Monday, September 26, 2016

Approaching 3301 Waverly Drive

Recently I was reading the First Homicide Investigation Progress Reports for both the Cielo and Waverly Drives homicides and I got interested in the layouts of the crime scenes and what those layouts can tell us. 

I would take any opportunity to visit a location associated with a crime I am interested in, and all the more so to the precise locations where the crimes actually happened. But except for the place where Donald “Shorty” Shea was killed near Spahn’s Ranch in late August of 1969 I’ve never been to any of the pinpoint murder locations associated with TLB. (Of course, I’ve been outside all of the places.)

I first went up to the gate at Cielo Drive in 1978. Back then it was the same gate setup as was there on the night of the murders. You could look onto the property and see the corner of the garage. Sometime in the mid-’80s that puny security arrangement was replaced with something more substantial. 

In the early ’90s I was there again with some friends. One of them decided to see if we could get in, so he rang the buzzer. After a minute or so the gate (the big, new one) slowly opened and an attractive younger woman asked what we wanted. When my friend explained that I was a crime writer and wanted to see the property she was polite and friendly but turned down our entry request. 

Of course now there’s nothing to see on that property, its fate being well known. 

Aerial view of 10051 Cielo Drive in 1969

Google Maps view of the current Cielo property (Note the house on the hill to the left in both pictures.)

(I think that somebody should build an exact full-scale replica of the 1969 Cielo Drive property with everything — house, guest house, garage, pool, wishing well, lights on the fence — everything — so that students of the crime can go there and study it. Maybe in a cornfield in Iowa? Build it and they will come.)

The former LaBianca residence, on the other hand, is a different matter. The LaBianca property on Waverly Drive has likewise had a lot of work done to it, but the house, garage, and driveway areas remain largely unchanged. 

The LaBianca residence the morning after the murders there. The LaBianca’s boat is still on the trailer behind their car parked on the street to the west of the property. 

Google Maps view of the LaBianca house today

But a glance at these two above images makes it clear that much work has been done to the front and east side yards of the lot. In front a carport and additional driveway and parking area have been added. And to the east a swimming pool fills the area that used to be the side yard between the house and the property next door that was at one time occupied by Harold True.

There is general agreement regarding what happened immediately after the car from Spahn’s Ranch arrived at Waverly Drive late in the night of August 9-10, 1969: Charles Manson got out of the car and went up the curved driveway to Harold True’s house before cutting over west to the LaBianca house.This scenario is courtesy of star prosecution witness Linda Kasabian and is corroborated by Charles Manson himself. 

At the murder trial Kasabian recalled that after their car parked in front of the LaBianca house she asked Manson, “Charlie, you’re not going into that house, are you?”

“He said, ‘No, I’m going next door.’ 

“He got out of the car. He disappeared up the walkway, the driveway, leading towards Harold’s house, and I couldn’t follow him any longer, he just disappeared.”  (From Linda Kasabian’s trial testimony as recounted in Witness to Evil by George Bishop, page 165)

Manson agreed to this version of events in a telephone call to me in 1998:

“And I went to see Harold [True]. Harold wasn’t there, and I looked over and I seen a light over on the other side, and I walked over there and there was a little dog there. So I patted the dog on the head and I opened the door and there was a dude sitting on the couch. 

“And when I walked in, I said, ‘Oh, hey. Hi.’

“He said, ‘Hi.’

“I said, ‘I didn’t know anybody lived here.’ 

“He said, ‘Oh yeah, we moved in here last week,’ or something like that. ‘Da da da….’

“Tex was — he come in behind me. And me and guy got into a conversation, ‘Wah-wah-wah, roo-roo-roo,’ and I said, ‘Well, you know, I gotta go.’ 

“And then Tex moved in and started talking to him. And I walked on out.

“It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me.”

Further along in her testimony Kasabian indirectly corroborates Manson’s version of what he did at the two Waverly Drive properties (i.e., check out Harold True’s house and then briefly enter and exit the LaBianca house before coming back to the car) when she was asked, “How long after he left the car did he return to the car?”

Kasabian answered, “I remember we all lit up cigarettes, and we smoked about three-quarters of a Pall Mall cigarette, however long that takes.” (Witness To Evil, page 165.)

That would probably take about five minutes, tops, just enough time for Manson to do what he said he did, but certainly not enough time for him to have done all the things that Charles "Tex" Watson later said he did inside the LaBianca house (got the drop on Leno LaBianca, reassured him, had Watson tie him up, asked about other people in the house, disappeared “for a minute or two” before bringing Rosemary LaBianca into the living room, conversed with the couple, waited with the couple while Watson looked around the house for money, took Rosemary LaBianca back into the bedroom, returned to the living room to bind, gag, and pillowcase Leno LaBianca, went back into the bedroom and did the same to Rosemary, and then finally left the house — See Will You Die For Me?, pages 147-148).

So, by examining a crime scene, even after almost fifty years, one can still gain new insights into what might have happened there. In this case, combining the evident walking distances involved and the time frame established by Linda Kasabian’s Pall Mall, a fair and reasonable person might come to the conclusion that Charles Manson was telling the truth about what he did after he arrived at Waverly Drive on August 9-10, 1969.

The LaBianca house from Helter Skelter

Closeup of side yards of the LaBianca and True houses, showing the side entrance area of the latter directly across the side yard from the east side of the LaBianca residence.

View of the LaBianca house from the east (True house) side

Diagram of the LaBianca house (courtesy of Cielodrive.com

This present day Google Maps view of the LaBianca and True residences shows that a small building has been constructed in the area that was formerly the western entrance to the True house. 


The former Polanski residence on Cielo Drive is long gone, but the LaBianca house and grounds have survived mostly intact. An examination of this latter property would no doubt prove very enlightening to any student of TLB. The MF Blog tried to gain access to the house as part of their 2016 tour but they were unable to do so. Maybe one solution would be to buy the house. Unfortunately, however, it’s not currently on the market. And in any case, it would take almost two million dollars to close the deal. 

Zillow listing for Waverly Drive house (The address was changed in an effort 
to detract from the notoriety of the house.)


I wonder what would be a better deal — buying the house or building an exact replica in Iowa?







70 comments:

Robert C said...

Might be a lot cheaper to build a precise scaled miniature (diorama) and do all the sleuthing from that.

AustinAnn74 said...

