Monday, February 1, 2016

"The Hinman Murder Motive" - A Closer Look





"The closest I came to the crime scene is I cut Hinman's ear off in a fight over some money because the Frenchman - he wouldn't pay the Frenchman and I told him, why don't he be a man about himself and pay his debts? And we had a fight." 

               - Charles Manson at his 1992 Parole Hearing


"Good and evil, reward and punishment are the only motives to a rational creature. These are the spurs and reigns whereby all mankind are set on and guided."

               - John Locke




These questions are too broad to answer in the space of a single email reply. The best that I can do for now, until I have published the book I'm working on, is to hint at the answers. They are important questions, which doubtless accounts for why they are the types of questions I am asked most often. But the questions themselves. . . they are more telling than the answers, because they indicate in a very striking way that the characterizations in the popular media—books like Helter Skelter and The Family, the made-for-TV movies, even videotaped interviews with Manson himself—are something less than entirely satisfying to a great many people. I have come to believe that everyone who encounters this story knows on some instinctive level that much of what they are being told (mostly by people who were not actually a part of it) does not ring true.

Stripping away the falsities from the Manson mythology is an appealing prospect, but an incredibly daunting task. There are so many misconceptions and downright fabrications. Charlie has contributed to the confusion most of all because he has chosen, for the most part, to play-act the role the popular media has cast him into.

I can assure you of one thing for certain: the Charlie you have thusfar seen characterized in books, films and news media interviews bears little resemblance to the Charlie I knew. You ask, like so many do, if he really behaved that way, all crazy and weird. If he had, I would never have had anything to do with him, nor would anyone I knew.

One day the superficial falseness surrounding this story will fall away, revealing it to be far less terrifying and far more tragic than anyone but those who were directly a part of it could possibly imagine.

Bobby  





In the wake of the news that there is some video coming out which purports to show members of the Straight Satan's confirming that Bobby burned them on some drugs which came from Gary, I decided to take a closer look at what the existing evidence is to keep current in anticipation of what might be coming down the road. I am walking into this with the strong opinion that Gary was killed during a robbery gone wrong based on what I have read over the years. So yes, this post will have my usual "Saint Slant"  But I went looking for evidence of either robbery, or a drug burn involving the Straight Satans with equal resolve. I was ready to write this post whichever way the information went. In the process, I re-read most of interviews and quotes from Bobby I had been through in the past, which only reinforced my feelings of why I have the opinion of him I do in the first place. Let's get  that out of the way. I think Bobby is where he belongs. That is not the issue of the post, but it will come up. My primary intent for this post is to try and dissect why he went to Gary's. Honestly, I am not really sure why Gary got killed. So to discover that a drug burn really did happen would be something new and sort of exciting to me in a discovery sort of way. I hate to be too thrilled about anything to do with Gary's murder, but new information would be interesting. So as I am skeptical of Gary dealing bad drugs to Bobby as the reason for his own home invasion and murder, I am open minded to the possibility. However, for me to declare I am certain of either, I will need actual evidence. So I went to see what I could find. I wanted to see if I could determine if there is currently enough evidence to prove either?

 I tried to use my usual standards when looking for evidence: Physical, St. Circumstantial, and Testimony. I found it not so easy in this case. As far as Physical evidence of drug transaction or drug dealing- there is very little. That is kind of significant in my opinion. I re-read most of the official documents and the only mention/reference of any type drugs in the house would be in the supplementary Hinman Police report:

 "A home made scale was observed in a kitchen cupboard containing a white powder on one pan. The pan and powder was taken from examination"   

 But a few sentences later it states the powder tested negative for narcotics. There was also no physical evidence of money either in the house or changing hands. Hmmmm. No drugs, no money.

Circumstantial evidence as well of any drug/money transaction is almost completely lacking. Gary had a scale in his house. Circumstantial evidence of drug dealing? Maybe the fact that he had a scale in house would be. Even a scale with no residue on it. But he WAS using this scale for something, and as it was tested and it was proven he obviously was using it for other reasons, not as much so in my estimation.The only evidence I am aware of, or could find to support the drug burn involving the bikers, is testimony. Now, there is physical and circumstantial evidence of robbery obviously. The stolen vehicles and the fact that Bobby was found in one of them. The titles he was forced to turn over. But in both cases, most of what I found was testimony. And in the case of drug burn, it was sort of one sided.  I must admit, the problem with testimony from a few of these people is that several have changed stories, and in a couple of cases, multiple times. So everyone will have to judge credibility for themselves. Having said that- let's look at some testimony. Starting with what was floating around the ranch.



Charlie decided we needed still more money; there weren't enough dune buggies and supplies. Over the past year, he and various other Family members had spent time with a young musician and teacher in Topanga Canyon named Gary Hinman. Now Charlie somehow had an idea that Hinman had recently come into some money, so one Friday late in July (I later found out it was July 25) he called together Mary and Sadie and a boy named Bobby Beausoleil whom I'd never known very well but who'd been with Charlie on and off since I'd first come to the Family.The rest of us could tell something was up, but all we knew at first was that the three of them were supposed to go to Hinman and lay so much fear on him that he would give us everything he had, including the money Charlie was certain he was keeping at the house.

Although I am repulsed by Tex Watson and feel he is among the worst of bastards on Earth, I admit that Tex is much like Susan to me in the latter years in one regard. I think they both got coherent and semi- articulate as they aged. I think they tried to come across as thoughtful and honest as much as they possibly could. I think they both never stopped being self-serving, but still I believe much of what they wrote about themselves and the crimes when they became older people- granted, without saying anything to add to their own culpability. They were both very forthcoming about the crimes in latter years writings, and as hard as they were trying to be believed- I see no reason why they would have lied about the easy stuff. Stuff that can't hurt them personally. In short- I do believe about 70% of what is in both Will You Die for Me, and The Myth of Helter Skelter.  And, still, having said all of that-  if it were just Tex or Susan saying something- then maybe its diddly squat. But, I think you will start to see a common theme here...

 Subject Lutesinger then stated that above suspects Beausoleil and Atkins had been told by Charles Manson they were to go the Hinman residence and take money from him. Subject Lutesinger added that she heard that a fight had ensued and that Mr. Hinman had been killed. 

Bobby's girlfriend. Why would lie or say anything to hurt him? Wouldn't drug burn have been just as good a reason or story to give the cops? You have to assume she was just repeating what she had heard. Why was she told that specific story do you think? She and Tex had no real connection and yet they are telling the same story over 20 years apart. That is a weird coincidence.

Wait..What if Bobby had another girlfriend within the family who also said the same thing many years later? Would that still be a coincidence, or would it mean more?


Leslie herself didn't learn until long after the fact, that in late July 1969, Manson had instigated the murder of Gary Hinman, a gentle neighbor friend who taught music. For a time, Hinman had shared his humble home with Bobby Beausoleil, and it was Beausoleil who now held Hinman captive for two or three days, hoping to talk him out of money Manson wanted.

Do you think the author of " The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life Beyond The Cult", wrote her book giving anything other than Leslie's point of view? Well, above is what she had to say from the LULU point of view about the motive for Bobby killing Gary.


Tell you what.  Lets take a quick pause from that, and look at his most recent version of why they went from Bobby himself...


INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This is a statement of facts prepared by Carolyn M. Hagen, my attorney of record. She writes a brief introduction and it is as follows: "Review of the most recent parole consideration hearing transcript of Robert Beausoleil, dated May 11, 2000, has revealed inaccuracies and confusion regarding the commitment factors. In order to fairly address the (indiscernible) factors of the offense, and by extension Mr. Beausoleil's rehabilitation, Mr. Beausoleil request that the Board incorporate this statement by reference into the current and any and all future proceedings. The commitment case factors as described below are based entirely on previous parole hearing transcripts, Board reports and psychological evaluations. 'Statement of Facts' – on the night of Friday, July 25, 1969, approximately 45 hours prior to the fatal stabbing of the victim, Gary Hinman, Robert Beausoleil went to Hinman's residence to buy drugs. Hinman was, at that time, dealing Mesculine that he made himself. Beausoleil was buying drugs on behalf of members of the Straight Satan's Motorcycle club who had supplied money for the purchase in the amount of $1,000. Danny DeCarlo, who would later testify as a witness to Beausoleil, was a member of the Straight Satan's club and an active participant in the drug transaction. Beausoleil delivered the mesaculine he had purchased from Gary to the Straight Satan's at Spahn Ranch where Danny DeCarlo resided with his girlfriend, Susan Atkins, who would become co-defendant in Beausoleil's case. DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans then took the drugs to Venice Beach for a party involving several motorcycle clubs that was to take place the next day. On Saturday, July 26th, DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans, accompanied by members of the Satan's Sley and Hell's Angels motorcycle clubs, returned to Spahn Ranch and confronted Beausoleil. They accused Beausoleil of conspiring with Hinman to burn him for the money for selling them bad drugs. The bikers roughed up Beausoleil and threatened him with a knife. Beausoleil told the bikers that he did know the drugs were bad and promised to get their money back from Hinman. DeCarlo and co-defendant, Bruce Davis, told Beausoleil that they would drive him to Hinman's residence to make sure that he did. Two young women, co-defendants Atkins and Mary Brunner, who were initially unaware of the difficulties between Beausoleil and the bikers and Hinman, came along "for the ride."

That sounds reasonable to me. After all, Bobby admitted to the crime and took responsibility. What reason would he have for lying about a crime he is willing to take responsibility for doing?

Well- lets be honest and fair for just a second. One potential (very significant) reason would be that the drug burn story makes it almost as if he was acting out of self defense, in a sort of second hand way, which is a much better explanation to give for yourself than greed or robbery. More important, I think though, drug burn has less to do with Charlie and the Family. Distancing himself from the Family would make it easier to prevent what has happened to Bruce all these years from happening to him. Admitting you went over to rob an innocent person at Charlies orders is a whole lot harder to explain to a parole board who thinks your part of the Manson Family- than telling them you killed a no good drug dealer because big bad bikers were after you, and you had to make a choice between him and you. It seems from the reading that Bobby has gone to great lengths to distance himself over the years. To Oregon even.

Bobby B: Listen, one thing that you should establish about me—I was not then nor am I now a member of the Manson family. There never was a Manson family. That didn't happen until everybody got busted. There were a bunch of girls, a few guys, a couple of ex-cons, a bunch of kids, some runaways with no support from home, and they were living in a garbage dump called the Spahn Ranch.

Of course Bobby also said:

Bobby BeauSoleil: " The girls tried to really tell how it all came down, but nobody would listen, People couldn't believe anything except what the media said. The media had them programmed to believe it all happened because we were out to start a race war. The media, they called us a "family". and it was the only true thing they said. We were a family. We were a mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son. And so for the love  of a brother, a brother who was in jail on a murder rap, all those killings came down"

And

RB: “This is my song, this is my song, this is my dark song, my dark song …” Everybody always wants to know how I got together with Manson. It was through our music. He plays some, too. One night I was driving around with a bunch of my ladies. Well, we came to this old roadhouse, beer place, with a lot of cars outside. So we went inside, and there was Charlie with some of his ladies. We all got to talking, played some together; the next day Charlie came to see me in my van, and we all, his people and my people, ended up camping out together. Brothers and sisters. A family."


 So make of what Bobby says what you will. As for me?  Please indulge me briefly:

 It seems deep down there has always been a " I am a Bad-ass" element to Bobby's personality. He has a sort of bravado in his attitude, in his speech, writing, and art. It is plainly there if you look at enough of it. He uses one sympathetic approach with parole boards, but he comes across totally different when doing interviews or in his work.  In one parole hearing he tells the board he hasn't got a violent bone in his body, and would never hurt a soul. That is why, he explains, it was so out of character for him to harm Gary. In another email exchange he is literally bragging about a prison fight and how he had to throw down to defend a brother. I get that in jail you have to do things sometimes. But, my point is the way he describes himself. the language and verbiage he uses to make himself sound like a rebel child of the 60's who will never give up his soul one minute to one person, and then the quiet, thoughtful, reformed adult to another. Whatever audience he is playing to- that's the personality he delivers. He never seemed to grasp that people can read all of it, hear all of it, and see the contradictions from thing he says or creates to the next. Bobby really makes it pretty clear of how he feels about himself if you are willing to really listen. He seems to have a little cockiness to him which he never can seem to hold down for too long. Bobby -and I admire this actually- is the only one of the incarcerated, outside of Charlie, who refuses to completely sell out his past. Most of the others use "The times" as an excuse. I think Bobby still somewhat embraces "The times" and lifestyle he lived. He has too much ego to not be proud of some of the things he did. Some of the things he did lol- I don't blame him.  But, over time, I think he realized that he was going to have to make some compromises about his values if he ever wanted to get out of jail. I have to wonder, as he aged and became more aware of his situation and became more mature and a little smarter, if he started to figure out a chain of events loosely based on some actual things that happened which gave him his best chance to admit his guilt. Something still plausible enough to sound believable, but most importantly not connected to Charlie. Maybe this is what framed his final version of events and became the explanation he has proclaimed in all these years since. I did it to save myself from bikers =  reasonable. I did it because Charlie told me to = Family member/nuts. I dont know. The above is just my opinion about Bobby and some speculation.

But, maybe that is not the case. If I am off the mark, and it was a drug burn all along, then you would think a couple of the others who were involved with Hinman more directly would verify Bobby's story if it were the real reason they went there with him right?  Bobby admitted the stabbing. The others have no reason to lie about why someone else did something. We need more than Tex, Lulu, and Kitty who were not there. What do the others who were there have to say?


During the interview Davis stated, 'What I did understand was that they went there to rob Gary Hinman. They thought he had money but he didn't.' 

Bruce has had more parole hearings than any of them. Drug burn has never come up as a reason for going but, robbery does- consistently. (Including in the statement of facts shown on the previous post of this blog) Why should he have lied? What would be the difference as far as he is concerned? Why would one reason for driving Gary, and coming back with Charlie benefit Bruce more than the other? Bruce hasn't been trying to distance himself from his association with the Family in any way. Bruce just tries to explain how he got caught up in it. He has been trying to come across as honest so he can get his ass out of the clink.  So why would Bruce lie about why Bobby did something all these years?

P.S. -If Bruce is lying about this- what else is he lying about? Do we trust Bruce, or Bobby all those in favor of their release? You can't have it both ways. One of them is still lying all these years. Anyway, let's move on to something about...




MS. BRUNNER: Then Bobby came up and we just talked for awhile and then Bobby told Gary that we needed some money and Gary said he didn't have any and then jabber, jabber, and then Bobby took the gun out and said that, you know, we weren't kidding, we really do need some money and, then, they got fighting over it and Gary got hit with the gun. 

So I guess I am wondering why Bobby didn't mention the drugs at any point? And, again, here comes the money statement literally:

MS. BRUNNER: We came for money but by this time it was obvious he didn't have any.
SERGEANT WHITELEY: How much money?
MS. BRUNNER: Somebody said he had $30,000.

I have read every one of Mary and Susan's accounts of this crime that I can find, and neither of them ever mention Bobby or Gary bringing up bad drugs or a burn at the scene??  If that was the reason for Bobby going there, and he was in a life or death threat over these bad drugs- shouldn't that be the first thing Bobby started screaming about? Susan and Mary's testimonies hasn't matched Bobby's story- but they match each others.They went there for money- no mention of money for bad drugs. And that should have come up at least once if it were the reason for the visit. All of his fear Bobby had from the bikers, and yet he never mentioned the bad deal, or bikers in all those days according to Mary and Susan. If they went there for Drug money that Gary cheated Bobby out of- Susan didn't know that through the day she died.

