Monday, November 28, 2016

Manson Family Psychology- Fallen Sheep


"People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. A leader leads, and the boss drives."

-Theodore Roosevelt 


"If you understand hallucination and delusion, you don't blindly follow any leader. You must know if the person is sane or insane over the abyss."

-Marguerite Young 
              
                                     
                                         

                                      Solomon Asch experiment (1958) A Study of Conformity

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject.

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length. The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer. What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes? 



In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to examine the extent to which pressure from other people could affect one's perceptions. In total, about one third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly erroneous majority. Asch showed bars like those in the Figure to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left. As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. Only one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give two correct answers and then to some incorrect answers on the remaining 'staged' trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates incorrect responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the crowd? 

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed themselves to the 'obviously erroneous' answers given by the other group members at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 'staged' trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 'staged' trials. Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct." 

Why did most subjects conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar." A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct. Asch conducted a revised version of his experiment to find out whether the subjects truly did not believe their incorrect answers. When they were permitted to write down their answers after hearing the answers of others, their level of conformity declined to about one third what it had been in the original experiment. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to be liked by the group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are. Suppose you go to a fancy dinner party and notice to your dismay that there are four forks beside your plate. When the first course arrives, you are not sure which fork to use. If you are like most people, you look around and use the fork everyone else is using. You do this because you want to be accepted by the group and because you assume the others know more about table etiquette than you do.

Inmate Krenwinkle:  "Because I wanted so badly to be accepted, to be loved, and the more I did that, the more I gave up who I was, and as I began to do that, everything that was good about myself I threw away."

Inmate Van Houten:  “And I felt I could belong there. Up until that point, I was feeling like I was looking for where I could fit in. And when I got there, I felt that that was where I could belong.”

Tex Watson:  “The time came when we could look into each other's faces and see our own features, when we could be sitting together and suddenly all think the same thought. It was as if we shared one common brain.”

Inmate Davis: “So when these -- when these things happened, when these murders happened they were part of just a picture of what the family was doing, what I wanted to be accepted in. They were a part of just a happening around me and I didn't object for one minute my part.”

Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony:  “Starting about a year ago, a year and a half ago, he said, "I have tricked all of you. I have tricked you into doing what I want you to and I am using you and you are all aware of that now and it is like I have got a bunch of slaves around me," and he often called us sheep.”

Paul Watkins:  Even though I didn't want to, I had to. I did it. Anyway, it was either do it or leave, and so I said I would. Then, once I said I would, there was no way of getting out of it then because Charlie said that if you didn't do what you said you would do, then you was just no good, that's all there was to it; and so I did. I stole it. 

Bugs: "Did you ever see or observe any members of  the Family refuse to do anything that Manson told him or her to do?"  
Linda Kasabian: "No, nobody did. We always wanted to do anything and everything for him."



Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, was the first person to provide some explanation of how a follower’s unconscious motivations work. After practicing psychoanalysis for a number of years, Freud was puzzled to find that his patients—who were, in a sense, his followers—kept falling in love with him. Although most of his patients were women, the same thing happened with his male patients. It is a great tribute to Freud that he realized that his patients’ idealization of him couldn’t be traced to his own personal qualities. Instead, he concluded, people were relating to him as if he were some important person from their past—usually a parent. In undergoing therapy—or in falling in love, for that matter—people were transferring experiences and emotions from past relationships onto the present. Freud thought the phenomenon was universal. He wrote, “There is no love that does not reproduce infantile stereotypes,” which, for him, explained why so many of us choose spouses like our parents.

 -Michael Maccoby




 Susan Atkins:  "He asked me if I had ever made love with my father. I looked at him and kind of giggled and I said, "No." And he said, "Have you ever thought about making love with your father?" I said, "Yes, I thought that I would like to make love with my father." And he told me, he said, "All right, when we are making love imagine in your imagination that I am your father and, in other words, picture in your mind that I am your father." And I did, I did so, and it was a very beautiful experience."

Tex Watson:  "It was a strange collection. Charlie would later refer to us as the ones society didn't want and threw away. But who we were really didn't matter all that much. The only personality that counted for anything was Charlie: Charlie — our father, Charlie — our god, Charlie."

Inmate Van Houten"He would come on the weekends and pick us up. And the structure of the family being disturbed caused me to feel abandoned by Dad. And I blamed my mother. So my relationship with my parents took on a different dimension."