So, Manson just walked up into someone's house without knocking, and the homeowner was totally cool with that and actually had a conversation about when they moved in with this small, freaky-looking, bushy-haired stranger? Uh, huh.

St Circumstance said...

I have had the opportunity to walk the driveway of Waverly with George on one of his visits and he laid out his thoughts on this quite clearly and intelligently.

But, I feel like he just wants to find a way for this to work out where Charlie isn't responsible....

Maybe he isn't? I don't know for sure.

But, I disagree with George's theory for the crimes and his insistence that It was a copy-cat motive for the same reason I disagree with most other motives. The actual people who did the crimes all tell the same story and it involves Charlie giving the orders- not anyone else cooking up a scheme on their own. nor Linda and Tex master-minding anything, or professor plumb doing it the Library with the candlestick....

If those who did the killings are wiling to totally admit what they did all these years- why would they lie about the reason (as far as they believed it) or the circumstances? Why do they all say the same thing for all these years?

1,600 square feet 2/2 for 1.9 million...

Obviously you are paying for location lol

Robert Hendrickson said...

OK George, did you see the Jon Benet Ramsey TV Doc also? They built the inside of the crime scene house with all the "things" that were inside. I also THOUGHT about building the SAME "sets" of the Tate and LaBianca houses. Of course, the outside of those houses are also relevant.

I even have photos of the Tate house blueprints (crime scene) made by forensics. You would THINK with ALL the "acted-out" movies made over the decades, someone would have created an authentic SET.

EXCEPT, I have also discovered that most people are MORE interested in WHAT was "inside" Manson's head than what was inside the subject houses. AND of course, what was "inside" HIS head is actually relevant to TODAY in so many ways.

IE: Back then the Manson Gang was (in most folks eyes) just a bunch of drugged-out Hippies. BUT now that Soccer Mommies all over America are addicted to Opiates like Heroin, YOUR new and improved "government" has come out with an ingenious NEW public service TV spot "concerning" the MISS-USE of Opiates and Heroin.

AND just last night the KING of Jordan revealed on 60 minutes just how "dumb" America is in dealing with ISIS "country by country." He said it's NOW WW III, especially in the Middle East.

SO maybe it's TIME to take back our country FROM the "dumbest" fucking leaders ANY country has ever had and start paying ATTENTION to the history of just how WE got to this "insane" place.

Dreath said...


“At the murder trial Kasabian recalled that after their car parked in front of the LaBianca house she asked Manson, “Charlie, you’re not going into that house, are you?”

They parked in front of True's house.

Kasabian: Watson trial:
*****
Charlie got back in and then I kept driving and he started giving me more directions and finally we ended up in front of a house where I had been a year or so earlier.

Bugliosi: What house was this?
A: Harold True.
Q: You say a year earlier you had been to Harold True's place?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: And you parked in front of the house?
A: Yeah.
*****
Q: Manson told you to stop the car in front of this home?
A: Yes.
Q: And you recognized it as being the former residence, or the residence of Harold True?
A: Right.
Q: What happened after you stopped in front of this house?
A: I was really surprised that we stopped there and I said something about, "You are not going to that house, are you?"
And Charlie said, "No, I am going to go next door." And he got out of the car and I saw him walk up the driveway that looked like to Harold's house. Then he disappeared. It was dark and bushes.

“Further along in her testimony Kasabian indirectly corroborates Manson’s version of what he did at the two Waverly Drive properties *****”

No she didn't.

Kasabian at Watson Trial:

Q: Then Charles came back to the car?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened after he got back to the car?
A: He called Leslie and Katie and Tex out of the car and they were standing sort of to the side, to the back of the car on the passenger side, and I heard him say something about there was two people in the house and that he had tied them up.
I think he said a man and a woman, but I am not sure, and he told them not to be afraid, that he wasn't going to hurt them and he told them not to create fear and panic in them like the night before and not to let them know that they were going to kill them.

Her testimony is almost identical at the T-LB trial, I don’t have that to quote it.

Dreath said...

PS: That's conspiracy to commit murder, right there. Case over. No motive required.

Manson Mythos said...

There was a twin house of the Cielo one on a hill below it. I guess that too is gone now.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I think even in the most Charlie friendly interpretation of that night they can still prosecute him for murder.

Manson Mythos said...

Well, looking at her testimony, there is one glaring lie that should make her entire testimony get put into question. That is Charlie entered the home himself and called Tex out of the car. He didn't tie anyone up, yet she says she heard him say that.

Even Van Houten finally has come clean in her last hearing that Tex and Charlie walked in together.

DebS said...

Manson Mythos said...
There was a twin house of the Cielo one on a hill below it. I guess that too is gone now.


The "twin" house was similar to the Tate/Polanski home, not exact, and it has been extensively remodeled. The address is 10048 Cielo Dr.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Beverly-Hills/10048-Cielo-Dr-90210/home/6824141

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES Dreath GUILTY, so how come when 3-5 cops pull their guns on an unarmed man and ONE cop fires and KILLS the "man," the other cops are NOT likewise GUILTY of "conspiracy" also?

Maybe the law enforcement/Justice system does NOT need a "motive," BUT I do - in order to understand just HOW and WHY the "establishment" operates the way it does.

Dreath said...

RH, you know I am never sure whether these are rhetorical questions designed to cause me/us to think or not.

If one of your five cops was going there with the plan and intent to kill the unarmed man and if the other 2-4 knew that and committed some overt act to move the plan forward (like say drive the police car, hand him the gun) and it happens. They would be.

Well, I also think we all want to know the motive of any of these acts. Bugliosi thought the jury needed one. Call it the human desire to know 'why' something happens so we can 'fix' it.

Robert C said...

The way I heard it, in CA an associate/accessory to murder gets the same penalty. Chuck was guilty as hell. He thought if he could get his minions to do his dirty work he would be absolved if they were caught. He wasn't too bright.

Back in the olde daze it was not uncommon for people to leave their doors unlocked and even open in the evenings. Everyone did in my 'hood. It's partly why the TLB murders made such a splash. It was largely uncharted/unfamiliar ground. Today we lock down.

Robert Hendrickson said...

DREATH: As long as WE both THINK, "I" THINK - it doesn't get much better than that.

CEASE to THINK and we ALL Cease to Exist.

George Stimson said...

I just put it out there, folks. What you decide to think about it is up to you.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Thanks GEORGE: Now I'm THINKING this fits perfectly with Leno's Black BOOK "hit" theory.