Oh yeah- I keep bringing up Sexy Sadie... Well, what did she say??


 But he didn’t find out that the murder of Gary Hinman was connected to Bernard Crowe until well after the Grand Jury. How could he possibly uncover the real motive for the murders of those at the Cielo and LaBianca homes without understanding the real reason for Gary Hinman’s death? He couldn't.
  The true irony of this moment can only be appreciated if one understands the real reason all the killings began – to get money so that Manson could run away from the police and the Black Panthers, who he was sure were coming after him for killing Bernard Crowe.

At this one moment it must have all became obvious to Charles Manson. Bernard Crowe wasn’t dead. Manson hadn’t killed anyone that day. What’s worse was that it was also obvious that Bernard Crowe must have never mentioned the shooting to the police. And none of Crowe’s friends had either. And no Panthers had ever come up to wipe out Spahn Ranch.

That was the moment when the true horror and tragedy of all those murders should have come to Manson. That was the moment when it was obvious that when Charles Manson had ordered the murder of Gary Hinman, no one, not the police or the Panthers, was pursuing him. There had been no need for desperation. There had been no need for money to flee. And there had been no need for Gary Hinman to die. 
Susan wrote this when she was dying. As I said earlier, I think Sadie lied about plenty over the years, but, I also believe at the end she was saying what she believed to be true. That can happen upon reflection at the end of a long wasted life.

Bobby mentions the involvement of Danny Decarlo, and that brings me to the final pieces of testimony I will look at, and not to be coy, it goes Straight Satans to the heart of the matter :)



MR. DeCARLO: Uh - Charlie was telling me he knew where he was gonna - they were gonna get 20 grand pretty soon; that, uh-uh - they knew a guy named Gary who had the money, and they're gonna go up there and try to get it off of him. 

At Bobby's trial Danny said:

Then what did he say? (asking in regards to a conversation with Bobby)

A: During the course of the conversation he pulled a gun on him and demanded that Gary give him the money that he had. He was supposed to have $20,000.

Now, I know Danny himself would say anything to collect a reward, keep his kids out of child welfare custody, not go back to jail etc. But the thing is- he is repeating something that has been said quite a few times now. There is that dogged story again. It just wont go away. It seems some at the ranch, at the very least, had some reason to think that Bobby went there to rob Gary.

Also- lets look at something interesting I noticed. People are going to tell me that Bobby is much more believable than Danny. Well, let's see. Here is how many times Bobby says he stabbed Gary. Then, how many times Danny says Bobby told him he stabbed Gary. Finally- how many time Gary was actually stabbed by the Medical Examiner. Who should we believe?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I killed a man by the name of Gary Hinman by stabbing him twice. That's the bare bones facts of it. I didn't have a very good reason. In fact, the reason that I had that seemed so important at the time was petty. It's selfish. 

 Danny repeating what he says Bobby told him:

A: He said he hit him once with a knife. It didn't kill him right off. He hit him again and again. He did not say how many times he did it. He didn't die right away. It took him awhile. 

The medical examiner under Direct at people versus Beausoleil:

Q: In performing your examination, Doctor, did you find more than one wound?
A: Yes.
Q:How many did you find altogether?
A: five wounds which I consider to be stab wounds.

But Danny was one Straight Satan who may have had something to do with things and had a reason to lie or hide the truth. Maybe. But, we also have some testimony from a Straight Satan who did not.

That brings me to the final testimony I looked at, which really, is the most significant to me. Al Springer. Al is just as important to me more for what didn't seem to know as what he did.

Al Springer had been told a thing or two about Gary's murder. He knew some facts. And, I wonder,  If Gary was killed for a reason involving HIS Motorcycle club, why was he so anxious to talk about it to the cops? Especially when he didn't have to at all.

Springer wasn't being asked about the Hinman crime- He offered it.

 "Did you ever get a corpse with his ear abruptly cut off?" Springer abruptly asked. Apparently, one of the detectives nodded, as Springer said, "Yeah. That's your man. Charlie had told him about cutting some guys ear off.

" He had heard, from Danny, that the sword had been used when they had killed a guy, "Called Henland I believe it was." This was the guy who had his ear cut off. What did he know about the "Henland " killing they asked? According to Danny, a guy named Bausley and one or two other guy's had killed him Danny said.

I cant re-paste H/S here and it takes too long to re-type the whole book, but he says Clem told him they cut someones ear off as well. Why arent the telling him- " We did this to try and get your money back"? They are all bragging to him!


Al Springer was a member of the gang that Bobby supposedly committed these crimes to pacify. Why would he start giving up information about Danny and these crimes if his club had any involvement? He wasn't personally involved in the crime and barely knew anyone who was. How easy for him to keep quiet, and its a 5 minute talk, and then done and over. But he went on and on. And you know what? Most of what he said ended up being more or less true. About this crime and TLB.  I don't think he believed the Hinman murder had anything to do with anyone he knew. If not, can you explain to me why would he offer so much unnecessarily?

Maybe, Al Springer wasn't part of the drug deal and didn't know Bobby you say.

 "I romanticized this sort of free-wheeling lifestyle of riding the highway on an iron horse with the wind in my hair, being free and I thought this was really cool and I was trying to become a prospect – at the time of my arrest, I was trying to become a prospect with Straight Satan's motorcycle club, which is how I got involved in that drug deal. So, I think that part of it – that withdrawal in 1969, into the fringes of society is significant in terms of what behaviors led to my being incarcerated for Gary Hinman's death."

Bobby says he was trying to become a Straight Satan prospect at the time of his arrest. So, how could Al Springer not know him? Springer couldn't even pronounce Bobby's last name correctly, and that's about all he seemed to know. Again, why would he offer up, unprovoked- and under no pressure- information about a crime committed involving his own people and prospects breaking laws?

Now go back to Bobby's own latest version which I posted earlier and re-read his own words.

Beausoleil delivered the mesaculine he had purchased from Gary to the Straight Satan's at Spahn Ranch where Danny DeCarlo resided with his girlfriend, Susan Atkins, who would become co-defendant in Beausoleil's case. DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans then took the drugs to Venice Beach for a party involving several motorcycle clubs that was to take place the next day. On Saturday, July 26th, DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans, accompanied by members of the Satan's Sley and Hell's Angels motorcycle clubs, returned to Spahn Ranch and confronted Beausoleil.

Al Springer had no idea any of this was going on? He wasn't at the party, or aware of all these other biker gangs being involved in a beating at Spahn Ranch?

Danny told Springer about the Hinman crime. If Danny told Springer it was to get money back for a deal that had anything to do with either their, or another motorcycle club- why would Springer offer that to the cops? Does that make any sense?

But if Bobby was lying and Springer knew it had nothing to do with his people. Then maybe he would have a reason to talk about a story he overheard. A very simple reason:

Do you know there is a $25,000 reward for the Tate murders. Yeah, and " I sure could use it".


So, what I am left with after my weekend experiment is that none of the people who made statements I could find are saying that they went there because Bobby got burned by Gary with bad drugs. I read statements from people in different cliques within the family, and in some cases taken 20 to 30 years apart. Some from people who were at Gary's, and others were just repeating the scuttlebutt/rumors around the ranch. Two were in the motorcycle gang supposedly burned. They all say robbery, and none were mentioning a drug burn, Where was anyone else who saw the drug transaction?

Bobby said in an interview:

BB: Right. The whole transaction with the Straight Satans motorcycle club took place at Spahn's Ranch. There were a few Satan Slavers hanging out there as well. The Straight Satans took the mescaline back to the motorcycle club at Venice where they were intending to party. They were really mad about it.

So how come nobody else saw has talked about this transaction? Why wont anyone else verify this drug transaction in any way- with the exception of a few, not specific, mumbles from Charlie like the one at the top of this post? Where is one single story of the bikers going back to Spahn and threatening or beating Bobby- from anyone besides Bobby? In fact the only one who seems to talk about the Drug Burn theory is Bobby himself.

So, the stories of Gary getting an inheritance he was there to rob, and all the other lies about his case must really bother Bobby right? I mean Bobby must wonder who would make up lies like that?

Well, Bobby would:

Apr. 14 It was Charles Manson who stabbed a Topanga Canyon musician to death last summer, murder defendant, Robert Kenneth Beausoleil claimed yesterday. Beausoleil, testifying in his own defense at his murder retrial, said the entire blame on the death of Gary Hinman, 34, on Manson, leader of a nomadic “family.” Beausoleil also claimed it was Manson who slashed Hinman’s left ear with a sword because the musician refused to give the cult leader $20,000 which he reportedly had just inherited. 

So, at some point, even Bobby mentioned robbing money at Gary's. A fair person can start to sort of see why everyone seems to say the same thing about the subject, or at least, why those stories were out there.

And I haven't even mentioned people on the Gary's side. People who could defend Gary's honor. People like Glen Krell. Read the people versus Beausoleil where he was called as a witness. He says he was as close to Gary as he was to anyone. They ask Krell about every possible rumor connected to Gary. His political affiliations, his hobbies, his work. They even ask if he appeared or could be mistaken for being gay, or taken as a "Fag". But they never ask him if Gary is a drug dealer. How come no rumors or stories from anyone about drug dealing even came up during the investigation?


So in closing old friends: What we have for now is not really much testimonial evidence of anything more than the trip to Gary's being a robbery. I concede, Shaky testimony at that. I probably wouldn't bet anything of value on why they went based on the words of any of these people really. But it was interesting to read that so many of them said the same thing. I am willing to consider anything anyone else can show to prove there was an other reason for what happened to Gary. I look forward to this Straight Satan's video coming and will look into anything new I hear. I will try to check it out in whatever direction it leads me. I reserve the right to amend my opinion later. I have no skin in this game and am just reporting what I could find. I guess where I am for now comes down to this:

Do I believe one dishonest person who has told a few different versions of this crime, or do I believe a few dishonest people who have all been telling one common version of this crime?


All we know for sure, sadly is that Bobby did a really terrible thing. We may be trying to figure out why forever. Much like TLB. Trying to figure out what could cause such savage killings can be a very difficult thing to do. One of the most natural ways to search for answers is to take a hard look at those who committed them. That leads me back, in this case, to Bobby. And that is where I will end it.

If you really want to take a hard look at what Bobby was capable of- read all the statements from Mary, Susan and even Bobby himself. You will see enough consistencies to get an idea of what those days were like for Gary. The stories about what actually happened to Gary are close enough all the way around that we can figure out what Gary went through. Slowly bleeding to death in his own house at the hands of people he had been generous and kind too. The way Bobby treated him, by his own admission had such a frighteningly, cold emptiness to it. And look, by the time Bobby started stabbing he knew Gary had no money. It wasn't any form of self defense. It wasn't going to change his situation with the bikers. It was pure self preservation.

Gary Hinman was a friend of theirs and a friend to others. He had family, a life, and people who cared about him. Gary Hinman was a Human Being.


MS. BRUNNER: We went out and shut the door but then Bobby came out and said, "Okay, let's go," and then Gary started real loud deep breathing, real raspy, loud. He did it a couple times and Bobby went back in through the kitchen window and then we opened the door and put a pillow over Gary's head for awhile. Then he asked me to hold it there so it wouldn't be so loud. Then he called me to the kitchen while I was still doing it and I don't know why he called me. 


S/Atkins related she went about the house wiping off all of the areas she thought either of the suspects had touched. S/Atkins then stated she and Beausoleil left the residence locking the door behind them when she suddenly heard V/Hinman making sounds, at which time she stated to D/Beausoleil, "I don't think he's dead." D/Robert Beausoleil then put on a pair of gloves and climbed through the kitchen window. A few moments later, S/Atkins stated she heard V/Gary Hinman cry out, "Oh no Bobby, please don't!" S/Atkins stated she heard a sound like gurgling as when people are dying. She stated D/Beausoleil then came out the door again and they left 


At location, we observed numerous flies around the southeast window, which was partially ajar. Deputy Piet climbed a ladder to above described window and observed victim lying on the floor against the west wall. This time, we entered the location by climbing through the east, unlocked window leading into the kitchen. On entering living room, we observed victim lying on his back with his head pointing west and his body east. Victim had a blank covering his body and a pillow partially covering the left side of his face. Victim was observed to be in a decomposed condition, face blackened with Maggets on and around the head area. We observed splotches of blood on the blanket in the area of victim's chest. 

 "At that time I was not sure whether they were wounds or not. There were numerous maggots and beetles eating on the body, and the body fluids had moved in to what were later determined to be knife wounds and had caused the water fluid to rise above, which the beetles were moving into. It was hard to determine the death"


Sigh.....


Ya know, lol,  I went over to Bobby's website today for the first time in a very long time. He used to have sections with letters where he would answer questions, and correspond, with emailers about the crimes. That is gone. What he did have was a link to an interview he did with Extreme Music for the "Love Life Forgive: Insights from Artists by Justin Vincent. This is under the headline: " In search of Heart in Art" You read things like Love, Heart and Life, and you think maybe that other stuff was long in the past. That this is really a changed, spiritual man who really wants to send the right message. Then you look up not quarter of an inch above the link to the interview and there is a recent photo of Bobby.

 He is sitting on a rail, holding a flower and staring at a sign on the rail next to him which says: "Off limits- Do not sit on rail"


Go look at the pic. Is it a sort of smile on his face? A semi-smirk? Who knows. Its hard to tell...



But it does leave me with one question: Can what is at the core of a person ever really change?




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I'm not the same man that I was who killed Gary Hinman, and there is no possibility that I would ever put myself in a similar position again. There is no possibility that I would ever treat another human being with disrespect and indignity as I did him. I am secure in myself as a man, I absolutely, I'm absolutely confident in my orientation, in my spirituality, in the relationships that I have created with other people, or developed with other people. There isn't a vile inclination in me. and I have learned from this, I have learned in a very profound way what the consequences are, why the consequences are the way they are on both a legal level, a human level as well, but also on a spiritual level. And, you know, the indignity that I put Mr. Hinman through, and the violence that I committed against his person was truly, in my way of thinking now, a sacrilege. and I deeply, very deeply regret what I did. But again, in answer to your question, I am not the troubled young man I was 41 years ago


                                                                 

                                                        -Your Favorite Saint





147 comments:

SusanB said...

Saint...Wow. This post is outstanding. Thank you for the enormous effort you put in. I'm planning on reading it over again several times to appreciate the detail. Your research is worthy of quality time from me. Again, thankyou . ☺

Jeannie said...

I have never commented before tho' I have read along on this and other TLB sites for some time. I first started reading about this case many, many years ago when as a nine year old (yep, obnoxiously precocious) I found a copy of HS in a public library. Even back then, I thought it outrageous that the family besmirched GH's character and tried to make him somehow responsible for his own death. Nothing I have read since, over many, many years, has given any real proof that Gary was dealing drugs. Even if he was, what right did it give Bobby to take his life? So thanks Saint for this post, you have very eloquently summed it up.

william marshall said...

His book better be the size of War & Peace he's had 40 + years to work on it

william marshall said...

His book better be the size of War & Peace he's had 40 + years to work on it

St Circumstance said...

Thanks so much Susan and Jeannie :)

MamaPoohBear said...

Wonderful, thought-out post.

Shorty's pistols said...

Good post, St.