"I felt that I was out of place. I didn't know where I fit in in the community. For my middle school years and my early high school years, I was part of a very socially involved crowd. And once my family separated and the structure of it changed, I looked for a place where I felt more comfortable."

Inmate Krenwinkle:  I wanted someone to love me and that's how I got involved with Mr. Manson. From there on situation that (indiscernible) with continually living with them. I became I got to the point where I didn't feel I could make any decisions.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, my Daddy and I had two things in common. We were both raised by fathers who were abusive and violent and demanding. His father, he learned to be a father from his father. And that's how he taught me. 

Squeaky Fromme: “There were many women around. We all had a relationship with each other that was very strong. And all of our minds kind of hooked up. We rejected the society. We rejected marriage because we didn't like what our parents had.” 

From Helter Skelter - Bugs words:   "They were a real family in every sense of that word, a sociological unit complete to brothers, sisters, substitute mothers , linked by the domination of an all-knowing, and all-powerful patriarch. Cooking, washing dishes, cleaning, and sewing- all the chores they hated at home they now did willingly, because they pleased Charlie."

Bobby Beausoleil: " We were a family. We were mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son." 

We are family. I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Everyone can see we're together
As we walk on by
And, and we fly just like birds of a feather
I won't tell no lie
All, all of the people around us they say
Can they be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose

- Sister Sledge  



 Destructive Group Leader’s Personality
Narcissism - A pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with one’s self to the exclusion of all others, and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one’s gratification, dominance and ambition.  It is described as an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy.  It usually begins by early adulthood and is present in various contexts.  Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met…
  1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
  3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special    or unique, or high-status people
  4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious
  5. Feels entitled.  Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment.  Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations
  6. Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
  7. Devoid of empathy.  Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
  8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
        9. Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, or confronted.
         
 “That which has cosmic implications calls for cosmic reactions.  A person with an inflated sense of self-import, reacts in an exaggerated manner to threats, greatly inflated by his imagination and by the application of his personal myth. Narcissists live in a state of constant rage, repressed aggression, envy and hatred. They firmly believe that everyone is like them. As a result, they are paranoid, suspicious, scared and erratic."

From the mouth of Charles Manson:


“I'm the king, man. I run the underworld, guy. I decide who does what and where they do it at. What am I gonna run around like some teeny bopper somewhere for someone else’s money? I make the money man, I roll the nickels. The game is mine. I deal the cards”
 
“Total paranoia is just total awareness.”

“I lived in Hollywood and I had all that, the Rolls Royce and the Ferrari and the pad in Beverly Hills. I had the surf board and the Beach Boys and the bishkis and the Neil Diamond and the ramskam and the Jimmy shriffen and the Elvis Presley's best of bestlies and all them guys. The Dean and Martins and the Nancy Sinatras and the goffs and sofrins, "Will you do it to me? I hear you do it good honey" and all that kind of "Will you come up to my house later?" 

"Well, I go into Malibu and I pick a rich house. I don't steal, I walk into the house and the fear hits you like waves. It's almost like walking on waves of fear." 

"Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn't that give me equal right?"
     


So what do you get when you take a bunch of young people who are predisposed to want to fit in, and who all have major mommy and daddy issues, and then subject them to the constant influence of a narcissistic criminal old enough to be their Daddy? Now, toss in hard drugs and food/sleep deprivation. Combine all of this with the influence of bikers and other older ex-cons. Blend into the background some really groovy music, and finally add the backdrop of orgies and sexual experimentation. Peer Pressure never looked like this where I was growing up. This seems to me to have been the prefect storm for some. Through the process of elimination over time, Charlie was able to sort out the true maniacs in his group. When it came time to push things over the line- he had blurred the lines so far that it must have been tricky to know when it was going to end up in disaster. Being told to "Take a knife and a change of clothes" was probably a good first indicator. Tex should have just taken off and ran all the way back to Texas. He had the choice. They all had a choice. They did not have to follow every order like blind sheep. At the end of the day- they all had the final personal decision to stop before it went too far....


Didn't they?


" Every person has free choice. Free to obey or disobey the natural laws. Your choice determines the consequences. Nobody ever did, nor ever will, escape the consequences of  his choices"

- Alfred A Montapert

  
" A man is born alone and dies alone; only he experiences the good and bad consequences of his karma alone; and he alone goes to hell or the Supreme abode"

- Chanakya





                                                           - Your Favorite Saint







70 comments:

Trilby said...