Was Charlie NOT simply "looking" for the LaBianca HOUSE address? YOU do know Leno was connected to the MOB? Of course, IF Charlie really was there to get the "BOOK" - then "Good By Helter Skelter," at least, in regards to the LaBianca's.

St Circumstance said...

Hey Mr H....

I saw something this morning about a white cop and black kid that made me think of you lol :)



Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer Tim Purdy was called to a situation involving a student who left the school’s campus and was thought to have been suicidal. Officials said the teen had a history of violent behavior due to his neuro-developmental disorder.

According to police, Purdy tried to build a line of communication with the student. He was seen in a photo released by the department sitting next to the young man and was able to talk things out. The student was also seen laughing with the officer.

Purdy was able to establish trust with the student and helped get the care he needed.

“There’s more to policing than making arrests and enforcing the law,” officials said. “Sometimes taking those extra little steps makes the biggest difference in someone’s life.”

George Stimson said...

Okay, Robert.

As for everyone else's comments and concerns, see chapters 9 and 16 and get back to me.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Ann said: "So, Manson just walked up into someone's house without knocking, and the homeowner was totally cool with that and actually had a conversation about when they moved in with this small, freaky-looking, bushy-haired stranger? Uh, huh."
Yeah that's always been my feeling, plus you didn't mention they'd been reading the paper about the Tate murders.
I don't discount the claim that Tex tied them up, but I can't square Charlie's account of his conversation with Mr. LaBianca with the notion that "Charlie doesn't lie" and I certainly think his culpability is just about the same whether he tied them up or not.

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

Mr, H

I thought you might find this perspective interesting:

“The conversation we keep having about police violence is one of most inauthentic conversations in the history of America. As an African-American, again, I’ve had problems with the police, and my family lost someone we loved dearly to excessive police force. But the conversation about police brutality is a lie and dishonest. You’re more likely as African-Americans to be damn near struck by lightning than to be killed by the police, and no one can have that conversation. And we’re killing ourselves in our own communities, and no one can have that conversation. So if authentic people are attracted to Donald Trump’s stupid authenticity, I’m not going to diss ’em for it because I damn near get where they’re coming from.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3319397/blacks-more-likely-to-be-struck-by-lightning-than-shot-by-police-jason-whitlock-claims/#Blh1lbYwP2mB6ugT.99

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

I was waiting for the part where the leather laces around Charlie's neck DIDN'T end up around Leno's wrists, but alas, it never came.

lman28 said...

I don't actually remember which interview it was, but I do distinctly remember Charlies' animated patting a puppy dogs head while saying to Leno or himself, "looks like Sophia Loren". I took this to mean Rosemary LaBianca. If I have this correct, how does having to deal with Rosemary also figure into this new hypothetical time frame?

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES SAINT: But IF one cop can be so KIND and many others can be so CRUEL - what reasonable CONCLUSION can be drawn - because that "conclusion" can lead right to heart of the primary ISSUE we deal with HERE every day. Like IF Nancy Pittman's son became a COP, would HE be a GOOD one or a BAD one.

St Circumstance said...

lol Mr. H...

A good witch or a bad witch? That always ends up being the question.

I think we all might be better off if we don't give this one a gun either way ;)

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

Messed up.

99% of police officers are honest, decent individuals and as concerned about police shootings as we are.

Unfortunately, the other 1% have guns too.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES Dreath: so WHY can't 99 out of 100 COPS identify the "Killer" amongst them?

NO wonder THEY get the WRONG person of interest or NO viable SUSPECT MOST of the time.

Of course, just look at US, we KNOW "TEX" was a REAL "killer" but Manson - at best,
HIS most influential teacher was a US President.


St Circumstance said...

Ya know....

Maybe instead of figuring out how to make a Manson movie about Charlie, A Manson movie about Tex would be more interesting. Charlie was a real character, but Tex is the real monster. He was the last person most of the victims saw. Not as Flashy as Charlie by a long shot, but much more frightening and his story is just as interesting in some ways(although not all). Charlie spent a lot of time in jail and boys homes prior to the Family, Tex was growing up in Americana. How Tex wound up in that group is a much stranger road in my opinion....

orwhut said...

St.
I believe you're on to something. Without a psycho trigger man/drug burner, Charlie might have found another way to entertain the girls.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Ya know SAINT, you got a BINGO, except "Charlie" is a super STAR and "TEX' is only an "extra"
according to Bugliosi's now famous story (Helter Skelter.)

AND whatever an official "establishment" type says has got to be the TRUTH - at least for ALL of the ESTABLISHMENT and THEY buy the movie "tickets."

St Circumstance said...

Maybe its time for someone to introduce the world to the real monster, and in effect, turn Tex Watson into a star...

After all- that is the "Real Story" lol whatever the real motive was..

Bobby said...

It's funny, when I was much younger I thought the only way you could have a good honest police officer is if they were recruited from the priest hood.Guess that ended up being wrong too.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

Of course, just look at US, we KNOW "TEX" was a REAL "killer" but Manson - at best, HIS most influential teacher was a US President

Ya know SAINT, you got a BINGO, except "Charlie" is a super STAR and "TEX' is only an "extra" according to Bugliosi's now famous story (Helter Skelter)

Tex was certainly a real killer but if everything you've been saying about LBJ is to make any sense, particularly in relation to the Vietnam war, then by emphasizing Tex as "the killer" you kind of weaken your "LBJ as culpable for war" point pretty severely. A huge percentage of your posts do not hide from holding LBJ responsible for Vietnam's horrors cica '65 ~ '68. You never mention the soldiers in that vein though. LBJ never killed anyone there either......
It makes for a fascinating debate, how guilty of or culpable in a murder/war/fight/robbery/fraud etc someone can be even though they do not partake in any direct action themselves, even though they be there during the planning or are even the mastermind of it all. And history is not on your side as far as the principle behind the Manson/Watson axis goes.....
To ask you directly, do you believe these murders would have happened if Charlie had left in the middle of June '69 and never returned ?

Robert C said...

Good points, Grim.

Robert Hendrickson said...

GRIMM: Great question, because just the word "believe" conjures up all kinds of mysterious supernatural propositions. Thus, I personally shy away from "believing" ANYTHING. Knowing or NOT knowing is MY thing. BUT, because YOUR thoughts on this subject are very worthwhile, I'll pretend for a moment I'm wearing a beanie on my head, while fondling beads in my hands, all the while dressed in my favorite WHITE cloth, showing off my new open-toe sandles.