Even now I can hear the hoofbeats of the "86 George cavalry" as they ride to rescue the drug burn motive.

It doesn't matter. The guy admits he murdered a man in his own home and robbed him. Then, he told different versions as to why he did it to the PB.

Bobby has hoisted himself on his own petard many times.

This hearing will just be a different version that has been repeated over and over for years.

candy and nuts said...

Nice one st,

Robert Hendrickson said...

Great POST St: Did you ever discover where and when the FIRST mention of a "drug burn" came from ? Where and when the FIRST mention of Helter Skelter came from ?

Like, the cops mentioned they found drugs in Sebring's car.

Sometimes the "origination" of a story, says a lot.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YOU may appreciate this ST:

As Jerry Brown so eloquently reveals - It's HS (a BLACK / WHITE race WAR) everyone white FEARS so much that the Manson Family must stay in jail FOREVER. According to Mary, Gary was a sweet likeable, but wallflower kind'a guy. BUT apparently, nobody in government cares about HIM, only that HIS murder can be "used" for THEIR agenda.

Just like the ONLY thing Bugliosi cared about the BLACK Mr. Crow was that the "bullet' still inside HIM could be "used" to get Charlie.

AND the "drug burn" theory holds NO benefit for the "establishment." Only HELTER SKELTER has the power to burn the My Lai Massacre from American history.

Panamint Patty said...

The part about scales being found in a cupboard... Patty wonders which "narcotics" were tested for?

AustinAnn74 said...

St, all my respect, but as you probably have guessed, I don't buy into this theory whatsoever. I think it's very possible that Gary might have sold a little bit way back before he was murdered, but, of course, nobody knows for sure. Everyone has read that GH had a problem with drugs and was in a support group to overcome his addiction. That's no secret. It's also no secret that investigators found a scale in his kitchen when they were processing the crime scene. They tested it for drug residue and there was none present. I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be any residue on it if he had recently used it. Why would he have cleaned it off? If or when Gary sold drugs and that's a big "if" has absolutely no bearing on his murder, in my opinion. I think BB concocted this motive out of his imagination so he wouldn't look like he murdered on Manson's orders in the parole board's eyes. BB doesn't want to be associated with being a Manson Family member AT ALL and especially doesn't want to be associated with the group of family members that killed on Manson's instruction. So, he has stuck with different variations of that lie over the years to try getting out of prison. He would make himself look like a true compulsive liar if he all of a sudden told them the actual truth. Imagine if he went before the parole board and admitted that he made the whole thing up. What kind of animal could hold onto a lie for that many years, just to save his own ass? That wouldn't be showing the parole board a lot of remorse, would it? Remember, this man desperately wants out. I don't blame him, but he makes himself look bad, like he's blaming the victim for his own death. I know that a lot of people that read this blog are of the opinion that Manson & friends were just misunderstood, young people that were harassed by the the "man" but this isn't entirely so. They were stealing & robbing people left & right. They might have started out as innocent flower children, riding around on a bus, smoking grass & screwing each other's brains out, but they turned into a terrorist group almost. Breaking into people's homes and even "creepy crawling" was downright WEIRD and extremely f*cked up. A lot of people ended up dead in their presence. That's not a coincidence, man. Also, I know the victims weren't saints. They were real human beings with faults. Just because they were killed doesn't mean they never did anything wrong, but labeling them when they aren't here to defend themselves is nuts. Do I think Gary could have possibly dealt? Maybe, but that isn't why he was tortured & stabbed to death. Nobody will ever know, because the man is no longer alive to dispute these allegations. If BB gave him a bunch of money, where did the money disappear to? That was a lot of money back then. Also, just a side note. I have cousins (and an ex-boyfriend) that are presently in a well-known, Texas motorcycle club and I am, without a doubt certain that MC riders score their own stuff from their own sources, if that's what they're into, including ones from way back then. I know all scenarios & circumstances are different, but as a general rule of thumb, that doesn't happen, back then, or now. They wouldn't trust some young guy that they barely know with a large amount of money. The notion that this happened is ridiculous. Was Danny DeCarlo more involved? He certainly knew beforehand that they were going over there to force Gary to give up $$$. Danny was a drunkard, who's sole purpose in life was beer & bush. He didn't really have a lot of ambition, other than banging young girls. What it all boils down to is, Gary Hinman was murdered and in my opinion, I don't think it was over a drug burn. Saint, as I stated earlier, my respects. Your posts are always good and I always appreciate that we can discuss in respectful ways our different viewpoints. Salud!

St Circumstance said...

I'm not sure our viewpoints are all that different? Lol

But you know I respect you Ann :) even if we don't agree. Thanks for your comment!!

Thanks to all of you for the comments!!

candy and nuts said...

Nice one st,

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Candy

Matt said...

AustinAnn is passionate about this subject. She's likely body slammed her husband by now...


Janell Bauer said...

Very well done! I need to read it again later to make sure I didn't
Miss anything. I do not comment much...but have been a regular reader for a long time. Congrats to Saint C. For giving us some big things to think about!!!

Matt said...

Saint, that's two lurkers brought out of the shadows. You're on a roll.


Jean Harlow said...

Ann I haven't read before that Gary Hinman had substance abuse issues. How sad. To overcome an addiction and then be killed.

St Circumstance said...

It's awesome to hear from people who feel strongly enough to finally say hello...

It makes the effort worth it. :)

christopher butche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
christopher butche said...

AustinAnn. Good point about why would a motorcycle gang (of around 35 members) hand over (in today's money) around 6600 dollars to a 19 year old who knew a dealer?

Saint, was it the Summit Ridge arrest report from 1968 where Sandy names Hinman as the supplier of the pills she has on her? Ok it's only her word, but it does give him a provenance of sorts as a dealer.

The mini-raid on Spahn, just after the murder, has a licence plate of Hinman's being taken, but the police knowing that Hinman was associated with those at Spahn so no excitement about it being possibly stolen.

If the cops had Hinman flagged as a Family regular, and they were fairly criminal, what does that say about Hinman?

One important aspect of Hinman being a dealer is that it places him beyond the rules of being a citizen. His death becomes a falling out between outlaws during the commision of illegal activities. Beausoleil in theory has more of a chance at getting released for murdering a fellow player rather than a civilian.

Eddy said...

Read this most everyday but haven't commented before. This one by Saint deserves a standing ovation. Best that I've read for a long time in TLB land.;)

Manson Family Archives said...

"Miss Atkins informed subject that she was present at the Hinman murder and was accompanied by another male. Sadie further stated that she had gone to the Hinman residence to acquire some money. Sadie intended to have sex with Gary Hinman but aborted the idea when Hinman showed a lack of interest. Miss Atkins then learned that Hinman became sexually aroused when sadistic acts were performed upon his body. Sadie then admitted satisfying Hinman's desires but explained that she and her male companion went a little too far"

Mary Brunner at one point said that Hinman was killed because he refused to join Manson's "rock band". She also placed Bill Vance in the place of Bruce Davis at one point (obvious proof they all tried to keep certain people from being indited). She also changed the dollar amount that Bobby told them they wanted. Originally she said $3,000.

Paul Watkins said Hinman was killed because HE wanted to join the Family, but was unwilling to empty his bank account.

Leslie said Dune Buggies.

....it should be obvious that most of the people at the ranch either didn't know what the hell was really happening, or doing everything they could to keep the Straight Satans out of the picture.

The mescaline "story" was circulating before Beausoleil ever had a parole hearing, so you can scratch that. Bobby has been telling his close friends and family the same tale since the 1970s.

While every detail is not exactly known, the motive that Bobby and Manson has put forth is 100% fact. Hinman was killed as a result of a drug transaction that involved the Straight Satans. There is nothing more to look at here.

CJS said...

I've been a long time reader of this blog. But I've never commented before. This was a fascinating post! I'm always intrigued at all the different perspectives that this case and bloggers provide.

christopher butche said...

Saint, it's always worth bearing in mind that Manson required first aid. He cut his finger badly when assaulting Hinman requiring its bandaging by Brunner.

For all we know Hinman did it to him.

I once had a Rolling Stones gig I was to attend postponed because Keith Richards cut his finger, so as a guitarist for Manson to be unable to play may be of more importance than we expect.

You never know with TLB.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Notice: The way folks looked at things BEFORE the Vietnam War and AFTER is most significant.

1) The old brass "scales" BEFORE were antiques sitting on a shelf in a kitchen and AFTER cops would freak-out, cause THEY considered THEM the tools of the big-time drug dealers.

2) BEFORE "zig-zag" papers were used by many guys who rolled their own cigaretts, BUT AFTER cops thought they had discovered a den of refer-maniacs, when ever they saw some laying around.

3) In 69 I don't remember ANYONE being addicted and I never even heard about "support" groups.
That was the establishment media who programed folks to THINK they are "addicted."
Of, course, there were always herion junkies and alcoholics, BUT like LSD junkies - I don't THINK so.

4) AND Bobby B. taking an old car from Gary and driving it around AFTER he killed HIM. Well, that was simply a "shit-for-brains" kind'a guy. I sure You've all met one of those.

Panamint Patty said...

Hi Eddy, welcome to the dark side

StarRider said...

Very nicely done, we all appreciate the obviously great amount of time and thought that went into the post. In the end I don't think it really matters why Hinman was killed in regards to whether HS is BS or not, but it would be satisfying to know. Judging by some of the statements I think most of the Family doesn't really know why Hinman was murdered, and though the post cleared up who said what to a great degree, we're still left with an intuitive decision. It also reinforces, to me, just how senseless and stupid and sad all this was, all those lives just wasted.

If GH did have a set of scales there, it seems a good possibility that he was selling, at least to some degree.

Panamint Patty said...

Thank you rider. What else would he be using the scale for? Counting calories?

StarRider said...

I know people in the antiques business, in fact have been in it myself to varying degrees at times. Quite a lot of people display antique or high end balances, the more expensive ones are often beautifully made. Some people even collect them. I have an electronic one I use for weighing artifacts, I am an amateur archaeologist of sorts. So possession of scales isn't a sure-fire way to presume one is dealing drugs; however scales with white powdery residue on them would be suspicious, at least to me.

Manson Family Archives said...

So because DeCarlo and Springer told the cops that Clem told them about the ear, you question why they wouldn't say they did it to get their money back?

You assume, at face value that Springer was telling the truth. Rather than trying to establish a story with Law Enforcement that keeps their involvement out of the picture, which is exactly why Al Springer and DeCarlo snitched.

This is where the problem lies. People assume if it's not on record, it's not reality and that everyone who talks to the cops tells them the absolute truth.

Eddy said...

Thanks Patty! I'll keep my flashlight handy for the darker times.

Matt said...

Manson Family Archives said...

People assume if it's not on record, it's not reality and that everyone who talks to the cops tells them the absolute truth.


MFA, given the choice I always tend to favor what is said on the record. The other is what the justice system refers to as hearsay. That isn't to say that people don't lie on the record. I just think what is on the record caries more weight. If undeniable truth emerges afterward, that's different. I just don't see it in this case.


Still Grooving said...

Just a quick comment about the scales ...

I have a nice set of scales of myself, that belonged to my dear partner. She was a chemistry teacher in a local high school and a wee bit OCD when it came to Christmas cookie baking. We used the scales to measure dry ingredients in recipes. The rest of the time, the scales sat on a bookshelf in our office. My partner died in 2007, but the scales still sit in my home office as a reminder of a person I loved dearly.

What did Gary use the scales for? Who knows. There was a white powder residue on the scales, but lab results showed an absence of narcotics. I suppose it could be powder left over from cutting drugs, but does it really matter? The man was killed by a narcissistic scumbag.

Robert Hendrickson said...

SAINT: as I said before GREAT post, but upon a closer look, I SEE that you only gave Charles Manson (1) sentence to explain HIS involvement and the REAL killer plenty of screen time to implicate HIMSELF.

I can only assume you thus DON'T buy into the Manson "mastermind" in CONTROL of the deadly Hinman tragedy.

In case I'm wrong, there is an 8 minute video on YouTube "Backporch Collection" where MANSON himself explains HIS total involvement in the Bobby / Gary affair.

BTW here's a piece of triva: Gary and Charlie were only less than 2 months apart in their ages (34) when Gary was murdered. AND Little Paul Watkins made a VERY relevant comment about ages.

Ballarat Babe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ballarat Babe said...

Gary liked pot and speed. Maybe he sold some on the side but I don't believe he was a hardcore dealer. I'm sure beausoleil's lawyer figured the best way to distance himself from Manson was to go with the biker gang drug burn story because, like Saint said, it makes the murder seem justified. I've never been a superstitious person but I do believe when you worship the devil or think you Are Satan you will pay dearly just as the Manson family has!

Logan said...

I love this blog...have lurked for years, i know I'm not an expert like y'all, BUT...i remember something grimtraveller wrote a while back which i thought was quite interesting...mescaline wasn't illegal in the US until 1970. Could that mean that the powder on gary's scale was in some way connected to the drug, but wasn't technically an "illegal narcotic"?
I thought that this was a great post. Really puts things into perspective...still not sure if i believe the robbery theory, though. Like with so many other aspects of TLB, only the people who were actually there will know what "really" happened.

Manson Family Archives said...

Who helped to create the official record and make it a reality?

Danny DeCarlo and Al Springer - both criminals who testified not only because they had legal issues of their own, but to help white wash their own involvement and keep the heat off their MC.

Susan Atkins - who told multiple fantastic stories and then tried to shoot for Diminished Capacity defense under the advise of two shady lawyers in a deal that is still a mystery with several red flags.

Leslie Van Houten - Also tried to go for Diminished Capacity.

Paul Watkins - Watkins knew nothing about the crimes and obviously loved the cameras.

Brooks Poston - A hayseed who like Watkins, knew nothing about the crimes and I suspect had a personal vendetta against Manson for leaving him out in the desert. Why? Because Manson didn't like him. Odd how Manson didn't want anything to do with somebody who was so slavishly they would have supposedly kill a sheriff for him.

Linda Kasabian - Full blown immunity from seven counts of murder. If you think district attorneys grant such a deal for telling the truth, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Dianne "Snake" Lake - Mentally ill 17 year old who was fearful of cops.

Barbara Hoyt - Contrary to popular belief, she never liked Manson and fought with him tooth and nail. Another one with a vendetta and proven liar.

Tex Watson - Played the role the DA cast him in, in an attempt to....plead NOT guilty to butchering all 7 victims. In what other case in the history of the world would there be a defense for such a crime otherwise?

Vincent Bugliosi would not only have to be considered a legal genius, but also must have had the same mystical power that Atkin's attorney said Manson had. For one would assume the man had a crystal ball. Since only a cursory look at the case early on, in which HE said there was only "circumstantial evidence" and has implied Manson could have walked....he saw the name Manson and KNEW he had to be the man behind the crimes. Lo and behold, not only was he the man behind them, but he directed the entire thing, put the gun and rope in Watson's hand and EVEN told him to make it as "gruesome as possible"! How splendid for Bugliosi's weak case was there one angel in the group too! Who even told Charlie, "I'm not like YOU"

The official record for me, is basically toilet paper.

Shorty's pistols said...

So you don't believe any of the official record. What is real, what do you believe? Only Charlie's ramblings on YouTube? Or his stuff in George's book?

Charlie and Beausoliel have been 100% about the Hinman slaying? Hardly. BB has more versions of that crime than you can count. Which one of Bummer's iterations of that crime is the real deal?