Great post. Alot of food for thought here. I've been an iconoclast my whole life, & yet I have always wondered: given the right set of circumstances, would I become susceptible to being led? Could my refusal to "go along with the crowd" be manipulated in and of itself? I remember when I was about 15. An "in-service day" at school. A bunch of friends and I went to the King of Prussia Mall (the 70s). I've never liked shopping or consumerist crapola, so I was surprised when I found this cool vinylish see-through windbreaker. Grabbed one in blue. Immediately the others grabbed one in blue for themselves, too. I waited until they checked out and went back to the rack and got a red one. Even though I wanted blue. So, is non-conforming really just another way of conforming? And so can be exploited the same way? Just opposite polarities on the same yin/yang scale, so to speak. I still lose interest in most things once everyone "discovers" them. *sigh*

Robert C said...

Ah yes ... the old "group think" concept. There's certainly a lot of that in the MF and even in the recent elections. It could explain in part how ballerinas and boy scouts can become cold blooded killers. Goebbels set the standard for modern propaganda. All politicians know the masses are fickle. The ancient Roman rulers and Senators knew this as well. Chuck inadvertently learned his craft in prison, realized his power of influence on the outside with the disaffected young'uns, and gradually began to exercise that power eventually to his detriment (and many others).

St Circumstance said...

Of course everyone has their own opinions and agendas. But to me, what happened here is crystal clear. Read all the testimony of the family and those immediately around them about the murders. Consider human psychology and nature. Listen to Charlie in his own words when he goes on a rant and forgets to think about what he's saying and says what he thinks...

How in he world can some make an argument that Linda or Tex were the masterminds? Or that the girls came up with plan to "get a brother out of jail"?

Comeon man lol

Charlie and Charlie alone was calling the shots at those ranches. PERIOD! You may know more than I about why he decided it was time to start killing people, but if you honestly believe that anyone other than Charlie made those type of decisions, then you probably would have been one of those right next to him sitting by the fire. You are exactly the type of person who gets caught up in a mess like this. Frankly, Gullible and easily willing to bend facts in your mind to rationalize a belief you have, and want to be right so badly you will ignore evidence to the contrary.

And that is ok with me too.... just don't kill anyone, or me, please- its the Holidays

:)


You know I was a Peyton Manning fan for the longest time. I watched every single game he ever played in college and pros from U Tennessee to the Super Bowl win in Denver. Every single game. I quit gambling on sports 7 years ago over him. I loved that guy more than any athlete I ever followed and suffered so many times at the hand of Tom Brady you wouldn't believe it...

Then I read about the HGH stuff. He didn't get caught or in trouble, he covered his tracks well- but I KNOW he did it. Never felt the same again nor will I. He cheated. Broke my heart the moment I understood what he did, but it just wont be the same again. Would never watch another minute if he played one.

I have a friend down the street who was a huge Lance Armstrong fan. Wouldn't believe the guy doped no matter how much evidence came out. Witness after witness came forward and he stood firm and actually pointed out the issues Armstrong's accusers had, instead of listening and weighing the value of what the witness' were saying. Not until Armstrong himself finally admitted he doped would this guy admit he was wrong- and even then, you know what he said? "it isn't fair Lance got caught, they went after him more than they normally do to other people"...


I guess some people just think different.


Cielodrive.com said...

Many of my favorite sports heroes have been caught cheating. But my take on it is different than yours St. Basically, I just assumed they were cheating before they got caught. There's too much money involved in sports not to cut corners. I always take the players side when it comes to this. I see why they do it and it makes sense to me. When someone gets caught everyone - team ownership, the league, the press, and the fans - get self righteous. To that I say, give me a break. We are all complicit in this. As fans we turn a blind eye because the results of cheating is so enjoyable for us. This is no different for the press and everyone else. The biggest winner are the league and team ownership as the reap the biggest share of the revenue it generates. Meanwhile, we dumb fans are supposed to believe the league wants to police cheating out of the game. What fools are we? Is it just me, or does it seem like they only catch guys when they're careers are just about done, after they milked them for all of the long term marketing value.

St Circumstance said...

I did not assume Peyton was cheating. I just thought he was smarter and trained harder and prepared better than the others...

But maybe you are right and I am naive. Maybe these days they all do it. But god that depresses me lol

You make some very good and fair points Cielo

Dreath said...

Saint,

Great post.

I thought you might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9jRDHGabp8


grimtraveller said...

Cielodrive.com said...