Answer: NO

St Circumstance said...

Mr. H....

never to speak for you ever :)

But If i understand you correctly ( for once lol) You are saying that these crimes happened at some instigation or reason involving Charlie. I agree. No matter the specific motivation- he was the catalyst.

Big concept. Because if it was at Charlies instigation or suggestion then that cuts out some of the other motives outside of H/S...

But I also offer that these crimes couldn't have happened if Tex hadn't returned to the fold either...

no matte what Charlie wanted- only a select few scumbags could go through with it. Katie wasnt going to do it alone. Not sure any of the other guys around were capable of what Tex was- as absolutely shitty of people as most of them were. You need a certain type of animal to put those murders in motion.

George says in Goodbye H/S that the crimes were really not that bizarre. I couldn't disagree more. I read the chapter and book. I saw the quotes from police about the occurrence frequency. But as scared as it makes me to believe or think it is not uncommon- it is still bizarre to stab a pregnant person and write on the walls of their pad in their blood.

Sorry, maybe that's just me lol

St Circumstance said...

By the way- I see Dreath has been added to staff :)

Congratulations for this excellent addition. Obviously bright and well informed blogger!!

I think he will be a fantastic addition!

Dreath said...

Saint said: "But I also offer that these crimes couldn't have happened if Tex hadn't returned to the fold either...

no matte what Charlie wanted- only a select few scumbags could go through with it. Katie wasnt going to do it alone. Not sure any of the other guys around were capable of what Tex was- as absolutely shitty of people as most of them were. You need a certain type of animal to put those murders in motion."

I think to some degree you reach that conclusion because Tex 'did it'. Shorty, Hinman, Haught, lacing a burger with acid and the fact Van Hauten wanted to go along kinda suggests to me there were a few more. I for one never 'bought' Kasabian's 'I had a driver's license' crap. Only a few left when it got weird and Manson started talking about killing people.

I was stuck some time ago when I watched the video of the TV show (name escapes me) where Good is there with Bugliosi and Debra Tate- maybe Manson Family Reunion (?) and Good's comment when she is trying to get Debra to speak with her privately about why Sharon had to die and says something like 'there are always victims/sacrifices in war' (not a quote).

The level of dehumanization was pretty extreme with these people. Read Atkins grand jury testimony.

But I agree with you Saint: they are bizarre.....even if you change the motive to something a rational mind can accept, which, in my opinion is part of the reason we hunt for alternative motives.

Robert Hendrickson said...

SAINT:
Your Decorder Ring may need re-calibration. I NEVER said Manson was the instigator, BUT I "believe" HE was involved and as a Natural Born Leader, he would have great influence over others.

I KNOW LBJ was the instigator of a White vs Yellow race WAR, BUT I can only believe HE was the most EVIL creature to have existed in MY lifetime. I "believe" that IF JFK was never President, the Vietnam WAR would never have happened and consequently we never would have even heard the name Charles Manson. Of course, that is why a Prosecutor needs a Jury full of "believers" rather than those who rely upon their KNOWing.


grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Recently I was reading the First Homicide Investigation Progress Reports

I was doing likewise to check something I was going to say to Starviego in their enterprising Zebra thread when it occurred to me for the first time that the first mention of the sounds heard in the early hours of 9th August came from that police report. There has been much said about the timeline for the Cielo murders and Bugliosi's usage of them, but whatever confusion may have arisen because of the timeline can be traced actually to the Tate detectives. They included reports and recollections that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the Cielo crime. But it was for a good reason ¬> at the time of the report, they had no idea about any logistics. It wasn't until Susan Atkins appeared on the scene that any shape was given to the actual timings of anything, such as they were.

both the Cielo and Waverly Drives homicides and I got interested in the layouts of the crime scenes and what those layouts can tell us

I remember the first time I read HS. Even though in my copy there was an aerial shot of Cielo Drive and a scale diagram {with lettering so small, even then, that even with 20/20 vision I couldn't read it}, I had to use my imagination to sort of configure the layout. Same with the LaBianca house. For example, for some reason, I always imagined Waverly to have an upstairs. Having now seen many photos of the places, sometimes my imagination was quite accurate, other times it was way off.

St Circumstance said...

Dreath: I think a few of them might have been able to kill- but I think what made the crime bizarre was the savagery and ability to slowly torture strangers at close range in a very personal manner- one of whom was noticeably pregnant. I feel like only Tex was able to do that. The rest of them were more bark than bite. Sadie had so many chances to kill and never did. even Gary took a gun away from her. I think giving an overdose, hitting someone over the head( Shorty) and ganging up to take swipes, or shooting a gun, are very different from what Tex was able to do. And what Tex did is what makes this case bizare... to me anyway :)

Mr.H : see its a good thing I didn't try to speak for you :) I was off as usual lol

grimtraveller said...

Dreath said...

I for one never 'bought' Kasabian's 'I had a driver's license' crap

She never actually made that connection, Vincent Bugliosi did. Her mention of the licence came along with her outlining what she collected and from whom. The point there was to try and tie Charlie as closely to a conspiracy as possible, particularly given that he wasn't present at the slaughter. So she was asked what he actually said to her, at which point it came up about getting a change of clothing, a knife, her driving licence and doing whatever Tex told her to do. In his book, Bugliosi is very clear that it's he and he alone that surmises that the licence is probably {his word; in Robert's book he uses the word "possibly"} the reason Linda was picked and mentions that the others had been with Charlie for at least a year.
It's easy to overlook the fact that the day before the Cielo murders, Charlie had been ticketed by the cops for not having a valid licence. If he was issuing the instructions on the 8th and he knew Mary and Linda were the only valid licence holders at the time, then it's not implausible that he would have Linda get her licence, given that he had been pulled over the day before for not having one.

St Circumstance said...

But I also offer that these crimes couldn't have happened if Tex hadn't returned to the fold either...