The "It's all lies, it was a giant conspiracy" theory of this case has more holes in it than the dreaded Helter Skelter theory.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I have an idea:

The ONLY reason the name MANSON is bizarrely fascinating is because the "crimes" were claimed, by the Prosecutor, to have been inspired / committed by an "evil mastermind."

So, when discussing EACH "crime," such as the murder of Gary Hinman, let's be sure to investigate and identify the EXACT participation "conduct" which was "Evil." AND which specific EVIL "conduct" was inspired / committed by "MANSON."

NOTE: we are ONLY considering the words "Evil" and "mastermind" with the above mentioned
EXPERIMENT.

penny lane said...

Yo Matt......i finally did it ! Here goes...
Random question..just cos...which four family members would u all invite over
for dinner..?
No cutlery of course.

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

Hi Penny. sorry the Ruthann Hamburger joke just won't come out the right way lol. I think I'll leave this one alone. :)

Panamint Patty said...

Sandy Squeaky Ruth Ann and Snake

Kevin Marx said...

Patty said:

"Sandy Squeaky Ruth Ann and Snake"

Good thinking Patty, four of the best rummager's so it would be a cheap one - they'd collect it from the back of the local supermarket on their way :)

I would be more predictable and go for Charlie, Tex, Squeaky and Pat (Sadie had she still been alive).

St Circumstance said...

If the deceased qualify I would chose Paul Ruthann Country Sue, and Sandy if she promises to bring George ...

Panamint Patty said...

Sorry for getting off topic St!

St Circumstance said...

Don't be at all lol. I like your list!

Matt said...

Saint, I now count 11. This has got to be a record for bringing lurkers out of the shadows.

Penny:

Blue
Red
Cappy
Mary

St Circumstance said...

The greatest compliment I could ask for is participation. This was a very rewarding reponse no doubt lol. Much appreciated too :)

Ballarat Babe said...

Right on the Money, Saint!

St Circumstance said...

:)

HellzBellz said...

WoW....that was a long read ....But Deff. worth time and effort. Great Job Saint !! and owh, Me too thinks Bobby B. stays a Rebbelious Kid. And for what realy the reason was killing Gary Hinman, I still not sure, but the Robbery seems more plausible than the ,,DopeDeal ,, gone Bad.

Manson Family Archives said...

There is a Naivety among people that makes them think that a criminal case is about establishing what happened. They are not. A prosecutor's job is not to be a historian and tell an accurate story of what happened. There one and only job is to get convictions and win their case. They are not there for their health.

A prosecutor puts his case today and says: here is the evidence, now fight it. Your job in that court room is to fight it and you can either plead guilty or not guilty and fight it. You as a defendant are there to fight for your life and either get off or get a lighter sentence.

In the Hinman trials, the case wasn't presented as involving a dope deal. The straight Satans (who were named as suspects in Oct. of 1969) were among the first to go to the cops. From then on, it's obvious that's the path they took with the case. DeCarlo and Springer had deals going with the state.

Why would Bobby admit to what really happened in his second trial and admit guilt, when with the case the prosecutor presented, gave him a shot at walking away Scott free?

If Mary knew of the deal and involvement of Straight Satans, why would she testify to that and risk a deal?

At a trial, attempting to drag the name of two of the states witnesses would be objected to and considered perjury.

No offense, but people are stupid as to the nature of how criminal cases are processed. If they weren't, surely stupid questions like "well why wouldn't ___ say" wouldn't be asked.

orwhut said...

Good job St. I wish my attention span was long enough to take it all in.

Panamint Patty said... The part about scales being found in a cupboard... Patty wonders which "narcotics" were tested for?

The same question occurred to me, Panamint Patty. I guess Gary could have been weighing out ingredients for some type of eastern food he was cooking, though. It seems that a drug dealer would earn enough to get a store bought scale.

penny lane said...

I would slip truth serum into the lentil cupcakes and take a walk down memory lane .  I would like Charlie , Tex , Sandy and Sadie sorry Bobby no room at the table for your gargantuan ego , plus you actually bore me….So what would be the question you would like to have answered TRUTHFULLY?
And yes ST …YOUR post single handily dragged this old fossil out of the shadows .  Which in itself is really quite remarkable if you realised what a tech retard I am , so please let me know if I am cocking up the groove by talking about random stuff ..and St share the hamburger joke..Im sure the delivery will be worth it!

Donna said...

Long time lurker also. What a well thought out post. The conclusions you made and their words you used to prove your theories is simply amazing.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks very much again to all of you who took time to comment. And I appreciate every one of the compliments very much.

Penny I was going make the lame joke that I would have Ruthann and Sandy/ George. It could be a double date. Just as long as I didn't serve ......, I figured I would be alright.

Told you it was lame. :)

penny lane said...

I chuckled !..7 out of 10

St Circumstance said...

:)

Manson Family Archives said...

Mescaline was legal back in 1969. So even if it was mescaline, it would not have tested positive for narcotics. As a matter of fact, although illegal today, I think there still isn't any way of testing for it.

A lot of the questions asked in this post can be answered in my own analysis of the Hinman murder. http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/07/the-murder-of-gary-hinman-drug-burn-or.html

Drugs did come up during Bruce Davis' trial, by the way. Ella Jo Bailey was asked about Hinman supplying the Family with Mescaline. Manson was making admissions off the record in regards to "bad dope".

Al Springer was a gigantic liar. I did laugh though during his taped police interview when he made a slip: "So my club brothers said this Dan, I mean Charlie has some arsonal up there" (they were all Danny's weapons)

He also acted as if he no clue who Gary Hinman was, but during Davis' trial said: "I didn't know Gary Hinman...that well" That well? I don't know if Springer actually met Hinman, but 'that well" is an implication that had.

St Circumstance said...

MFA-

Al Springer may or may not have been a big liar. I didn't know him.

But everything he said to the cops on record ended up being more or less true

And you still haven't answered the question a reasonable person would ask.

He offered the information. He wasn't lying about something he was asked

Why bring it up if his own people had something to do with it and he wasn't being asked?

I said in the post I wouldn't bet on anything any of them said. But you have to admit an awful lot of them said the same thing.

Now when this video from the SS comes out. You are going to expect everyone to believe it based on what a couple of people are supposedly going to say right?

So why isn't it fair to point out what the others involved had to say?

Nobody involved with Hinman has lied as much as Bobby. It seems you have made up your mind who is to be believed and who isn't.

I like to keep an open mind and look for collaborating testimony or actual hard evidence before I make any assumptions and yes I like to ask questions as well...

Because I have trouble believing any of them

St Circumstance said...

By the way- I didnt make the connection between MFA and D. LaCalandra - my apologies!

I went back and re-read this post. It is a very good post and certainly worth thinking about as well...

I am 100% sure Bobby is where he belongs for what he did. I hope that came out in my post. I am not 100% sure why he did it. I hope that came out as well.

I am not going to go back and forth, point for point, playing he said-she said when I am not sure if any of them can be believed. You make some assumptions in your post as I do, and you rely on the testimony of people who are repeating second hand news as I do.

We sort of had the same idea to make a point- but as usual mine is a bit longer than it needed to be :)

Tell you what. I liked your post and am open to the idea it was not a robbery, but I am not sure you proved drug burn any more than I did robbery in any definitive way.

What we both did is raise questions and make points for people consider...

So lets just let everyone read both and draw their own conclusions.

The more opinions and ideas respectfully shared the better :)

penny lane said...

Either way...the end result was the same..a dead gary.

Still Grooving said...

Charlie Manson was a pimp, pure and simple. He used his girls to get what he wanted, drugs, money, cars and friends. And he hoped that their influence might help him land a big record deal and make him a star. Using his philosophy he was able to get his "family" to turn over all their possessions to him. That's pretty unique in the prostitution business, I suspect. I believe that Charlie shot Bernard, thought him to be fatally wounded and was fearful of the consequences. Having spent so much time in jails and prisons he saw the world as Black and White, and he knew killing a black man, especially one he believed to be a Black Panther, carried heavy consequences. He wanted to get away from the L.A. landscape, and tried to get as much money as he could to run away to the desert. He sent Bobby out to rob Gary.

Here's what bothers me about this scenario. The family regularly went out at night to do their creepy-crawls. Why not just creepy-crawl Gary's home to look for the money? Perhaps they had done that, and weren't able to find any money. Or maybe Bobby DID get burned on some drug transaction and made up a story about a huge inheritance to persuade Charlie to give him some help to get his money back.

My thought is that Bobby told the police and courts that he was ripped off on a drug transaction, one that put a potential lethal drug into the hands of group of unsuspecting people, because he would get more sympathy when the verdict came in.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Right up front the SAINT says: "But the questions themselves ... they are more telling than the answers .."

AND Bruce Davis says: "the ANSWER is in the question"

SO WHY is Bruce's language considered "cryptic" and the SAINT's is: the way WE want to understand it?

Cause the ANSWER to that question is VERY telling !

penny lane said...

Keh?

Manson Family Archives said...

Beausoleil never mentioned dope at any of his trials. He had two:

First one, he plead not guilty and it ended in a hung jury. By the time of his second, after the Tate-LaBianca trial, Charles Manson was officially America's #1 Boogeyman to blame and the prosecution of course put him at the center. This opened the doors to a new defense for Beausoleil and another shot at pleading not guilty: blame the entire thing on Charlie. It didn't work, needless to say.

Mary Brunner said something about dope dealers and a burn in regards to Hinman at the Tate trial. I actually didn't even know that and only saw the testimony this morning that Cielodrive showed me. Kanarek asked her about Hinman's dealing in dope and she relied a story that Atkins supposedly told her about dope dealers being at his house and angry over a burn. This was when Mary was putting Leslie in her place. Seems Mary liked to substitute people with others a lot.

St Circumstance said...

Also off my own topic...

The American Crime Story first season- 10 part series People Vs. OJ is underway and the production and cast are much better than a normal schlocky made for TV mini-series.Its getting decent reviews and good hype- even some of the real players were tweeting along with the first episode.

I would bet anything the Manson story is coming soon in an installment. After OJ- which is more recent- how many American crime stories are more infamous and interesting than the Manson one?

What I wouldn't give to write that :)

They are going to use Helter Skelter no doubt for the theme. I would too- just as base though, but adding and stressing the Gary Hinman and Crowe murders early instead of focusing on the same old story everyone has heard, would add some complexity to the story and give more depth to some of the other Characters beyond just Charlie, Tex and the 4 girls involved in TLB...

Not making any conclusions, but leading viewers in a couple of different directions as to motive. Introducing to the masses some of the other circumstances which were causing things to get so crazy within the family around the ranch. Instead of ending it with everyone happily locked away, leave it open ended somehow... so people walk away with just as many questions as answers...

isn't that the way it is after all?

I just hope they don't do another higher budget version of the same old story..

Blehhhhh

ENGLAND said...

Watson owed Manson a favour after Crowe but he didn't send Watson he sent BB, my impression is that BB would not have gone to demand money on behalf of Manson, nor would Manson have asked him too, this was a personal transaction between BB and Hinman that others got involved in.

St Circumstance said...

MFA-

Kanarek was a defense attorney right? Where do you suppose the idea to ask that qeustion came from?

The police weren't asking about drug dealing when they investigated Gary's death. But a defense attorney brings it up at the Tate trial??

That is confusing but interesting

penny lane said...

Hmmm I find US tv and film horribly predictable..hope u are right St...but i kinda doubt it..they pixilate bum crack FFS!

Cielodrive.com said...

Manson Family Archives said...

"By the time of his second, after the Tate-LaBianca trial, Charles Manson was officially America's #1 Boogeyman to blame and the prosecution of course put him at the center. This opened the doors to a new defense for Beausoleil and another shot at pleading not guilty: blame the entire thing on Charlie. It didn't work, needless to say."


Dennis! 15-yard personal foul!

Bobby's second trial was before the Tate-LaBianca murder trial.

St Circumstance said...

Mr. H!! As for the video of Charlie at Backporch tapes- I re-listened to that today as well...

He does Say Gary sold some dope to bad people. He also says Gary sold some drugs which caused Bobby's wife to loose her baby and that Gary was a government agent...

Charlie is also telling parts of the story that would have had to occurred when Charlie was no longer there- unless everyone else except Charlie is lying...

he says " I left" then says "We" about the things he did after he left?

He also hints at one point that Bobby killed Gary so Gary wouldn't go after Charlie
for cutting his ear..

Then he says

"Hinman killed Hinman"

You cant really put too much into anything Charlie says. Charlie is just trying to clear Charlie in this interview.

Anyway- that's why I put the most relevant Statement about this from Charlie, and left the rest of his rambling out. He goes into too many directions, and using the rest of it would have defeated the purpose. He erodes his own credibility when he talks and I needed a strong statement, from someone who was there, that the murder was for drugs and that was the only one I could find.


St Circumstance said...

By the way- I forgot to mention Cielo Drive...

where I have been liberally borrowing information for my posts for years :)

Quite a bit of the information I used in my post can be found over there for those who want to read more of the official documents, parole hearings, and published interviews.

It is a fantastic site for researching this case!!

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES Saint: TV and cable "REAL" story shows are getting better and better. The new Bernie Madoff program is also quite good.

BUT the problem with the MANSON Story is the internet & MANSON Blogs have clearly shown how possibly the Helter Skelter "motive" theory has NOT yet been established intelligently.

AND so many questions, it's NOT likely that big money is ready to "gamble" yet.

Even I keep discovering NEW things ALL the time.

IE: With a Black & White RACE war at the heart of the Prosecution's motive theory, WHY no Black folks on the jury?

The ANSWER to that question is most telling !

St Circumstance said...

Mr H. Why don't we get together and make the definitive story? You can give me the intimate details. I'll write the story. Deb Matt Patty and Ann can help with research.

We will use your first hand experience and your Oscar nomination for credibility,and this blog, to start a kick fund.

Then all we need is a Producer lol

Gee where could we find one of those :)

St Circumstance said...

Next time I am out in LA we should do lunch lol. But no offense - I say this with respect and love :)

I'm bringing an interpreter Sir lol

St Circumstance said...

To try and address that question by the way about racial make up of the jury.

It reminds me again of watching the OJ story which is proof positive that motive and facts are sometimes not the main issues at all in the eyes of some.

That's as scary as the crimes themselves in some ways ....

christopher butche said...

Cielo, to be fair to MFA, the solving of the Tate murders, Atkins grand jury testimony and her first book and 5 to Die occured between Beausoleil's trials. He went from obscure hippy accused of killing bagpiper to being linked directly to Manson via Atkins in a murder that involved all three of them.

As to changing his story, my understanding is 1. Keep your mouth shut and let them prove it. 2. Manson says blame me. 3. In prison no snitching and accept all blame to appeal to parole board. 4. Manson snitches himself in his book so Beausoleil now able to tell more.

Penny Lane. My four would be Gregg Jakobson. Irving Kanarek. Lynette Fromme and Bruce Davis.

Another fantasy question to pose to you all:

Which family related event would you most like to have been present at?

Realistically: Mine would have been Hawthorne trial when the appeared in court together. First time together since the trials. John Waters was there and wrote that they all started talking in family speak and the atmosphere was electric, however hardly anyone in the public seating.

Fantastically: creepy crawling with the girls and standing over you in your bed whilst you slept oo-ee-oo.

St Circumstance said...

No question here about that.

"The Freak-out"

Cielodrive.com said...