Many of my favorite sports heroes have been caught cheating

I once felt a bit like St when it came to live albums. I remember at 18 or 19 being almost mortified to read that Thin Lizzy's "Live and dangerous" was more or less recorded in the studio except for the drums. Now I don't care. Possibly most live rock and pop albums are touched up in the studio, if not majorly overhauled. I just enjoy them for what they are.
I stopped looking up to human beings and expecting/demanding some kind of saintly or knowingbehaviour so long ago that I can't even remember when it was. Like Trilby, I've long ploughed my own furrow but not to the extent that I won't take on board what another person says.
It's easy to comment on the Family members and conclude that things are as simple as "they knew exactly what they were doing and could have baled at any point" but for me, life is rarely that simple. I've said this for a long time ~ it's paradoxical because on one level, it's true ~ they could have. But on another level, they were well held, like lots of other people in a variety of life's situations that appear straightforward to those not ensconced in them.

St Circumstance said...

Interesting Dreath.. Thanks! Its some of the same stuff. That must be the original source of the pieces of a couple of quotes I used. I found them on an older website, but only fragments were there - but that is even better :)


Hello Grim... I personally do not think that it was as easy as them knowing exactly what they were doing and being able to bail at any point.

But they should have known it was time to bail at SOME point. NO?

And when the instructions go from "Have sex with him" to "Jump in the garbage and take food" to "Sneak in the house and move things around" to "Get a knife and change of clothes"...

you have to start to ask yourself at what point do I need to stop doing what everyone else is doing and think about doing what is right?

Where is that line? That was sort of my point... Also to show again why I think it is very obvious Charles was in Charge. If it gave the impression that it should have been easy- it was not my intention. Lots of evidence that its hard to walk alone for most people. But when it comes to what they did....

a little too far to go to toe the line right?

Dreath said...

I thought this was interesting too.

http://www.commdiginews.com/health-science/charles-manson-v-tex-watson-the-line-between-sociopathic-and-psychopathic-behaviours-29993/

I for one find Watson's volunteer position disconcerting.

St Circumstance said...

Dreath I read that article and one thing stood out to me like a big sore thumb lol:


"As for Watson’s secret: Watson claims Manson wanted to start a race war by committing horrific crimes. He says the Tate house was not gruesome enough to make Manson happy, so Manson personally came to the scene after all was done and hung Sharon Tate from a rafter for effect.

This factoid is not in any books or articles or any other known reporting of the event."



Where did this come from? I have never seen nor heard any proof of this?????

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

But they should have known it was time to bail at SOME point. NO?
you have to start to ask yourself at what point do I need to stop doing what everyone else is doing and think about doing what is right?


Such is the power and the downside of belief. Every one of the TLB killers has stated in retrospect that at some point, they had some kind of misgiving about what they were doing during the murders. I believe them. However, they also believed in Charlie and they also believed in the mores of the counterculture {as did many thousands, if not a few million, of others}. Virtually every one of the Family, even Barbara Hoyt and Stephanie Schram {maybe especially Barbara Hoyt and Stephanie Schram}, were on a trajectory away from much of what their natural families stood for and that they had been brought up with. Others like them found direction in Haight Ashbury and the Hippie dream, others found it in mind expanding drugs, others in gurus and "alternative" religions and philosophies. David Williams in his book "Searching for God in the 60s" kind of hints very strongly that the mind of many soldiers in Vietnam was very much on the same plane as that of those caught up in the counterculture and it has become fairly well known the kind of things that soldiers did out there.....much of which stemmed from their belief that they were right and in pursuit of some type of good.
It's a heady cocktail.

Where is that line?

Blurred to the point of no longer mattering whether there is one any more.
On the subject of blurred lines, here is a kind of interesting piece.
I think that there was just so much going on in Charlie's scenario that those points at which the killers' misgivings reared their heads couldn't stand up to having been disarmed in the way they had been. It could have been done without drugs as Jonestown and IS indicate, but throwing in that element makes the process pretty ferocious. There are however, a number of drugless ways of blurring lines and as maybe even Brexit & the recent American election have demonstrated, people can take on board behaviour or philosophies that they wouldn't accept if they were on the receiving end, if they feel that they can ultimately gain from them.

Dreath said...

Saint,

I saw that too. I'm going to see if I can contact the author.

St Circumstance said...

That would be a piece of news lol Dreath...

I read that piece when you wrote it Grim and it is very interesting and well written my man!!

