wrong about the motive for the murders, there was a chance they could be persuaded they hadn’t been given the whole story, there might have been mitigating circumstances the prosecution had hidden.
This tactic didn’t work. All four of us ended up on death row"

Make of that what you will, but it seems clear to me that the MDA story was akin to "Goldilocks & the 3 bears."

Kevin Marx said...

Strange she didn't mention it - I would have thought that she would have taken the opportunity to put to bed that theory.

It must be difficult for librarians to know which section to put Tex and Sadie's books - true crime or fantasy.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

I think that $5000 had a lot more significance to it rather than something than was brought up simply to discredit Linda and make her look bad.

Charlie really pushed Fitzgerald to ask about that money


Linda's testimony on the morning of 31st July is truly revealing in this matter. Paul Fitzgerald was keen to bring out that Linda snaffed the cash to show she'd been lying about her reasons for coming to Spahn in the first place but legally it wasn't allowed because she'd never been charged, much less convicted, of the theft. Trying to be clever, he asked her what she did on July 5th, her second day at the ranch. Here's the thing ¬> it is Linda who brings out the circumstances of the theft by saying that to answer that, it would be important to tell him about the 4th ! She's the one who brings out Tex telling her to steal the cash. She concludes by saying she accepted what he was saying about the money being everyone's. William Zamora, the juror, stated that she never did categorically say if she took the money or not but with Charlie shouting out "about the $5000 she stole," Linda stating that she went to the Melton trailer with Mary & Gypsy while Charles Melton and Bob were absent and her taking some items like a knife and also her stating that Bob & Melton came up to Spahn looking for her, it's pretty clear that she took the money. Besides which, in Bugliosi's summing up, he stated "she and Gypsy and Mary Brunner left the Spahn Ranch to go to Charles Melton's truck for the purpose of having Linda steal $5,000 of Melton's money, which Linda did.......now, let's face it, Linda stole $5,000....I am not covering up for the fact that she stole the $5,000......She testified that she took the $5,000....."

Based on what I know about him, I seriously doubt he would call somebody out on stealing cash simply to make a person look bad. I don't think that's his style

When someone is facing the death penalty, they will call out anyone on any basis. It's one thing to preach about death and lambast people for having the fear of it. It's another thing altogether to actually face it with the possibility that it is coming to you.
And you're wrong. Charlie on a few occasions tried to make Linda look bad during that trial. And he tried to intimidate her, telling her she'd told three lies {in George's book, he tries the same tactic regarding Pat & Leslie}, drawing the finger across the throat, saying she couldn't face death in regard to looking at Wogiciech Frykowski......

For him to bring it up, I think it had to have a deeper significance. One that would really make the prosecution sweat and it did

Your main witness being a person that would separate from her husband and on the same day be having sex with a guy she'd barely met ten minutes previous then going and nicking $5000 from someone you considered a brother to give to a group of people you'd not known for 24 hours, yeah, that could cause the prosecution to sweat a little. You never know how a jury will gauge a person. I wouldn't want to risk any bias insinuating itself into any of their minds.
Your point of trying to allude to deeper significance is cancelled by the fact Kasabian herself brought up the circumstances and the jury was made aware she'd filched the wads.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Strange she didn't mention it - I would have thought that she would have taken the opportunity to put to bed that theory

Why would she need to ? She says the penalty phase Linda painting was bullshit. That covers the spectrum.

alwaysamy69 said...

When looking at anything written about serial killers it just always seems like Manson does not belong in the category

I would hazard a guess that most people that have bothered to look into this case would not view Charlie as a serial killer. He's a legal killer at best. Even Tex would not make the grade of 'serial killer' and he actually, by his own hand, killed.

Manson Family Archives said...

fabricated evidence

Which evidence was fabricated ?

Professor said...

She responded pretty emphatically, and very quickly...."tall, dark, and handsome, with deep blue eyes." She sounded infatuated by him still at that point

During the trial, while talking with Paul Fitzgerald, she recalled making love with Charlie four times. She remembered the exact location of each time and Fitzgerald asked her why she remembered each time. She mentioned making it with Tex just once. When Fitzgerald asked her if she was emotionally involved with Tex, she said no.

Manson Family Archives said...

I think that $5000 had a lot more significance to it

Yeah. It brought Tex's contribution to Family funds in just 4 days to $7500. 4 days previously he'd ripped off Lotsapoppa for $2500.
One thing it demonstrates is how much Tex aspired to be like his 'master', Charlie. Charlie often managed to net big cash or goods by guilt tripping the likes of Juanita, Dennis Wilson and even Tex himself. It is said he acquired big bucks from Sandy when she joined, had a pipeline to funds via Pat and Brooks Poston {or more specifically, one of their parents' cards} when they initially joined up. Being able to provide was one of the things that really impressed Pat about him. Tex thought the girls thought he was a bit of a hick ~ Paul Watkins certainly did. He said that he had a hard time being sexually open and uninhibited with the girls so shagging Linda just like that and netting all that money went a long way towards showing people that he had absorbed Charlie's ways. That's what followers do, they imitate the one they are following. Charlie led the way, Tex followed in his wake. The killings should have cemented his rep of trustworthiness but he reckons the opposite happened ~ people got scared of him.
We keep reading of the budding, blooming romance of Tex and Linda. I think you'll find that seeing him blow Steve Parent away and slice and club Wogiciech Frykowski and her exclamation of "you killed for money !" and the fact she ran off a couple of days later shows any emotional attachment she might have had to Tex died with that night. Recalling how cute he was when she first saw him, all these years later, is no different to people who are known to hate their situation {say, an actor or band member}, recalling the fun & joy of the days when it was fun.

Kevin Marx said...

According to Sadie, their strategy for the penalty phase was to mix lies with the truth.

grimtraveller said...

Yes, but her truth was the copycat motive, not Linda being cheated for $1000 on an MDA deal. Where would Linda have got $1000 anyway ? She gave the $5000 away !
Susan doesn't clear up every last morsel that we might want her to. She doesn't clear up about tasting Sharon's blood, about fellating her son, about whether or not Tex and Charlie knew Wogiciech Frykowski and were connected through drugs, about the murders that would never be solved or about the guy who apparently shot his brains out as he ejaculated in her.
Her silence on these matters doesn't make any of them true though.