All of that is true Chris, but when Beausoleil went on trial for the second time and said Manson was the murderer of Hinman, Manson had not been convicted of anyones murder.

penny lane said...

yep the "Freak Out"...or flying in the bus...

Shorty's pistols said...

At Bobby's '85 parole hearing, he claimed that he (Beausoliel) cut Gary's ear AND stabbed him to death. He has changed his story more times than Sadie did. The statement that Charlie and Bobby have always been 100% on the drug motive is bunk. Bobby is a narcissist and a confirmed liar. I don't believe him on anything. He'd climb up a tree to tell a lie when he could stay on the ground and tell the truth.

It's an ego thing with him. He's smarter than you are and can convince you of anything. He thinks he's like his hero, CMM.

christopher butche said...

Cielo, Stimson's book has Manson offering Beausoleil the strategy of 'better one in than both in', i believe offering him the strategy of blaming Manson (who was also in jail at that point).

This selfless act is of course characteristic of Manson.

Shorty's Pistols, I believe the publication date for Manson in His Own Words was 1986, therefore in 1985 Beausoleil would have been accepting all responsibility in an attempt to demonstrate his contrition to the parole board as well as not snitching whilst a prison inmate. In that book Manson (as far as I can remember) states he cut Hinman's ear.

CarolMR said...

Just wondering why there aren't any other pictures available of Gary Hinman other than the one that is (always) shown.

Matt said...

Carol, unfortunately there aren't a lot of Hinman pics out there, but here are a few. In the dance troupe pics, he's in green & white in the color pics.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ystqF19HnpM/VrSuDfzIwqI/AAAAAAAAIEM/vGJZj_mwGNA/s1600/shay_villagedancers01.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dxsHBG3dNm8/VrSuDYldT-I/AAAAAAAAIEQ/yAY-IBAlKf0/s1600/shay_villagedancers48.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jChou4AoYUQ/VrSuDXZXvWI/AAAAAAAAIEc/3lsk7DrR0n4/s1600/shay_villagedancers15.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W7hVSyAE4mA/VrSuDQbsWiI/AAAAAAAAIEg/0tCkJpIVOxI/s1600/shay_villagedancers16.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L0B9K6o2-wI/VrSu1r5u-SI/AAAAAAAAIEk/SnoOai7ulD8/s1600/gary_hinman.gif

Cielodrive.com said...

christopher butche said...

"This selfless act is of course characteristic of Manson."

Care to elaborate?

Shorty's pistols said...

Can't say what impact any of the books may have had on Bob's testimony. He told yet another version of the crime in his '92 hearing. In this one, he says Manson slashed the ear, he (Bobby) stabbed Hinman to death. But in '92, he insists that he didn't call the ranch and talk to Charlie.

Why a new version of the crime in '92? Because that's Bummer Bobby Beausoliel. He knows the truth and you don't because you are stupid. When the board looks at his new version of the crime and asks him why the new story?, he comes out with a tale about looking to the future and he doesn't worry about the past or some other crap.

That is the biggest problem with this guy. He is a colossal liar and you can't trust him as far as you can toss a grand piano.

CarolMR said...

Thanks for the pictures, Matt!

christopher butche said...

Shorty, perhaps the not calling Manson angle was to attempt to distance himself from acting under instructions from Manson?

Beausoleil was running into Manson from the San Francisco days onwards, but only went to live at Spahn's from May 69, apparently at the behest of Jakobson. He probably was never a Mansonite but having Atkins and Manson as crime partners isnt going to help him convincing anyone otherwise.

The phone call. I see Stimson denies it in his book, but there is a published interview with Beausoleil quoting him saying he did phone (dangerous minds is the book).

Cielo, I should have added a few winks after my post, although I do believe there had to have been a period when things were good. Possibly up to and shortly after the move to LA. Too many reminders of his 1950s persona and aquaintences once he was back there.

Robert Hendrickson said...

This is what really does NOT make sense:

AFTER Bugliosi demonstrated / proved that Manson "ordered" the Black vs White RACE war, all Manson had to do was get on the witness stand and declare: "YES, I did it ALL - because I am half BLACK and MY gang and I were trying to stop all the "killing." of Black people by WHITE people."

He would have spent NO more that possibly 20 years in prison. AND by now HE would, at least, be a REAL "celebrity."


Shorty's pistols said...

Chris, yeah Bob's always distancing and minimizing. Especially with his activities regarding Manson.

I actually ran thru his trials and parole hearings. The guy has lied so many times in court and on record that it's inescapable that he a total pathological liar.

The board has big problems in two areas:

His relationship with Manson, both on the streets and in the Hinman murder. The commissioner in his 2010 hearing said (regarding Bobby's attempt to distance himself his in relationship w/ CM) "it isn't going away, it isn't going away. Despite these warnings he still persists in this strategy.

The drug burn tale. They don't believe it. And still he keeps on with a story that has no real world substance to it. Deputy DA Patrick Sequeira drills him hard on this little fairy tale. When BB attempted to claim that some of his lies were made in the past, but now he was a truthful little boy scout. Sequeira asked him why he told all those big bad lies in the past, the following was BB's reply

Quote on

Well, initially, I was too ashamed to admit to my parents that I had killed a man, and I made up a story that Manson had done it. And then later, in my first parole hearing in 1976, I wanted to accept full responsibility, but I wanted to do it without being perceived as a snitch, because that would have been a death sentence in California at that time. So, I took responsibility for everything that had happened. I said that I had done it all, including slashing Gary across the face, and so that was the second version that I had told that wasn't entirely true. It was true other than that one part. And then subsequently, Manson himself admitted in this book that he had been involved in, admitted that he had slashed Gary's face, so I no longer felt an obligation to try to protect myself, and, you know, and being thought of as a snitch, because he'd already said that.

Quote off

I was lying then, then I lied again, but this time, I'm being truthful with you.

Huh?

The boy can't help himself, he's a compulsive BS artist.

strix aluco said...

I too am an irregular poster, but Saints Epic is well worth it. I too have several sets of scales in my home, one set often has powdery residue on it... my partner is a multi media artist he weighs out plaster of Paris, resin etc. I refuse to wash them, it;s not my mess. With Gary due to make a pilgrimage to Japan maybe he weighed articles he was packing in his bags?A pair of scales a drug supplier does not make.
Bobby is an ego maniac, he would never join the family because he would never let his ego die.The guy could give Narcissus a run for his money. Off topic, apologies St. Due to the "new findings" in Ed Fugs book, re Kennedy. Does anybody recall where or when Pat stated in answer to the question, did she know why she was sent to Cielo, she replied, " I just know we were told to kill 2 women"
This was either in an arrest warrant or Parole hearing. It was never picked up on and totally ignored. I have read it somewhere way back when but cannot recall where.
Congratulations on a very well thought out balanced article St.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks very much :)

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

Stimson's book has Manson offering Beausoleil the strategy of 'better one in than both in', i believe offering him the strategy of blaming Manson (who was also in jail at that point)

If Charlie really did say to Bobby, "look, blame me for murder, it's better that one of us is out than both of us are in and I really don't mind" then it means you cannot even begin to consider anything that Charlie has said over the last 46 years. Not a bean. Because in allowing Bobby to finger him as the murderer of Gary Hinman, he would have been opening a door no one could ever shut. That would mean that he would have to face trial for the murder which would have a major bearing on the Tate/LaBianca case that he was currently facing. It would have sunk his boat before it even left the harbour and he would have been facing the death penalty. And all for a murder he did not commit by his own hand ?
Charlie has made so much noise since 1970 about how the system has treated him and it is inconceivable that he would do this and blow his own balls off.
It now causes me to smile when people imply or suppose that Charlie doesn't or didn't lie because there are at least three examples where he so barefacedly did so.
The same George Stimson book where Charlie is quoted as saying that he wrote to Beausoleil telling him to tell the jury anything they wanted to hear {in itself a questionable concept} also records in the sentence before that Bobby was already going to testify against him. Charlie is pissed off as he talks about after all the shit they went through to get Bob out of jail, he was going to testify against him ! In the sentence after, Charlie claims he saved Bobby's ass again by supposedly allowing him to do what he claims he was going to do anyway. With or without Charlie's supposed consent.
If I remember rightly, unlike his first trial where the jury was hung, this time he was found guilty and sentenced to death.
That's some ass saving !

grimtraveller said...

It has been said but it must be said again, St, you've produced an absolute tour de force with this article. It provides the 'tails' to Dennis' heads of the engaging "THE MURDER OF GARY HINMAN: Drug Burn or Robbery?" from last summer.

Bobby Beausoleil said...

Charlie has contributed to the confusion most of all because he has chosen, for the most part, to play-act the role the popular media has cast him into

I think lots of factors went into the creation of Charlie as he is known. Lots of disparate factors. It would be almost impossible to chart exactly how it happened.
Charlie hasn't always helped matters....but neither did Bobby !

christopher butche said...

the Summit Ridge arrest report from 1968 where Sandy names Hinman as the supplier of the pills she has on her? Ok it's only her word, but it does give him a provenance of sorts as a dealer

The notion that Gary Hinman manufactured and sold drugs seems to crop up in a surprising variety of places. In my copy of "The family" by Ed Sanders, he goes into it and has a named source, a guy called Eric, who is identified as his mescaline production partner. I would like to know if this is the revised version or if it's in the original edition. I know it's been rewritten because in it Sanders refers to Charlie's autobiography and then quotes from the Nuel Emmons book which came out in the 80s. For those however, that want to use Sanders' stuff to bolster their case, it comes at a cost ~ the cost of Charlie being the architect of Hinman's robbery and eventual death. He also quotes Bobby from Bobby's second trial, stuff about Charlie angrily shadow fighting with the sword and threatening Bobby for wanting to leave the ranch. But of course Bobby's trial testimony is bunk.
It seems most support for our pet theories come at a cost !
As has been noted in a previous thread, Vincent Bugliosi was straightforward in his assessment of Gary Hinman ~ he said point blank, that he used to furnish the Family with drugs {see 2.25}.
I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that Gary may have done some "furnishing" here and there. I really don't know. Maybe he wanted one last big deal before going to Japan where he would immerse himself in his form of Buddhism and not have to contend with home drug temptation.
Or maybe Bobby and Charlie have been bullshitting all these years. Bobby does try to present himself to the parole boards as a young guy that made one error in an otherwise crime free life. But that's not what he told John Gilmour in the book "THe Garbage People." He comes across as a mini Dillinger and just as lawless as Charlie ~ and all in his own words.

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

One important aspect of Hinman being a dealer is that it places him beyond the rules of being a citizen. His death becomes a falling out between outlaws during the commission of illegal activities

Not if he was producing mescaline. Nothing illegal about it in '69. Interestingly, among Native American Indians, it's still not, in it's pure form.

Manson Family Archives said...

While every detail is not exactly known, the motive that Bobby and Manson has put forth is 100% fact. Hinman was killed as a result of a drug transaction that involved the Straight Satans. There is nothing more to look at here

Except that that is not the motive that "Bobby and Manson has put forth." And this is problematic for you every time you say this because Bobby is adamant that before Charles Manson appeared on the scene, the matter of this supposed $1000 had been dealt with. That has a major bearing that you have to ignore because it sinks your Belgrano into icy waters. Because Bobby says the matter was dealt with and he was just about to leave, the Satans really become an irrelevance. Continually bringing them into the picture and trying to connect it to Gary's death is as fruitless saying that Gary was murdered because he happened to be at home that night.
Bobby's view ¬> Gary needs to give him the money back. If, for the sake of argument Gary had handed over the $1000 and Charlie had turned up and sliced Hinman and Bobby had ended up killing him to stop him going to the hospital, would we still say the motive was a botched drug deal involving the Satans ?
Well, we might.
But it would hold as little water as the current scenario.
Bobby Beausoleil cannot be clearer than he has been in his last 4 parole hearings about things having been settled between him and Gary Hinman. They were settled. He had obtained Gary's vehicles. He was no longer going to get his butt whipped. No more roughing up. No threats. No staring at the big knife. It's done, dusted, settled, now let's go home.
Then Charlie and Bruce turned up.

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

it's always worth bearing in mind that Manson required first aid. He cut his finger badly when assaulting Hinman requiring its bandaging by Brunner. For all we know Hinman did it to him

He was surrounded by 5 of them. Charlie had the sword. Even in his tellings of the story, he never says Gary had the sword. He never says Gary went for the sword. He says Gary held a gun and Charlie whacked him quickly, by surprise and grabbed the gun. That's the whole point of Charlie's tale, that he acted quickly because Hinman held a gun on him. And his and Bobby's story match so well that Bobby to this day denies that Gary held the gun at the point at which Charlie arrived. People can't get away with saying "the exact details aren't known, but...." because the only two people on the face of the earth that go for this story......have completely unmatching tales. A lot of weight is put on the various contradictory testimony regarding Charlie's role in the LaBianca killing. Well, it's a damn sight more contradictory here and it's the two whose stories are meant to support each other !

StarRider said...

I think most of the Family doesn't really know why Hinman was murdered

That's because the reason that he was going to have to die did not become apparent until very late in the day. There was lots of talk about it after, though. When she testified, Linda Kasabian even mentioned to Bugliosi that Mary had told her that when the gun had gone off, the bullet whistled past her face.
But you know, this is the group that talked so much of brotherhood and love for brother and went on to tell the world how they'd kill for their brother. As I often used to say, talk is cheap and thoughts are free.

If GH did have a set of scales there, it seems a good possibility that he was selling, at least to some degree.

Selling what ? You don't sell mescaline pills by the weight. If the story Bobby tells is true, he sold 1000 hits of mescaline. It was sold by the number of pills, not the weight. So you wouldn't need scales. If he was selling weed, then why was there a white powdery residue ? It was probably flour ! How many households in the USA in 1969 had scales ?
Incidentally, the police found no trace of narcotics. It's easy to assume that because mescaline wasn't illegal, it wouldn't have been on the polices' radar. We tend to use the word 'narcotics' in the wrong way but the police go with that wrong way often. So although mescaline isn't a narcotic, there's a good chance that whether it was legal or illegal, to the police it was one. If it had been aspirin, they'd have reported it.





























AustinAnn74 said...

Wait, did I just read that? Blaming Gary Hinman for cutting Manson's finger and pointing a pistol at them? What was he supposed to do, just stand there, grinning?

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

"Miss Atkins informed subject that she was present at the Hinman murder and was accompanied by another male. Sadie further stated that she had gone to the Hinman residence to acquire some money. Sadie intended to have sex with Gary Hinman but aborted the idea when Hinman showed a lack of interest.....

Oh come on mate ! This came from Roseanne Walker. And who was Roseanne and where did she meet her ? Roseanne was a drug wasted woman that Susan met in jail. This story fits squarely into the sort of stories she was telling Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard, stories designed to make her look as sexually, murderously and "narcotically" hard, adventurous and liberated as possible. Stories of fellating her son, of numerous murders out in the desert, of stabbing Gary Hinman, of having some guy shoot his brains out as her orgasmed within her......
What she said to Walker was never seriously put forth as what actually happened. Unfortunately for Atkins, people did believe her and she was never able to untangle herself from the stupidity of some of those tales, not in half a century.
By the way, she wrote in later years that Gary was gay but she had told her jailmates this in '69 because either Virginia or Ronnie brings it up in their police interview.

Mary Brunner at one point said

Mary Brunner turned out to be, along with Bobby and Susan, the supreme example of why liars need a good short term memory. None of them possessed one. She certainly didn't.