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I think it is very obvious Charles was in Charge

So do I.
I go out of my way to put to one side the words of people that were not his supporters and concentrate on those of people that were or are, even if they eventually turned against him. And it's actually his own words and those of his upholders that confirm and strengthen that view. I studied very carefully the things that he said in George's book and while I fully accept that there were many situations in his life where he wasn't in control or was pushed about, even circa '67~'69, the Family was not one of them.
I can see him getting shoved about by cops. I can see him getting used as a shuttlecock in jail. But not by those youngsters that went on to comprise his friendship group.
He was the traffic warden supreme !

Dreath said...

Mr. Paul Mountjoy wrote this too:

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/conversations-with-charles-manson-4041/

Which includes these quotes:

"In fact, during one conversation Manson claimed he went back to the murder scene at the Tate home and hung Sharon Tate over a rafter for effect. He also claims he was upset the bloodshed was inadequate for his purpose, which was to commit horrific murders and blame it on the blacks of the area."

[Which contradicts that it was Watson's 'secret'.]

"An original eco-terrorist, in the 1960s Manson had presidents and corporate CEOs that were not eco-friendly beat up."

Ok.........

It also appears he actually has already made an appearance here in 2013 and posted the same claim at the bottom there to resounding silence:

http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/03/mountjoy-writes-about-tex-watson.html

And based upon the comments I would say we might be able to ignore his contributions.

He passed away in August:

http://journalpress.com/westmoreland/5039-paul-mountjoy-well-known-westmoreland-journalist-dies

ColScott said...

St


While your Freshman Psych post is well organized, extremely well researched and decently written, it falls apart because you knowingly and very manipulatively score over the facts.

Sheep can be led to agree to the length of a line and to "fit in" by going along with the crowd and dive for food in a dumpster or vote for a racist for President.

You completely have divorced your argument though from the reality of the times and the facts as we know them.

And assuming, arguendo, that Charlie was the "leader" of the Family he was the leader in the same way that hundreds of other communes at the time had leaders. SOMEONE had to make sure the rent got paid (George handjobs)and the dinner cooked and the kids kept safe. Did the power go to his head and he tried to see what he could get away with? Of course it is a story as old as Rome.

But Bobby, Bruce, Tex, Sadie in fact ALL of them came and went as they wished. There was no control over them. They wanted to fit into the group on their terms. No one made them do shit.

The facts as we have them make it CRYSTAL clear in fact that NONE of them ever claimed Charlie told them to kill a single person.

I think your argument is better used to point out that those who were the MOST guilty committed murder to try to "make it up" to the group. Bobby with the Satans drug burn, Tex with Crowe and Sadie with the nightclub. But even so this wasn't a group think, this was a makeup for their fuck ups.

Spahn Ranch was for a short while an idyllic place with all the pot and pussy you could want. Hell remember Little Paul even left when pressed and then CAME BACK to take it over himself.

It is an erroneous to equate wanting to please the teacher with a series of cue cards with killing strangers you never met that no one told you to kill.

There is a motive for TLB but I fear with every passing day it is slipping away.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Col and I agree that nobody made them do shit, and as well that Charlie may not have specifically told them to Kill any individual directly.

But I do think that those killings happened for a reason that Charlie formed and instigated and I do think they were committed by people who were doing it to please Charlie. Now why Charlie wanted it done may not have been to spark H/S, but....

if you are saying that Tex, Katie and Sadie or even Bobby went and did this totally for their own reasons without any prodding or instigation from Charlie- we have to respectfully disagree.

Also- the one thing I would also add is that from much of what I have read it was Charlie directly who wanted Shorty dead- but again- I dont really know if it is provable he ever looked right at one individual and said you go kill this person or that one. If he ever did- it would have been Shorty though I would think.

But I concede that you know far more on the subject than I do, so I could well be wrong :) That is just my gut mixed with what I have read and seen.

ColScott said...

1- It MITIGATES their responsibility to say CHARLIE ORDERED or MADE M. Yet none of them did at least at the time.

2- Ref to Paragraph 3- I am saying they did it for their own reasons without prodding or instigation from Charlie BUT To impress Charlie.

Case in point. BB calls Charlie for help getting Gary's cash. Charlie comes and cuts Gary. Tells Bobby to be a man. Does this mean kill him? Or kick his ass and get his money?

When Charlie heard BB killed Gary do you think he was surprised?

St Circumstance said...

At the time they were all trying to get Charlie off.... Except Tex when he was tried separately - and he absolutely said charlie ordered it - no?