Man, that's a really juicy one because it could be argued vehemently either way. I could argue it vehemently either way !
As influential as the Lotsapoppa shooting may have been on overall events, I think the Hinman killing was the finger on the button because it was, as far as we know for sure, the first time murder had taken place without Charlie doing it, in the minds of the Family as they all thought Lotsapoppa was dead. The Crowe burn showed Tex was a reckless cat that didn't think through the consequences of his actions. And let's not forget, three days later he persuaded Linda to filch $5000 from Charles Melton which brought additional trouble as Bob Kasabian came up to Spahn in not exactly a charitable mood to get the money back. I also think Mary and Susan being along with Bobby on the Hinman caper was significant. These events told him something about his mates. He'd already learned that TJ and Brooks were not up for any murderous muckin' abaaahhhht.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I think what made the crime bizarre was the savagery and ability to slowly torture strangers at close range in a very personal manner.....and what Tex did is what makes this case bizarre... to me anyway

While I agree that the murders at Cielo and Waverly were bizarre, it isn't the savagery for me that makes it so. A large percentage of murders are savage. One might even argue that all murder is savage. And certainly a lot of acts that don't end as murder or are even meant to are savage. I don't see savagery as particularly bizarre.
I don't believe there are such categories as 'good' and 'bad' people. I think we are all warped and many times have no idea exactly what it is that will bring out things in us that lead to awful places, places we have probably never imagined we'd go. I bet when some of the soldiers in 'Nam were called up or even joined up, they never thought they would do some of the things they ended up doing. I bet many who end up committing crimes of passion {lover murder} or killing their children would not have foreseen it a few years prior.
One thing that strikes me about George not feeling the murders were bizarre; he says that strictly in the context of trying to get away from Helter Skelter, which not only does he think is bizarre, but on a scale from laughable to insane. Because his schtick is to demonstrate that HS was not the motive it is necessary to cast the murders in a light that attaches no strangeness, no unfathomable insanity, to them.
For me however, copycat murders designed to throw the police off the scent are damned bizarre. Well, they seem that way to me !

The boy wonder said...

Like - muckin abaaahht, try and get as much cockney rhymin in as you can me old China.

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

But take into account not only the vicious nature of the crimes themselves:


Think about the writing in blood on walls...

Add that they did it twice on back to back nights...

Include the fact that they stopped to make a snack the second night....

Consider the behavior during and after the crimes by the perps...

Does that not reduce the sample size of "similar" crimes you can use to make the case this was not bizarre? Look I have a tendency to wanna always be right lol I know that

But these victims were sitting in a house behind a gate in a very wealthy area, and some zoned out zombie looking young people walked into their living room saying things things like " I am the devil and am here to do the devils work"- then they started to shoot and stab people to death who were running around screaming and begging for their lives. Then they painted strange phrases in their blood on walls and refrigerators, and after doing it a second night in a row- they made some snacks before leaving....

if that doesn't meet your definition of bizarre- we just have to disagree ;)



Dreath said...

Saint, I gotta agree.

They were writing messages on the walls to communicate to a whole race of people. A race who were never going to see the messages but even if they saw the messages they would have not had the slightest idea what they were talking about. "Helter Skelter? WTF does that mean? yes, the place is a mess." And ...... they actually believed their audience would understand the message. Yes....bizarre.

Grim: I am aware- I should have said 'innocence crap"- the license was the first think that popped into my head.



grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

I can't square Charlie's account of his conversation with Mr. LaBianca with the notion that "Charlie doesn't lie"

It does seem a rather fanciful conversation, doesn't it ? I can't work out if we're looking at this through late 20th & 21st century lenses, but even in the 60s and 70s, I can't imagine a friendly conversation ensuing if someone just walked into our house ! It also seems a little strange, seeing a light on in a house and letting yourself in. Even allowing for the fact that you've always known it to be empty, the fact that a dog was there and a light was on, even in a psychedelic situation, tells one that someone is in there.
But this statement of Charlie's ¬> "And I went to see Harold" [True] is the concrete part of his statement that he must be called out on. For he knew that Harold had left that house at least 10 months ago. In his book, even George states that the house Charlie headed to had been previously occupied by a friend named Harold True." So if the house had previously been occupied by Harold, why was Charlie going to visit him ?
Furthermore, when True was interviewed by Aaron Stovitz in January 1970, he said that Charlie knew he had left in the fall of '68. He'd even seen him on at least one occasion after he'd left. True always maintained that Charlie was no murderer in waiting and was in touch with him while he was awaiting trial so why would True lie in this matter, a matter that wasn't significant at the time ?

St Circumstance said...

Dreath- again... Congrats!!

You are going to be an amazing addition to a really amazing group of people.

:)

Dreath said...

Thanks Saint. That means a lot and 'yes' they are. All of them. You are my favorite....

St Circumstance said...

:)

Robert Hendrickson said...

Here's a THOUGHT: Remember the 5000 year old man they found in ice with his body fairly well preserved. Well, they have done just about EVERTHING possible to discover how and why he died.

BUT it wasn't until more recently, after years, another radiologist looked at the x-rays and saw a small "arrowhead" lodged in his body.

Of course, NOW they KNOW how he died, BUT for sometime they could ONLY "believe" how he died.

A lawyer must convince a jury to "believe" and then HE can convince then to side with HIS theory.

Because of ALL the wild & crazy players in this CASE combined with ALL the bizarre circumstances involved, the "real" TRUTH intertwined with the Tate / Labianca Murders may one day surprise us ALL.

BTW: the TRUTH is merely the absence of ALL other possibilities.

George Stimson said...

Grim, I like the way you think!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Mr H. I thought you were going to say the Ice Man was the victim of overzealous policing LOL!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Grim, it would be interesting to compile a list of Charlie's fanciful conversations. I don't get the feeling he expects anyone to believe the conversation happened so much as to say to the interviewer "backoff, that's my business" "I think you're full of it so I'm gonna reflect you back at yourself."
Another conversation that really strikes me was his account to Tom Snyder of his conversation with Gary Hinman: Snyder asks what did it feel like to cut off Hinman's ear and Charlie says: "well I had done everything he said for about 20 years...and I got to thinking why don't this guy do something I tell him to do? And he said 'no' And I said 'well how comes I'm always doing what you tell me to do, but then you never do what I say to do?' And he said 'well blah, blah, blah.' So I said 'Now you do what I say.' And he said no. I said 'You do exactly what I say!' And he said no. 'I'm tellin' you, I'm not asking you. You do EXACTLY what I say!!' And he said 'WOW! Where'd you get that?!' I said 'I got it from my father in prison. He gave it to me. I had a little charm bracelet I used to carry it on, when I was about that big [points at floor]'
I doubt if anyone believes Hinman exitedly said 'Wow, where'd you get that?!' in the middle of a struggle to save his own life, and I doubt if Charlie expected anyone to believe it or any of the rest of the so called conversation. It's just that some people say Charlie doesn't lie, but I say he feels entitled to create fanciful tales when it suits him in order to avoid sticking to sober facts.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Actually Mr. Humpphrat, an ARROW from a COP like mentality is NOT ruled out.