She also placed Bill Vance in the place of Bruce Davis at one point (obvious proof they all tried to keep certain people from being indited)

That's an interesting one. Mary's turns of story are quite embarrassing. It's not really obvious proof that anyone was trying to keep certain people from being indicted. Bruce has openly and on the record placed Bill Vance at the scene of Shorty's murder. He also placed Larry Jones there and Tex there, so much so that Tex Watson is described on the record of Steve Grogan's 1981 parole hearing as "a crime partner." None of them was ever charged. If Bill Vance was involved with the Hinman crime, by now don't you think Bruce would have said so, not only with his Shorty revelations in mind, but also bearing in mind that he's been inside for the last 46 years ? If Vance was as you put it in the place of Davis, are we expected to believe that among this group that so clearly loved to talk, that by this point that wouldn't have come up as a viable and verifiable point ?

She also changed the dollar amount that Bobby told them they wanted. Originally she said $3,000.....

There's a major discrepancy between Bobby's $1000 and what Charlie says. He says it was $64 in George's book. So money amounts put forth by Family members aren't exactly something you should risk your house {and case} on.


it should be obvious that most of the people at the ranch either didn't know what the hell was really happening, or doing everything they could to keep the Straight Satans out of the picture

It seems you want to have your cake and eat it. First you make a grand play about how DeCarlo and Springer, in the guise of total criminal mastermind geniuses {never mind they were involved with the cops in the first place on minor charges} with super powers of foresight to deflect attention from them that hadn't even come their way, went to the cops to basically land Bobby and Charlie in it. Now you say the Family were trying their best to keep the Satans out of it.
Which is it ?

The events of August 15th, the night before the Spahn raid, tells me that the Family were not in any great fear of the Straight Satans. The Satans came up there to get Danny back and failing that, rape the girls and trash the place. Result ? Danny stayed. No rapes. No trashing. Some Satan's arrested in raid next day. No reprisals from Satans.

grimtraveller said...

@Dennis LaCalandra / Manson Family Archives;

Are you by any chance one of the author/contributors to the self published book { by Fast Pencil} "False Profit: From garbage dump to Guru" which has been doing the rounds online for a while as "The Manson Myth" ?

Manson Family Archives said...

No. I wouldn't write a book and not put my name on it. I'd do a better one than that too.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I can appreciate YOUR interest in a MANSON movie, BUT a regular "movie" is a hell of a lot of work,(like a JOB) where a documentary film is an "experience." AND that "experience" makes the filmmaker part of the REAL story.
Kind'a like watching the "superbowl" verses being in the game. Watching is nothing like "In it to win it" OR die trying.

And now, my entire value system is in transition. BUT some things NEVER change - like the "experience" is EVERYTHING and the TRUTH really does set one FREE (mentally). Bernie Madoff said he spent his whole life under "stress" dealing with other people's money and then he went to prison and ALL his cares drifted away.

Just look at the videos of Charles Manson in prison. That's what struck ME immediately when I first saw him in jail.
I was all up-tight about making the film and HE was so fucking COOl about everything.

AND apparently the "establishment" has not been able to RE-program HIM - yet.


christopher butche said...

If the drug angle is ever proved true this opens up the possibility of Hinman moving up from victim to being an active particpant in creating the situation for his own demise.

A dealer selling bad product worth $6600 in now money must surely expect consequences from his actions.

Add in dealing to a rebellious youth acting under peer pressure, perhaps Hinman's poor judgement was inviting trouble.

Hinman was in his 30s, Beausoleil not much out of his teens, it's not beyond probability that Hinman was taking advantage. Particularly as he was leaving the country.

Of course Beausoleil was arrogant, he was little more than a teen playing outlaw, lacking enough life experience to understand what was real pressure and that which was merely peer pressure. Out of his depth in a situation possibly of Hinman's creation.

Hinman is always portrayed as quiet, helpful and easy going, but then so was Watson.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

I wouldn't write a book and not put my name on it. I'd do a better one than that too

^^Any opinions on it ?

That's an interesting point about not putting one's name to a book that you've written. I wonder why the authors of that book did it. It reminds me a bit of Matt's point about putting statements on the record. That's a problem I have with Ed Sanders book on the Family. Too many wild stories told by people that have no identity. Now, some of the stories may well be true and I can understand at the time people not wanting their identities known. But 30 to 40 years later ?

christopher butche said...

If the drug angle is ever proved true this opens up the possibility of Hinman moving up from victim to being an active particpant in creating the situation for his own demise

But it can only at best, be a possibility. A possibility that requires the coming together of a number of variables

A dealer selling bad product worth $6600 in now money must surely expect consequences from his actions

I think they can if:
a] They are knowingly and deliberately selling bunk
b] They weren't aware that they sold bunk but once brought to their attention, they refuse to make restitution of some sort.
In scenario a, they pretty much deserve whatever's coming their way. Scenario b is somewhat more involved because it has to be verified in some way that what was sold was shit. Two immediate problems with Bobby's story involve the lack of verification {proof of bad drugs} and the timeline. He says he picked up the drugs on Friday night and by some unspecified time on Saturday, some Satans came up to Spahn, gave him some slaps and a lot more besides and said they wanted their money back. And Hinman was dead by Sunday evening.
Tripping on mescaline was no two hour affair. Experiences vary depending on the dose but in general you could be dealing with anything from 8 to 14 hours.
Bobby's timeline is mighty tight.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I killed Gary because he had said that he was going to go to the police, and I wanted to avoid that. I wanted to avoid arrest. That is essentially why I committed the crime ~ 2003

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Then, without careful side-by-side screening, let me ask you – the bottom line is, I think both versions place you as the stabber.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes absolutely ~ 2005

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It seemed at that time I tried to give, you know, the problem back to Charlie at one point. I called him and told him, you know, that this problem that he had left me with, this man who was wounded, who had his face slashed, was his problem, and, you know, would he come and, you know, take care of his own problem because I didn't know what to do. And he pushed it back into my lap.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What did he tell you to do?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He didn't. He told me that I knew what to do as well as he did

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, what did you do?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I interpreted this. I believed that it was expected of me to kill him rather than let him go to the police ~ 2008

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, why was Mr. Hinman killed?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I went there to get money from him initially, and things went bad, and Charles Manson ended up showing up, slashed him across the face, and then he left and told me that if I was a man, I would take care of the problem of the threat that Mr. Hinman was perceived to be.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: What kind of threat was he?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, after Manson slashed him, I guess he was worried that Hinman was going to go to the police and inform on him ~2010


grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

Good point about why would a motorcycle gang (of around 35 members) hand over (in today's money) around 6600 dollars to a 19 year old who knew a dealer?

Bobby was 21. And if what he said in "The Garbage People" is anything to go by, not as green as he wants the parole board to believe. He had greater drug and drug buying experience than these "older geezers" he says he looked up to.

One important aspect of Hinman being a dealer is that it places him beyond the rules of being a citizen. His death becomes a falling out between outlaws during the commission of illegal activities

It could be argued that way if the activities were illegal. But were they ? Mescaline wasn't illegal in '69. In it's pure form to the Native American Church, it has a Federal exemption even now.
Furthermore, Bobby is very clear about the fact that this supposed deal was a one off that he set up.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: "And they wanted to score something different, some psychedelics for their party. And I thought that I might be able to impress them to, you know, to kind of get in with them if I were to set up a deal for them. I knew someone in Topanga Canyon who made mescaline out of peyote cactus buds. That was Gary Hinman. I'd known Gary for a couple of yearsand I saw an opportunity to sort of ingratiate myself in these ~ with these people. So I set up a deal. It was 1,000 tabs or capsules of home made mescaline for 1,000 dollars."
So the illegality is questionable as regards this deal {if not generally as he was strictly small time} and the regularity of the Straight Satan connection is limited to a one off event in which they wanted to try "something different."
In all my arguments, you'll notice that I'm constantly giving Bobby the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I believe him, but I try to present my argument as though what he has to say is the truth.
What continually comes up are contradictions from the very people that are supposed to be on his side. I don't even have to be doubtful. Charlie, Mary, the late Susan, Bruce and Bobby himself bring that on. In his 1992 parole hearing, Bobby says that Susan & Mary knew why he was there, that he "may have" mentioned something along the way but they certainly became aware once they were at the Hinman house. Yet Susan never mentioned it, ever, in 40 years. Susan who said she knew Bobby would kill to prove himself. And she was a Helter Sceptic.
As Dennis pointed out, Mary mentioned something in the penalty phase about dope dealers at Hinman's, angry over a burn. But this is during the phase when the Family was putting the hat on Linda Kasabian and lying their blaggers off. Mary placed Leslie at the scene of the Hinman murder and Susan said on the stand that she killed Gary during the liefest. So you can straight away disregard anything Mary Brunner had to say because it is grade A elephant droppings {大象屎}.
Charlie says that Bobby said to him that it was a matter of principle and that he wanted to go and get the money. Charlie's advice to him had been to forget it, it was only $64. No urgency, no straight Satans. And this ain't to the media or the parole board. This is to our own George.

Manson Family Archives said...

The drug trade, particularly with psychedelics I don't think was as organized as it is today. Most of them were still legal in 69' and were manufactured by hippies. So one cannot say with certainly what a MC club would or wouldn't do, because she hangs around with what are probably some weekend warriors. Though I do not know if it's the case, the Straight Satans could have been pulling a burn. Seeing a 21 year old who was eager to impress them could have been an easy way to get free drugs and kick the shit out of somebody. If that was the case, it could be a matter of hurt pride that a lot weren't let in on the true nature of the crime.

Manson likes to downplay or over emphasis at given times and after many years and anti-psychiatric drugs, his memory isn't the best. Dollar amounts change. He told Bill Murphy it was $5,000 and made the admission that Gary sold drugs to some "bad people".

As a matter of fact, the Straight Satans were never explicitly named from his side except in Manson in His Own Words, which he was partially furious over due to his belief that not everything he told Emmons would be printed for public consumption. A good hint for that might be found in his reasons for bringing the sword. He knew Hinman was into martial arts or something along those lines, which sounds like a lame excuse and possible made with the purpose of not naming 88 George, who supposedly put it in his hand.

Manson Family Archives said...

Secondly, who is to say they lied during penalty phase? While they might have twisted the truth a bit, nobody can say for certainty they weren't telling the truth, since the defense was dropped. By that point, Bugliosi and the media did such a fine job at discreditng them, it appears like lies. But the "free bobby" motive adds up to what we know and makes Bugliosi's theory look laughable.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

The official record for me, is basically toilet paper

A somewhat vital component when cleaning up a shitty mess, n'est pas ?

Who helped to create the official record and make it a reality?

Danny DeCarlo and Al Springer - both criminals who testified not only because they had legal issues of their own, but to help white wash their own involvement and keep the heat off their MC


Tons of people helped to create the official record and make it a reality. DeCarlo and Springer are merely two little peas in a pod that includes Pat, Charlie, Susan, Virginia Graham, Brooks Poston, Frank Fowles, Don Ward, Paul Crockett, Paul Watkins, David Lynn Neal, Vince Bugliosi, Aaron Stovitz, Gregg Jakobson, Leslie, LAPD, LASO, Squeaky, Sandy, Gypsy, Brenda, Bobby Beausoleil and basically, more names than I could be bothered to bore anyone reading this to tears with.
You once repeated words to the effect that Danny DeCarlo and Vince Bugliosi created the official record.
I shall be a gentleman and merely state, "that is an alternative reading of history."
You express some incredulity that Springer and DeCarlo were criminals. They were part of the one percenters. Saying they were on the wrong side of the law is like saying there was a Wednesday last week.
But what heat could have been applied to the Satans ? If you go with Bobby's tale, they bought a drug as legal as aspirin. They wanted their money back. They didn't say they wanted the supplier of the supposed bunk dead. And how could "their involvement" have been proved ? The gun was Bruce's. Al Springer wasn't involved. And DeCarlo's alleged involvement doesn't even have the backing of Charles Manson. And despite DeCarlo's alleged involvement, he continued living with the Family. And they accepted him.
The worst you can say about the Satans is.....they gave Bobby some beats.
They are not the reason Gary Hinman is dead.

made with the purpose of not naming 86 George, who supposedly put it in his hand

Naughty, naughty. 86 George gave Charlie the sword ages before July. Before there was any $1000 to supposedly get back.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Secondly, who is to say they lied during penalty phase?

Pat said it to Diane Sawyer. Susan said it in 2 autobiographies and spends 2 chapters describing it in "The Myth of Helter Skelter" and she said it in her 1993 parole hearing. From "Myth"; "When Lynette Fromme, Sandra Good and Catherine Share perjured themselves on the stand for Charles Manson during the penalty phase of the trial they did so with little or nothing to lose. But when he came to Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and myself and told us that we were going to have to get on the stand and claim we had deliberately and remorselessly, and with no direction from him at all, committed all the murders ourselves, he was basically asking us to commit suicide." Gypsy said it in one of those interviews I linked to in a recent thread and in a few other places too. Leslie said it to Barbara Walters. Brenda demonstrably lied because she told Laurence Merrick that Charlie was at some canyon for 4 days, part of which was the LaBianca night. She made some lame excuse about sewing him some trousers and having to take them to him for a fitting. Then Charlie comes along and reveals to Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone and George Stimson that he was along on LaBianca night. She lied about Kasabian taking acid every day. Clem lied as he demonstrated years later when his brain cleared. If Sandy & Squeaky say they all discussed the copycat then they lied according to what they told Laurence Merrick in Robert's book about not knowing about the murders.
If you want to push the "who is to say they lied in the penalty phase ?" line, then be my guest. But some of them have said they lied while others told stuff that is demonstrably false. You want to sail that boat in the ocean ? I hope you've got effective shark repellent for when it sinks.

Shorty's pistols said...

It's "86 George" isn't it?

Even if this fabled "SS" documentary is the greatest, most revelatory of all time, it wouldn't matter. Information like that isn't admissible at a parole board hearing. It's the trial record, PB hearing data, and related documents pertaining to his jailhouse record and educational accomplishments. They also accept letters commending the inmate and job offers, etc.

They are not there to retry the case as Patrick Sequiera has made abundantly clear to BB, as has presiding commissioner Anderson.

When Mr. BeauSoliel (that's how he likes to spell it now, BTW) tries to insert the "Drug Burn" motive into the hearing proceedings, they jam him (badly) for his failure to cop to his commitment offense. HE'S trying to insert new info into his case effectively re-trying the original trial. Patrick Sequiera rips him hard on that one, but still Bobby soldiers on, not following the process and procedure.

Dennis can I ask you a question?

How old are you?

Manson Family Archives said...

Notice I said they twisted some truth. I was talking strictly about motive.

So they said they lied years later. After the fact and once they became trapped in the little thing called the Statement of Facts.

I thought they committed suicide when they indeed made the choice to kill. They said Charlie put them up to basically admitting guilt to what they actually did and people make him out to be the devil for apparently throwing them under the bus by...confessing to what they actually did? Correct me if I am wrong, but Susan and Van Houten used him in the early states of the case by attempting to blame him and brainwashing for their actions in an attempt to walk away scott free. Why this fact is over looked is beyond me.

Using Atkins book as a reference, is kinda funny. Because the title alone is to dispel the myth and actual demonstrating that what she said during penalty phase was truth: that it was an attempt to get Bobby cut loose.

Gypsy wisely only said she lied once she knew the time was up to be charged with perjury and why? Because she has basically made a career off talking about the case and wanted to sell a movie script.

During the penalty phase, they said the motive was to free Bobby and that the house was picked over a bad MDA deal between Kasabian and somebody at the house. We know one part is true. Who is to say the other isn't? We know Kasabian didn't go because of the lame excuse she was the only licensed driver. We know her and drug addict/dealer Tex had a strong bond. We know Voytek was dealing MDA. She was there both nights. Stood look out while her main squeeze led the posse. Why did the topic of the $5,000 come up? What significance did it play? To say it was brought up simply to discredit Linda is kinda stupid. Why was it so important that Bugliosi had to bring it up in his statement in the Manson film? Charlie isn't so petty, especially when he's a criminal himself.

Manson Family Archives said...

Nobody is saying any new information is going to get Bobby released. As for the clown Patrick Sequiera, this is what that genius has brought to hearings:

"I mean, there's just -- and there's, actually, also there's a song written by Nancy Jo Pitman, another Manson Family member, for Charlie Manson, and it says, all things must die."

Yet as you said, what they say is reality and nothing off record counts...unless they say it is, even when it's complete nonsense like the above example.

How do you that sword was given to him prior to July? The first mention of that sword came from Al Springer, who said it used to belong to the chapter president and that's it. Isn't it funny how they took it back and attempted to destroy it? Aside from tampering with evidence, how do you know he was just trying to cover for his club brother and establish a bullshit story that would prevent him from being charged with accessory to murder?

OH, "they said". I'm sorry. Don't play parole board with me. It's obvious I challenge and do not believe more than half of what is on record. So it's rather pointless of you to attempt to correct me with what I can read in any book.

grimtraveller said...

Dennis, old mate;
They lied during the penalty phase. The point of the lies were to absolve Charlie of any involvement. They failed in that quest. Trying to say otherwise is rather pointless when five of the liars have subsequently admitted it and a few more have been shown to be demonstrably giving info that was false. If you want to keep up the old "Tex and Linda bond/ MDA drug burn/$5000 Charlie is not so petty/ Linda was lookout and her licence story is crap" line, you're welcome. You seem to think that if you toss out enough red herrings repeatedly and continually, we'll all give up meat !
But I can understand why so many of the Family lied during the penalty phase. The defendants had been found guilty and the only concern during this part was do they live or do they die ? They loved Charlie to bits and the idea of him being put to death was something they just could not contemplate {even though he'd said he'd died before and that it was beautiful and only an illusion}. Their lives had had such meaning for a couple of years and possibly for the first & only time. And Charlie was the wellspring of much of that. Linda, Pat, Susan, Leslie & Tex certainly weren't. They really were expendable. Charlie wasn't.
So the lies make abundant sense. Many of us would probably do something similar in the same situation. As low as it was to put the hat on Linda, it didn't really matter because she was never going to be prosecuted. She had immunity now and the four were already guilty. Besides which, having testified against the Family, Linda was most definitely seen as the enemy and therefore all bets and gloves were off. Stuff the Queensberry rules !
As low as it was to expect the women & Tex to take the fall, fact is, they were guilty of the charges. Even Susan who, as the book "Helter Skelter" inadvertently shows, killed no one by her own hand. So in a way, the Family's lies and penalty phase tactics were actually logical from their perspective. They didn't see themselves as having made a difference to the eventual outcomes of Linda, Susan, Pat, Leslie or Tex. Leslie and Pat weren't sorry. Susan wasn't sorry. Tex had chosen to separate himself from the rest and was in effect saying "I'll handle this my way, thank you very much."
So they lied. They lied their blaggers off with a story that was so badly worked out that they continually tripped over themselves and the jury, looking at a group of people that had pleaded 'not guilty' who now came out and admitted remorseless killing eventually voted death. And seeing the number of people that tried to protect and venerate Charlie and imitate some of his attitude & actions told them that this guy means ever so much to them and concluded that hey, guess what ? That nice Mr Bugliosi is right. Mr Manson is the leader and wellspring of these people. And that netted him the death verdict.
They lied. It was embarrassing. It was necessary. I may well have done the same thing in their situation.




grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Notice I said they twisted some truth. I was talking strictly about motive

There are more problems associated with the copycat motive than there are with HS. But that's another story for another day.
I will say this though; with Bobby in jail on a murder rap, why didn't one of the women go into LA and say to the cops, "I was with Bobby and we hooched and cooched for five days, from the 25th to the 29th July..." ? They tried to alibi Charlie. Why not Bobby ?


Al Springer was a gigantic liar. I did laugh though during his taped police interview when he made a slip: "So my club brothers said this Dan, I mean Charlie has some arsonal up there"

Manson Family Archives said...

Beausoleil never mentioned dope at any of his trials. He had two:

First one, he plead not guilty and it ended in a hung jury. By the time of his second, after the Tate-LaBianca trial, Charles Manson was officially America's #1 Boogeyman to blame and the prosecution of course put him at the center. This opened the doors to a new defense for Beausoleil and another shot at pleading not guilty: blame the entire thing on Charlie

Perhaps a bit below the belt, but just an illustration that we all can make slip ups. Bobby was found guilty in his second trial in mid April 1970. The trial proper {after jury selection etc} in Tate/LaBianca didn't even start until into July.
Here's one from Paul Whitley, the cop. It's from BB's 1st trial:
A: This is how I viewed the body when I first arrived.

Q: It does not have a blanket on it?

A: That is correct. I moved the body off to examine it, to determine..

THE COURT: You mean, the blanket?

THE WITNESS: I mean, the blanket off the body to determine what the cause of death was

Here's a classic from Paul Fitzgerald during the TLB trial as told by William Zamora in "Trial by your peers":
"Charles Manson & these defendants cannot be tried for their behaviour as hippies ~ even if they were right wing hippies. I have confidence that you will have the courage to declare the verdict of conviction." Mr Fitzgerald promptly excused himself and smiling, half embarrassed, corrected himself, "I mean, the verdict of innocence."

This is a hilarious one from former President Bush.
I'd beware of emphasizing people's Freudian slips in the keen~ness to try and score a point.

grimtraveller said...

penny lane said...

which four family members would u all invite over for dinner ?

I would extend it to a general TLB pool and I'd do breakfast, lunch and dinners !

Breakfast would have Tex, Susan, Aaron Stovitz and Pat.
Lunch would involve Squeaky, Jess Buckles, Gypsy and Marcus Arneson.
Dinner would be Irving Kanarek, Linda Kasabian, Gregg Jakobson and Charlie.

Manson Family Archives said...

They said Charlie put them up to basically admitting guilt to what they actually did

No. They said Charlie put them up to admitting guilt to what they actually did while leaving out his conspiratorial role ~ a more than subtle difference.
Also added was the shifting of blame to those that weren't guilty of particular offences {like Leslie}.

except in Manson in His Own Words, which he was partially furious over due to his belief that not everything he told Emmons would be printed for public consumption

That's the most interesting thing I've ever heard anyone say about that book.

It seems that you're saying that the stuff Emmons printed for public consumption, Charlie did actually tell him but hadn't expected it to be printed. The general impression given is that it is a tainted book because there's made up stuff in it that Charlie didn't actually say.
In saying that, I've always found it a pretty supportive book.

How do you that sword was given to him prior to July?

How do you know that it wasn't ? In the timeline, are you seriously claiming that it was put into Charlie's hand the day before Hinman was killed ? Because for you to keep claiming it was put into Charlie's hand by 86 George in your attempt to try and pin some shit on the Satans, that Saturday 26th July is the only day in the history of planet earth that works.

It's obvious I challenge and do not believe more than half of what is on record

You not believing is not what makes it magically so.

strix aluco said...

Does anybody recall where or when Pat stated in answer to the question, did she know why she was sent to Cielo, she replied, " I just know we were told to kill 2 women"

She says that in her 2011 parole hearing. If you look at some of Pat's hearing transcripts she's not often articulate. She kind of rambles nervously and so often doesn't complete sentences and other sentences just run into new ones. It's even more noticeable when you actually hear her in some of those hearings.
In the 2011 one, she's talking in the context of reflecting that she should have left before she ever climbed the fence with Tex because she'd not long been made aware that they were to kill everyone in the house. I think her mentioning about the two women in the house is a slip of the tongue. Her main emphasis isn't so much on who was there as much as it was clear to her that whatever was going to happen in that house was not going to be good. I don't think she knew the victims because she has always maintained that.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

So they said they lied years later. After the fact and once they became trapped in the little thing called the Statement of Facts

You know what always cracks me up when you talk about them being bound to the record ? The fact that Atkins, Krenwinkel and Beausolieil consistently since 1978 have stated they don't accept aspects of it. In '78 alone, Pat said at her first hearing that there were "15 or 16" things wrong on the official record and was demonstrably miffed with Steven Kay for pushing inaccuracies.
It's also quite sinister that you are totally dismissive of what the participants have said as long as it runs against what you'd like to be true.

Notice I said they twisted some truth. I was talking strictly about motive

Regarding the motive, Pat said this back in '78:
I did not know that night where I was going. We had never discussed in that family killing anyone really, as far as like anyone going out to kill someone. I had known there had been a murder of a Gary Hinman, but it was kept very quiet and I had no idea that what...Mr. Kay makes sounds like there was these big times when people sat around and talked about killing. I was never there. So if they happened, I wasn’t there.
Bit funny sending people out to do a copycat murder to free Bobby and one of the chief participants has no idea about it and says they weren't party to any discussion about it. Motive wise, Pat doesn't ascribe to HS or CC on Cielo night.
It's even more ridiculous that the people who never went out to kill should 18 months later testify that this was indeed the reason for the murders yet three out of the five that actually went out that first night subsequently said it was not. And the fourth in parrot fashion relayed what was already written down, almost in the same style and with the same unsureness that we have today {regarding Charlie going to Cielo}.
As ever, Susan remains the enigma. Except that she was full of HS from '69 thru till '71. Funny that.

So they said they lied years later

Yeah, they did. Pat said "I would not mind going through whatever I said on the witness stand because I think it would be quite obvious that a whole lot of things that I said then were even deliberate lies that were set up to make certain things that, at that time I felt we wanted to say."
You can be as dismissive as you like. I choose not to be. I take into account what anyone says and I'll weigh and test it, even if it leads me to places I'd rather not be.


Using Atkins book as a reference, is kinda funny. Because the title alone is to dispel the myth and actual demonstrating that what she said during penalty phase was truth: that it was an attempt to get Bobby cut loose

And yet, despite that title and obvious emphasis, in the book, on a number of occasions she states that HS was used to more or less persuade the troops to go kill. She actually itemizes a number of motives that Charlie put forth. Far from discrediting HS, she ends up showing that it was viable. Of course, she says that only the women were regaled with HS, yet Tex says the very opposite. So as I've pointed out many times before, we all use Susan Atkins to support our cases at our peril.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

it's rather pointless of you to attempt to correct me with what I can read in any book

I wouldn't attempt to correct you if you didn't keep tossing out red herrings in your quest to play the role of the Minister of mis~information.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Susan and Van Houten used him in the early states of the case by attempting to blame him and brainwashing for their actions in an attempt to walk away scott free. Why this fact is over looked is beyond me

It's not overlooked because it's not a fact. And would you even take any correction if you were wrong ? Coz brother man, you are.
Susan Atkins never blamed Charles Manson. She said he was behind the killings. But look at the context. It wasn't bitter. It wasn't vengeful. Indeed, she told Virginia Graham that he was Christ, their Father, their leader, their love. She spoke of the love she had in her heart to be able to go out and kill for someone. She emphasized the biblical, magical aura of the name 'Man~son.' She didn't regard what she had done as murder. She testified to the Grand Jury because she was told they had enough on her to gas her out. Even testifying, you can see her trying to keep the hat off Charlie and drawing a distinction between the way the world would view him and the way she did. She spoke of him in glowing, needy tones.
The same mindset comes across in the Caballero/Caruso interview where she says words to the effect that she feels bad for even speaking about Charlie in connection with the killings. Walking away scot free was never on the table and she never once claimed or even intimated she'd been brainwashed. On the contrary, it is obvious to anyone that hasn't got an agenda that Charlie is credited by the Family for showing these young people an alternative way.
Complaints from Susan came once she was in the system and the death penalty had been revoked.
You're even wronger about Leslie. In her early police interviews, she implicated a man {Tex}, Susan & Pat in murder. She also cleared Linda. She did not even mention Charles Manson. By the time she had been indicted and had spoken to Marvin Part, she, like Susan, was still hugely positive about Charlie. She put him as the ringleader of the killings, but like Susan, not in the way straight society would put it. To her, he was Jesus, the wise revolutionary who had an alternative vision for the salvation of mankind and he was savvy enough to include good music ! She wasn't blaming him in the infamous Marvin Part interview. She was telling Part that she had wanted to go and Charlie asked her if she was crazy enough to do it.
Part is the one that thought she was insane. It was because of this that he tried to get Judge Dell to listen to her interview so he'd agree she was unfit to stand trial. The judge refused and ordered her to be examined by three psychiatrists and had them listen to the interview. It was Part that felt she was brainwashed and incapable of making decisions and had no will of her own.
The single most powerful refutation of your point is this; Leslie fired Part. She'd rather have gone to the gas chamber than turn on Charlie or be deemed mad. She too did not start complaining about Charlie until she was in the system and was being reeducated by the likes of Karlene Faith and Black teachers in jail.

beauders said...

Grim do you know who Joe Brockman in Gilmore's book is? I read somewhere Brockman is Arneson but I can't tie him into the Family as significantly as Brockman appears to be.

Manson Family Archives said...

Caballero said later Miss Atkins fears her testimony may make her a “marked woman” through the black magic and mystical spells with which the leader of the “family” commune, hypnotic-eyed Charles Manson, 35, once held his followers.

“Charlie would, in effect, conjure up a vision detrimental to her in his mind and then transfer it to her mind and then she would know if she is marked.” the attorney said.

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/tate-trial-witness-fears-hippies-mystical-spell/

I suppose you believe that too.

Of course they would speak of Manson like he was the Messiah, how else would they demonstrate they were brainwashed and underneath a hypnotic spell, thus not responsible for their actions? Do you think Vinny the Chin was also insane?

I would never deny he had influence on them and was a central figure in the lives of most of these people, with the exception of Van Houten. That he was the mastermind of the murders and they were all for his benefit is an assumption based on that. Not proof of it.

AustinAnn74 said...

Gary was murdered because they wanted HIS money. Nothing else...

Manson Family Archives said...

You're right, Ann. Money that was turned over to him for Mescaline.

Matt said...

I don't see anything substantive that backs up the drug burn motive in Hinman's death. No physical evidence. No testimony from anyone other than those motivated to lie. No money trail found. Nothing. Just hearsay.

Manson Family Archives said...

Well, dope deals usually don't come with sale slips. It works the same for the inheritance motive...or was it for dune buggies.....or was it because Hinman wanted to join the family? Wait no, Charlie wanted Hinman to join the Family. No, no...Charlie wanted Hinman to join his rock band. Wait, come on...he had stocks and bonds. Or was it because Sadie wanted to make love to him, but he wasn't get turned on so they tortured him? All hearsay and when you consider two 1% bikers were the first to tell the cops tales, one of which was a suspect in the case (not in Helter Skelter or any official report) and that one weapon used belonged to them. Take it all into consideration. Add that all up against the sheer amount of different nonsense motives.