WHY was an "alone" man in the middle of nowhere shot and KILLED by another man.

NOW, watch the current videos of COPS "killing" "alone" Black Men - NOT so funny.

AND of course, you ALL can't imagine such a violent scene at the Tate and LaBianca houses simply to start an imaginary RACE war. SO, do some research and YOU will discover the COPS who are shooting Black Men are acting NOT unlike the Tate / LaBianca KILLERS. They BOTH have FEAR and SURVIVAL motivating THEM.

It took me years to realize how very simple this CASE really is. COPS are being "programed" with FEAR of the Black Man and I suspect the mere mention of "Helter Skelter" validates THEIR fear.

That's WHY it's usually a case of multiple GUN shots when a COP shoots an "alone" man. Just like the Manson Murders are a case with "multiple" stabbings. The KILLER has to make sure HIS FEAR is eradicated (DEAD) forever. The RAGE is to survive.

BTW Dreath: an entire race DID get to SEE those writings - thanks to Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Charlie on the phone said......

Tex was — he come in behind me. And me and guy got into a conversation, ‘Wah-wah-wah, roo-roo-roo,’ and I said, ‘Well, you know, I gotta go.’

And then Tex moved in and started talking to him. And I walked on out.

It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me


Did Tex ask Charlie or Linda or whoever was driving to drive to that specific house ? When Charlie says Tex "moved in and started talking to him. And I walked on out" are people honestly expected to believe that Charlie didn't even ask Tex if he was coming ? Or if he was staying ? I know Charlie had a rep for being unpredictable but come on, this is stretching credulity. If you want people to actually believe {yes Robert, believe} what you say, one is going to have to do better than that ! "It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me".....really ? If there was any evidence that as a group they were in the habit of going into the pad of someone they never knew, just letting themselves in and having a chat and then one of them sticking around while the others left, even that would be stretching it ! But this is beyond left field.
The question has been asked down the years whether it would have made a difference if Charlie represented himself in court rather than Irving Kanarek. I've said many a time and still stand by this, that I think it was an error revoking pro per. Judge Keene should have given Charlie a stiff warning to stop the dancing with motions too ridiculous to contemplate at that time and get on with defending his life within the system that existed, however imperfect it might appear or even be found to be. I've also long felt that even if Charlie had defended himself, the outcome would have been identical. He was already dicing with danger with the notion, which became his trial statement "had you not arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do...." I think he would have been found exactly as he was because it would appear that for him truth is relative, not absolute. He seemed to draw in those that stuck with him through relative truth, truth that could shift and fell into line with what different people felt at different times. Very 60s.
I think George's book is brilliant. I also think it sinks Charlie further in the mire than HS ever did.

George Stimson said...

Grim, I still like the way you think. Lunch some time for sure!

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Kasabian indirectly corroborates Manson’s version of what he did at the two Waverly Drive properties (i.e., check out Harold True’s house and then briefly enter and exit the LaBianca house before coming back to the car) when she was asked, “How long after he left the car did he return to the car?”
Kasabian answered, “I remember we all lit up cigarettes, and we smoked about three-quarters of a Pall Mall cigarette, however long that takes.”
That would probably take about five minutes, tops, just enough time for Manson to do what he said he did


Perhaps it's just me and the way my head works, but I often find myself looking with a certain amount of skepticism at the importance placed on how long particular actions took......when no one was there with a stopwatch or thinking that they would ever have to recall in crystal clear detail the exact chronology of events and their timelines.
Vincent Bugliosi was so determined to nail the perps that sometimes, little details assumed an importance far beyond their actual significance. We've debated much around the Cielo timelines but the truth is that even without any of the reports of sounds heard, you'd have more or less the same case. Those reports don't exactly dovetail and corroborate each other, much less the crimes.
And the "Pall Mall measurement" kind of falls into a similar category for me. First of all, how many people study how much of a cigarette 5 or 6 people smoke {Linda says they all lit up}, in the dark, in a cramped car with people sitting on others' laps and some falling in and out of sleep, on a night when you've been cruising the city looking for people to kill ? That's odd in itself. Secondly, Bugliosi's question is something of a pettifogger; these were people for whom time had little meaning. Having abandoned the notion of time and clocks and watches, I somehow doubt they could honestly gauge length of time other than "not long," "quickly," "ages," etc.
That there are slight discrepancies in who went up to the LaBianca house and who followed when, well, is that really a surprise ? My wife remembers very little about the night she had a baby for the first time. I remember much more than she does....and there are great gaps in my memory. I remember the basics and when the story is being relayed, most of the details left out don't actually alter the overall picture. The show happened, the waters burst, we drove over bumpy roads to the hospital, the baby got distressed, I noticed the monitor was irregular, the midwife and doctor didn't until I asked if that was meant to be that way, an emergency caesarean had to be performed, he got yanked out by the doc, he cried, he got cleaned up, I talked to him, he had his vitamin K injection, he howled ! There was a lot more that happened, I remember most of it actually, but not the chronology. The point is, it doesn't alter the basic happenings of the night. And so it was for both the Cielo and LaBianca events. A range of things happened, some of which is very clear to the perps, some of which is understandably hazy. I say understandably, given that none of them expected to have to relay the events one day, not even Charlie. In fact, in George's book, he says he can't remember much as he was "pretty loaded" that night. When you're not expecting to be fighting for your freedom because of your actions one day, then the little details aren't important at the time.
The big ones, however......