If it were robbery, why not abort the whole thing, rather than take two piece of shit automobiles?

Matt said...

Manson Family Archives said...
If it were robbery, why not abort the whole thing, rather than take two piece of shit automobiles?


They were the only things he had of value. Bobby took one and headed up to see his daughter, he gave the other to Manson. If Gary actually had inheritance money on-hand they would have taken that and left the cars. Once Manson cut him BB thought killing him was the only way to avoid jail over the entire mess.

Same with Linda stealing the money, who gave it to Manson. They needed the assets - either to keep or to trade for the flight to the desert.

Hinman didn't have any drugs - at least none more than small personal amounts from time to time.

MFA, I'm just not buying what you're selling in this case.


Manson Family Archives said...

Why didn't any of them think about jail prior to "robbing" a man who knew their names and locations without masks, or anything? Doesn't make sense they would strong arm rob somebody who knew their names, faces and where they stayed.

Manson Family Archives said...

Also, why do you think so many different motives were given for the Hinman murder? When you have a bunch of people saying different things and changing their story, as Mary did....doesn't that point to them trying to hide something? That they were out to protect Charlie isn't an excuse, since most revolved around him.

That some in the Family thought the shooting of Crowe was politically/racial motive, should there be an argument that Watson and Manson were maybe lying about that too? If Manson or Watson never admitted to that episode and the Straight Satans (funny how they knew more than some in the Family did, huh) didn't explicitly state that was drug related, then I suspect there would be endless back and forth and arguments over that too. Charlie would say it was over a drug burn, while Ann would be insisting it was because Crowe was fucking white girls.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

do you know who Joe Brockman in Gilmore's book is? I read somewhere Brockman is Arneson but I can't tie him into the Family as significantly as Brockman appears to be

I suspect that Brockman is Arneson in the book. Although we don't hear a great deal about Arneson, there were other men in the Family that we don't hear a great deal about that stuck around for a while. My main reason for tying Arneson to Brockman is over the arrest of the nude hippy thing. When Charlie had that iconic 'Life' mugshot taken, Arneson had one taken too {had he been a murderer, it would have been pretty iconic too} and Brockman describes a bit about that event.
But that's just me playing detective !

Manson Family Archives said...

I suppose you believe that too

That he said it or that he meant it, that he believed it or that the substance of what he said was actual and real, ie that it would actually happen ?

Of course they would speak of Manson like he was the Messiah, how else would they demonstrate they were brainwashed and underneath a hypnotic spell, thus not responsible for their actions?

It is precisely because of the outlook of Atkins and Van Houten that Part and Caballero went for the insanity route. They were two straights. They were faced by two young rather girly women {I'm not even sure Van Houten would have been considered a woman in '69} who genuinely could see nothing wrong in what they'd done. They both espoused a purpose to back it up. They both naturally spoke of Charlie in a way that would make both of them absolutely top notch criminal masterminds if it was really just a devious plot to get off and have Manson convicted. They both would have had to have been the most daring gamblers in the history of human crime. Van Houten in firing Marvin Part and later Ira "I took the case for the publicity" Reiner and turning down the police offer to be the state's star witness blew any chance of getting off. What you are saying about her contradicts the very point you are making. It makes no sense. If she really wanted to get off, all she had to do was play the game. Little brainwashed and therefore mentally incapable homecoming Queen. She did the absolute opposite. She fired two lawyers that wanted her examined by the trick cyclists. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Atkins could not get off but she could be spared death. All she had to do was stay the course. She chose not to. She recanted and in so doing, threw away any chance of life. It cost her dear.
Neither in those days saw themselves as brainwashed. Neither believed they were under any hypnotic spell. Neither denied responsibility for their actions.
What they did do was to present the view that there was a grand purpose behind what they did and that made it alright. They drew a clear line between society's mores and those of the Family.
It was years down the line before all that you're saying dawned on them and when it did, it was because they had been challenged and re~educated, you might say the start of the road to rehabilitation.

grimtraveller said...

Neither denied responsibility for their actions.

In point of fact, they both justified it.

Manson Family Archives said...

We know Kasabian didn't go because of the lame excuse she was the only licensed driver

We don't know that at all. We do know that she was told to get her licence.

We know her and drug addict/dealer Tex had a strong bond

Do we ? We know they had one supersized screw the day they met. We know they took part in a threesome with Leslie. I'll tell you what else we know. We know she recalls the when and where of every time she and Charlie made love. We know she says she didn't have a particular bond with Tex.

We know Voytek was dealing MDA

Has that been established beyond all doubt ? Has anyone ever come forward and said they bought one capsule from him ? If so, whereabouts can I read that ? I'd like to see it, digest it and make sense of it for myself. I'm not against the idea because there's no evidence the Family were into MDA. But I'll not chuck stuff around that is all conviction and no verification.

Manson likes to downplay or over emphasis at given times and after many years and anti-psychiatric drugs, his memory isn't the best. Dollar amounts change. He told Bill Murphy it was $5,000 and made the admission that Gary sold drugs to some "bad people"

That's an interesting view. Would you say that much of what Charlie has said is therefore unreliable ?

Matt said...

No money trail found. Nothing. Just hearsay

Dennis makes a point not to be dismissed that illicit drug deals don't carry receipts, aren't filmed etc so physical evidence of them is virtually impossible to find unless they're secretly filmed.
But here's one to consider. If mescaline wasn't illegal in '69, then frankly, this was a straightforward business deal. Nothing shady or illicit about it. And this is where the point about a money trail becomes important. Bobby says he took delivery of the drugs on Friday night. So Gary would only have the Friday night and Saturday {before the time Bobby supposedly turned up} to spend $1000. So where did the money go ? It was legal money, not shady money.
The police looked into his finances. They knew that he'd paid $550 for a ticket to Japan. They knew a month previous to his death that his Dad had given him $1050 toward the the trip. It was established by Glenn Krell, his boss, that sometimes he was broke and had to borrow money. It was also established by Krell that he had been buying Hinman's VW and had paid him about $200 out the the $700 he wanted for it. So it's not like they weren't looking seriously at his finances or had no idea of his spending. And on the Saturday if he didn't have the $1000 when Bobby supposedly came for it, he must have spent or stashed it with someone. No such a person has ever turned up and no record of Gary spending big on Saturday 26th emerged. So what happened to it ?

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Also, why do you think so many different motives were given for the Hinman murder? When you have a bunch of people saying different things and changing their story, as Mary did....doesn't that point to them trying to hide something?

It could do but not necessarily. Have you never been around a group of young people chatting over why a particular thing has happened like a relationship break up of one of their friends ? You then get a range of perspectives coming out and what it often shows is that people are often more interested in what they think than in what actually happened.
Pat also said that although she knew about Hinman's murder afterwards, it was kept very quiet and not talked of much. Linda got an inkling of it from Mary Brunner. Ella Jo disappeared the day after. It was a fraught period.

penny lane said...

Grim..whos Jess Buckles ?..

grimtraveller said...

Jess Buckles was a cop on the Tate case. At the time the Cielo autopsies were being done, while the LaBiancas lay dead and as yet undiscovered, a couple of detectives from LASO told him about the murder of Gary Hinman. They pointed out the similarities with his case and whom they had arrested and Charlie was mentioned by name. Equally interesting was that the two detectives told Buckles that the hippies living at Spahn thought this Charlie guy was Jesus. Anyway, Buckles was convinced that it was some big drug thing so he never got back to them, didn't check out the lead and didn't even report the conversation. He could have cracked the case on August 10th. He could have made the link between the crimes when the LaBiancas were found later that night. He could have saved three to four months worth of plodding and freaking people out and LA shitting itself interminably.
He would definitely be one of my dinner guests !

penny lane said...

Thx Grim...is there no limit to the amount of information u know on all things TLB ..its great! Is this the only case u are full bottle on?
.or do u have other crime obsessions...If u do I want to do some serious brain picking :)

grimtraveller said...

It's an interest rather than an obsession. Knowledge about the case isn't hard to come by because there is so much that one needs to check out. And one may still be no further on because often there's multiple stories or sources of events. What I've found is that various contributors make comments on the blog and rather than just take something as read, I go looking for the context of or verification of whatever it is that's being spoken of and then make up my own mind. Two people can read the same set of facts and reach diametrically opposed conclusions, as this thread has shown only too well.
Truth be told, the various books and documents make fascinating reading, but it's the contributors and the varying views that really make it fun and spur one on to check things out. I find crime interesting in general but no case has ever grabbed me quite like this one.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

Where and when the FIRST mention of Helter Skelter came from ?

In terms of the murders ? Well, Brooks Poston said this on October 3rd '69:
BROOKS POSTON: "He came up with eight people. And uh, they were all sporting knives then. And saying how bad it was getting in the city. And that Helter Skelter ~ that’s what he calls the Negro revolt. He says the Negroes are going revolt and kill all the white men, except the ones that are hiding in the desert. And he said it was getting worse and worse, and that he wanted to hide in the desert."
At the time Poston wasn't aware of any Family involvment in the killings. But not long after, Susan Atkins told Virginia Howard or Ronnie Graham about helter skelter and this was in relation to the murders. When one takes those two statements alone and the writing of Pat on the LaBianca fridge of "HEALTER SKELTER" then one is left with something too remarkable to be a coincidence, particularly given that Susan wasn't inside the house at the LaBianca murder and Poston on 3rd October had no idea not only of Family involvement, but particularly no idea about Susan & Pat's involvement.
The picture that emerged of Helter Skelter was indeed gradual but enough fragments existed to form the start of a picture before Bugliosi and Stovitz were handed the case, either using the actual phrase or outlining parts of the concept, like Poston does here. Worth remembering too, is that this Poston interview was before the Family were arrested at Barker.

Manson Family Archives said...

This is where the problem lies. People assume if it's not on record, it's not reality and that everyone who talks to the cops tells them the absolute truth

I don't know where you get that from. You continually assert or imply heavily that if someone in disagreement with you points to things that witnesses told police or LE in general, that they are some kind of gullible idiot sucker that doesn't have the good sense to see that anyone that spoke against Charles Manson or Bobby Beausoleil did so for self serving reasons and therefore can't be trusted.
That is nonsense. It's not even part true. Few are under any illusions about the quality and moral uprightness of most of the main players in this saga. Having so many dishonest people involved on all sides of the fence means that one has to look with a rugged robustness before one decides to take on board what a DeCarlo or an Atkins or a Manson or a Bailey or an anyone has said.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

So, when discussing EACH "crime," let's be sure to investigate and identify the EXACT participation "conduct" which was "Evil." AND which specific EVIL "conduct" was inspired / committed by "MANSON."

It seems Charles Manson operated in a way that simply does not fit the standard mastermind pattern. He was damn smart and perceptive. He picked up on aspects of human nature that it seems most people don't think about too deeply. For example, most in the wider society, even among those who lived free love, seemed to miss the reality that a female is an intensely sexual being. Logic alone should cause one to consider that it is only the female anatomy that has a part that has no other function than to bring sexual delight. Part of Manson's breaking down of conditioning was to put his "girls" through endless sex and consideration of its implications and in doing so, affected many of them profoundly. Once aware of their sexuality in its rawest sense, those women freely gave themselves, and got to heights many others only dream of. That they were at the men's disposal ceased to bother them and they seemed freer sexually than many of the men. Which of course was great for the men !
But I digress.
The point being that if Charles Manson was involved in these deaths, it wasn't going to be straightforward. Having been inside and with no desire to return {despite the popular notion that he likes prison}, he hit upon ways to be involved seemingly without conscience and responsibility, and certain members of the Family were simply too young and inexperienced with the law and with life to challenge him on this.
So looking at conduct during the crimes, you could say:
i] No one told him to go to where Lotsapoppa was. Tex certainly didn't. That he turned up there with a gun hidden in his belt at his back at least indicates a willingness to catch Lotsapoppa by surprise and use it.
ii] Slicing Hinman with a sword and dealing him a wound that was 'possibly fatal' then driving back to Spahn in the same car he arrived in while Bruce drove Hinman's Fiat indicates he was a lot more proactive than he would have us believe.
iii] Telling Tex he owed him a life and to do something about getting Bobby out of jail, especially having announced hours earlier "now is the time for helter skelter", a statement he says he may well have made {ie he does not rule it out or deny it}, isn't going to be translated many ways. It's interesting that Bobby took Charlie's "You know what to do" as meaning that he should kill him. Simultaneously, he is adamant he wasn't commanded to kill Hinman. The paradox perfectly sums up Charlie and his ability to move people without actively doing so. Telling the women to write something witchy {as he openly admitted to Diane Sawyer} and George’s book saying he gave Tex glasses to plant as a false clue again indicate foreknowledge. He never says Tex told him he was going off to murder so how would he know false clues would be needed ?
iv] Going into Leno LaBianca's house could be taken as purely a piece of curiosity. After all, he revealed in 2011 that the house used to be empty and they'd go in there for sex. The mystery isn't why he entered the LaBianca's house, it's what he was doing in the area in the first place. He says he went to see Harold True but he knew True had left there around 10 months previously. It's not commonly picked up on that around the time True left, Charlie asked if he could move in and True said to ask his housemates so he did and they said 'no.'
v] He admits he cut Shorty.
In fact, in reading George's book as well as many interviews down the years, even without HS a creative and tenacious lawyer could have shown conspiracy in Charlie's case on all five crimes. Of course, one could argue against it too, but my point is that it can be demonstrated in Charlie's own words.

Shorty's pistols said...

Man, Saint you created one King Hell thread. Grim has made some of the finest posts, working in the framework of the sainted one's initial post.

MFA, you got rolled. "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here"? That ain't true, that ain't even true. That's about as true as Charlie's assertion that "Hinman killed Hinman".

A killer thread that got great discussion and pulled many lurkers out of the weeds. A good job by all concerned.

Manson Family Archives said...

My analysis of Hinman is far superior, my friend.
http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/07/the-murder-of-gary-hinman-drug-burn-or.html

I go into the actual investigation and show how easily the truth could have been buried in court. I don't except knee-jerk reaction conclusions, like why Al Springer wouldn't tell police Clem was bragging about getting their money back (like he would imcriminate his club brothers). Anyone can see Springer was protesting too much.

"My club brothers tell me this Dan, I mean this Charlie has some arsonal"

Haha.

Suze said...

Jealous much? ^^^

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

yet three out of the five that actually went out that first night subsequently said it was not

That should have been "three out of the four." For some reason I had the victims on my mind.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

My analysis of Hinman is far superior, my friend.
http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/07/the-murder-of-gary-hinman-drug-burn-or.html


I wouldn't say that. But I would say that for the sake of balance it should be read alongside this one.

I go into the actual investigation and show how easily the truth could have been buried in court

Except of course, that this truth you keep going on about was never presented either in or out of court. If what you say is correct then the chief burier of the truth is Bobby Beausoleil because he did not, in any police interview or two trials bring up this supposed truth and nor did any of the Family that later came out and said they loved him so much that they were prepared to murder to get him out of prison.
What you've really shown is what most of us suspected or had concluded anyway ¬> you trust all the words of the Family at your own peril.

I don't accept knee-jerk reaction conclusions

No, you just make them. ☺ ☺ ☺

St Circumstance said...

Amen Grim... I read both, respect both, and everyone should give both equal consideration..

MFA did do a fantastic post

ziggyosterberg said...


Great job as always, St C.

Cheers!

St Circumstance said...

Thanks!!