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

a fair and reasonable person might come to the conclusion that Charles Manson was telling the truth about what he did after he arrived at Waverly Drive on August 9-10, 1969

A fair and reasonable person might well do so if they were relying solely on Charlie's words and Linda's fags.
On the other hand, they might have doubts if they knew Charlie knew Harold True hadn't lived next door to the LaBianca house for around 10 months.
They might have doubts if they knew, as Charlie told Vanity Fair in 2011, that he was actually familiar with the layout of the LaBianca house as he'd been inside it back in '68 in the days when it was empty {he says he used to go in there to have sex during visits to Harold}.
They might have doubts if they knew, as Harold told Aaron Stovitz, that Charlie had asked if he could move into the True house when Harold was leaving and that Harold had said Charlie should ask his housemates as he couldn't give an answer and that when Charlie asked, the housemates said 'no.'
They might think that it explained why after seemingly cruising about at random on August 9/10th, Charlie suddenly directed Linda to a specific house and they might wonder if he went up towards the former True house because he actually did have business there ~ with any or all of the 3 guys that rejected his request to live there. They might wonder if actually they were on the menu that night but fortunately weren't in or had themselves moved.
I've wondered for a while whether or not the LaBianca house was pure chance ~ a dog alerted him, a light was on and most importantly, it was in the early hours and the house {with no one at the former True house to hear any possible resistance or screams} was isolated. From those photos, it looks almost as isolated as Cielo.
I don't really like quoting Bugliosi in relation to opinions about Manson because where he was coming from was necessarily biased, but one thing he said even noticing this back in '70 may or may not be significant, but it rings in my head. He said "an innocent man protests his freedom. Instead Manson played word games."
Crime and jail's gain has been society's loss where Charlie is concerned. I think he could have done socially wonderful things had he remained on the straight and narrow after '67.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

The actual people who did the crimes all tell the same story and it involves Charlie giving the orders- not anyone else cooking up a scheme on their own. nor Linda and Tex master-minding anything

I agree with that. The standard reason given involves them having to stick to the official version because of parole but 47 years later, they're still in jail. Not only that, some of them have shown for at least 38 years that they have not stuck with the official story. Susan didn't {re stabbing Tate}, Pat doesn't {re carving WAR on Leno, discussing murders, telling Leslie to wipe prints and "about 15 or 16 things" that came up in her first parole hearing}, Bobby doesn't {re circumstances surrounding Hinman's death}, Tex doesn't {just read his trial testimony !}.

George Stimson said...

Grim, I still like the way you think. Lunch some time for sure!

It's a date !

Robert Hendrickson said...

most people are MORE interested in WHAT was "inside" Manson's head than what was inside the subject houses

But of course. The man is fascinating. His life story is a movie guaranteed to pack'em in, if you get my drift. He was bright, articulate, funny, perceptive, insightful and actually had a good point when he spoke of being society's reflection. American society didn't want to hear that ! But almost all of his moves were replicated elsewhere in some shape or form and indeed had been around before Charlie. Whether it be in terms of religion, racism, family background influencing current being, stealing, dodgy morals, revolution, people abuse, sex, music etc, American culture[s] had shown it's dark side long before Charles Manson.

Manson Mythos said...

there is one glaring lie that should make her entire testimony get put into question. That is Charlie entered the home himself and called Tex out of the car. He didn't tie anyone up, yet she says she heard him say that. Even Van Houten finally has come clean in her last hearing that Tex and Charlie walked in together

But LVH doesn't specify at which point. It's no secret that Tex went in with Charlie at some point. But even Charlie says that he went over to the LaBianca house when he saw the light. He never mentions Tex going up to Harold's old house with him or Tex going with him to the dog or the house with the light. He only mentions Tex when he has actually opened the door and gone into the house. In his first book, Tex even says Charlie went up alone first before coming back to get him {which is exactly what Nuel Emmons book went on to say. It's a curious book, some of it is supportive to Charlie, some of it ~the descriptions of Cielo, for example~ seem rather derivative and fanciful}. So it's actually kind of unclear exactly the chronology. One can pin various people down on some statements and not on others. So it's unwise to accuse Kasabian of lying ~based on the part you use.




Dreath said...

Grim said: "So it's unwise to accuse Kasabian of lying ~based on the part you use."

The notion that someone sits on a witness stand and makes up a story from whole cloth is a fiction created by Hollywood. It is far too hard for anyone to hold that story together in the face of cross examination, the details, potential contrary evidence and witnesses and one's own memory from day to day or week to week- Kasabian was on the witness stand for days.

Hence, the 'Bugliosi told me what to say' story is extraordinarily unlikely. He'd know this.

It is far more likely a witness motivated to lie (versus forgetting the truth) will use the following techniques:

1. Deny: claim something simply didn't happen. It is easy to remember. You can place Manson's statement above in this category: "It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me." One might have asked him why he was cruising LA with the killers from the previous night, knocking on church doors, jumping out of cars or maybe even where he was going when they stopped- maybe to take a leak.

2. Alter the truth: something actually did happen just not where, when, how or why it actually happened. The event is real, the witness doesn't need to remember the lie....and can always try to escape the lie by saying 'they forgot" or "I guess I was wrong". You can place the Atkins-Kasabian 'meeting' outside Cielo in this category. IMO as 'stated' it does not make sense.

3. Avoid: either don't directly answer the question asked or blame someone/something for how or what happened else. Like this:

Ruby Pearl visited him at the jail. “I only came here for one reason, Charlie,” she told him. “I want to know where Shorty was buried.” Manson, unwilling to meet her gaze, looked down at the floor and remarked, “Ask the Black Panthers.” “Charlie, you know the Black Panthers have never been up to the ranch,” she responded, turning her back on him and walking out.

No, Charlie never lies.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

"That would probably take about five minutes, tops, just enough time for Manson to do what he said he did

grimtraveller said...

no one was there with a stopwatch......these were people for whom time had little meaning. Having abandoned the notion of time and clocks and watches, I somehow doubt they could honestly gauge length of time other than "not long," "quickly," "ages," etc.

In her parole hearing this year, LVH stated that she reckoned Charlie was gone from the car for 15 minutes.
For the killers, it was never relevant or important, hence the discrepancies over time and who went up when. The action that took place in the overall context ~ that's what was important to them.

Dreath said...

RH, you know I am never sure whether these are rhetorical questions designed to cause me/us to think or not

Join the club !

Well, I also think we all want to know the motive of any of these acts. Bugliosi thought the jury needed one. Call it the human desire to know 'why' something happens so we can 'fix' it

I broadly agree with that although I'm unsure whether it's always to know whether we can fix it. That was certainly the case for the prison authorities though. While it's easy to say that all the killers turned their backs on HS and CM because they needed to play the game to appear reformed for parole considerations {and I'm not so naive to dismiss such a notion may have played a small if significant role}, there is the highly significant aspect of LE being confronted with a monolith that they felt needed to be broken, dismantled and reworked into something more befitting a "civilized" society. The motive was and is important. It occurs to me that if the copycat, drug burn, Leno mafia/black book hit, Linda revenge for rape or any of the alternatives had been presented, we'd hardly be discussing this case 47 years later, regardless of the outcome. They're not controversial or deep or in need of working out or understanding. By comparison, they're boring.

Robert C said...

Back in the olde daze it was not uncommon for people to leave their doors unlocked and even open in the evenings

I know places that do that now ! In fact, during the summer on the estate I live on, some people still do that. Perhaps it was because my parents were from Nigeria and didn't want "English" people looking into or walking into our house, but we always had curtains so you didn't have a clear sight into the place and the front and back doors were always locked. It was drummed into us, right from the 60s. I remember once, my Dad was away for the night and my Mum, being a nightnurse, was at work and my sister and I watched an episode of "Hawaii 5-0" that they had announced earlier on TV should be watched with caution because of it's content. It turned out to be a damp squib and we were so disappointed. But when we walked into the kitchen {it was just after midnight} the back door was wide open ! That scared the petunias out of us. We were always fastidious about locking up, it was trouble if we didn't so that really threw us. There often seemed to be escaped murderers on the run and we were so daft, we always seemed to think they'd turn up at our place demanding food and shelter.....

St Circumstance said...

I will say that George self publishing Goodbye H/S is very impressive to me. Over the course of this week I read it again and it's a really good book. George is a good writer. People should read it and consider his well presented ideas. Others may come to different conclusions than me...

George Stimson said...

Thank you, St. C.

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

they'd been reading the paper about the Tate murders

Only about an hour or less before. Maybe my sisters and I weren't so daft to think all those escaped murderers would turn up at our house....

Bobby said...

But the conversation about police brutality is a lie and dishonest. You’re more likely as African-Americans to be damn near struck by lightning than to be killed by the police, and no one can have that conversation

I'm not so sure that's true. Likelihood and chance are not things that are subject to the whims and sometime heartlessness of humanity. An overworked officer that has had a lot of hassle with young Black guys that finds themselves in a split second situation where they think a certain measure of danger is there doesn't have the benefit of the class situation a maths teacher teaching a class of 13 year olds probability will have.
That said, I wouldn't want to be struck by lightning either !

And we’re killing ourselves in our own communities, and no one can have that conversation

It's hard to deny that in many cities there is a problem between the Black communities and certain sections of the police force. There has been for a very long time and every now and again, it rears it's head in a way that grabs public attention, like now, with the advent of phone cameras.
I do think that there are many conversations that it seems like Black people in the western world just are not having. But I find myself increasingly involved in conversations such as police action, Black on Black killings, Black relationships, racial mixing etc. Fact is, at least here in the UK, there are passionate voices {and some irresponsible ones} on all sides of the equations.
Bit by bit, I notice the same thing happening within various Asian communities too. Many settling communities are having to come to terms with what it means to be what you are, wherever you are and how one adapts, changes or tolerates.

St Circumstance said...

Maybe instead of figuring out how to make a Manson movie about Charlie, A Manson movie about Tex would be more interesting.....

It probably would be now because of 47 years of Manson overkill allied to no one {in my opinion} coming close to playing Charlie with anything even approaching convincing.

Not as Flashy as Charlie by a long shot, but much more frightening and his story is just as interesting in some ways

His story is but he isn't.

Tex was growing up in Americana. How Tex wound up in that group is a much stranger road in my opinion....

I think Charles Watson, other than committing murder, was really not drastically different to tons of people of his age in that time. OK, murder is drastically different as an end product, but his path was replicated by thousands of others and could be seen as "symptoms of a deeper illness" as Lucy Van Pelt from the Snoopy books would put it.
There's a film called "The Wicked Lady" about a rich young woman that hooks up with a highwayman and goes around robbing people {in the original she murders her butler when he finds out about her}. It's a well worn path, that of the comfortable bod that has "nothing to complain about" that nonetheless goes rogue. Thinking about it, it's one of only 2 films I've ever seen where the remake is actually as good as the original.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

that is why a Prosecutor needs a Jury full of "believers" rather than those who rely upon their KNOWing

Is not the very nature of being on a jury a demonstration of not being able to know ? If one knew, they'd be biased. The lawyers on both sides of the fence have as their one aim to persuade.
I'm genuinely curious as to what you would say/imply about jurors and that specific jury if they had found Charlie and his cohorts not guilty.

St Circumstance said...

I feel like only Tex was able to do that. The rest of them were more bark than bite. Sadie had so many chances to kill and never did. even Gary took a gun away from her

On the other hand, a real consideration is this; could Watson have done any of this on his own ? Even though Susan and Leslie baulked when it came to the heavy weather of actually killing, both nights of murder {and Shorty's too, when one thinks about it} show a feeding off one another that may have never been possible if any of them had been alone. There are loads of people who demonstrate big balls when in a group that wouldn't go that way on their lonesome.

Dreath said...

I am aware- I should have said 'innocence crap"- the license was the first think that popped into my head

You bring up a good point fraught with debate potential even though it's been flogged to death for years when it comes to Linda. In Robert's book, Bugliosi is adamant that she was guilty and would have gone for a second degree murder charge where she was concerned. People may not be aware of that when they keep coming out and saying that he painted her as the angel. Even in the trial he made a few statements that showed that he was under no illusions about her. But he was necessarily grateful for what she did. And why shouldn't he be ?

Robert Hendrickson said...

Because of ALL the wild & crazy players in this CASE combined with ALL the bizarre circumstances involved, the "real" TRUTH intertwined with the Tate / Labianca Murders may one day surprise us ALL

Not half as much as it will surprise those who have looked everywhere but where the evidence has pointed for half a century and so have concocted their own.
I get your point about how further digging can bring one to a very different conclusion. I believe that to be true.......sometimes.
It's odd isn't it, that every one of the killers has, at some point, had to accept that where the evidence pointed was indeed what happened all along. And the one who went the other way {Susan Atkins} actually was the one who put meat on the bones initially, where the evidence was concerned, unprompted, at a time when she didn't expect her confidants in jail to tell anyone.


ziggyosterberg said...


Grim, I think there's at least one or two sentences that you haven't picked apart and critiqued in this thread. Please go back and check to see what you've missed.