And I absolutely do NOT believe Charlie was surprised when he heard Bobby had killed Gary. I believe that Charlie left Gary's knowing Gary was hurt badly and wasn't cooperating. He couldn't have been that surprised how it turned out- could he? He was there and cut the guys face personally. Left someone else to clean up the mess. I would think he felt relief that the problem got solved, not surprised they didn't let him go or trust him not to narc.

I also have heard everyone who went on those nights testify that Charlie told the girls to go with Tex and do whatever he said. I have heard Tex testify that Charlie told him to go up to the old Melcher place and make it real messy or gruesome or whatever the quote was. " Get a knife and a change of clothes" Multiple people have testified that he said that.

He personally picked the place the second night.

I dont want to get my ass handed to me in a debate with you about this subject lol- but this is how I think about tbis - am I wrong?



St Circumstance said...

Before I get ripped to shreds lol.. let me ask you to all to consider one quote :


"The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."


So if intelligent well meaning young people are willing to do that...


What about a group of mostly uneducated, hungry, drugged out, angry young people who have been fed a steady diet of rhetoric and stories about violence? The neglected and forgotten ones.

The ones who don't mean well... What would they do to fit in? What- or who- guides their conduct? And then you have to ask yourself who sets the bar? Who/what decides what "Fitting in" involves?

All leads back to one place for me...

Ok now let me have it lol

grimtraveller said...

Dreath said...

Which contradicts that it was Watson's 'secret'

Ed Sanders in his book says that he personally asked Charlie if he'd been to Cielo after the murders and Charlie replied to him through one of the lawyers that he did go and then comes the famous phrase about "to see what my children did." Sanders' book is as old as the hills so it's hardly Watson's secret.
Watson said in "Right hand man speaks out" that he believes Charlie went back to the Cielo scene with one other person. But he doesn't know for sure. Like much of his detail of that period, he regurgitates what is already out there in other books and documents, things he's heard.
George in his book is adamant that Charlie never went to Cielo that night although the cynical could conclude that as he supposedly openly admits it in Nuel Emmons' book and George displays nothing but contempt for said book, George might do much to distance Charlie from any Cielo connection. However, it might also be true.
So really, Ed Sanders is the real source of this and he says he got it from Charlie through one of the lawyers.

And based upon the comments I would say we might be able to ignore his contributions

I think some of them definitely can be filed under "forgettable."


Manson Mythos said...

I remember growing up as a kid, two friends of mine got stopped by police and one had some weed on him. It was his, obtained by him for his own personal use. But he told the cops it wasn't and that is belonged to one of the older kids he was just hanging out with. He talked into "holding" it for him at his house. The other kid, overheard him tell the cops this.

I've been situations where a group of kids got busted doing things. The kid with the slightly bad rep was always fingered at the ringleader, even if he had nothing to do with anything.

Throw police, the media (who have been fully exposed after this current election), ambitious District attorneys, people with their own skeletons in their closet, lawyers who want their names in the paper and criminals looking to shed responsibility.

Look at Trump. I've heard gay people say he is looking to bring back shock therapy for homosexuals. I've heard black people express fear lynching was returning to America. I'm heard one native American express fear he was going to "kick them out", because that is what he "heard". Women think universities are going to suddenly stop accepting them and there is an epidemic of staged fake crime hoaxes of wrongly drawn swastikas turning up in oddly predominately black areas.

We live in an age of hyperbolt and lies where a tiny bit of hearsay can blossom into accepted fact.

This is mental masturbation over bullshit.

Dreath said...

Grim,

The Charlie's return scenario always fell apart for me with the glasses. 'We used them to start fires'. Wrong prescription.

Dreath said...

MM said: "This is mental masturbation over bullshit."

Now that's a nice respectful comment.

St Circumstance said...

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

said the sheep lol

Its o.k. I totally understand. There are some out there who just wont get it. Not cant. Wont. There is a difference. At least to me.

" Throw police, the media (who have been fully exposed after this current election), ambitious District attorneys, people with their own skeletons in their closet, lawyers who want their names in the paper and criminals looking to shed responsibility."


This answers my post in which way?? I used quotes and studies done by people far more respected than myself. I used quotes from Charlie and the actual people who were with him....

The media, the DA and the people who have their own secrets and the lawyers didn't say Charlie was the boss. The people who lived with him did. Everyone else is to blame. Charlie was happy go lucky guitar player having sex and smoking weed while everyone around him planned the murders to his surprise.

Are you serious? Really?

Dreath said...

Saint, I am not going to let you have it.

I agree with parts of your analysis. I disagree Manson is a ‘simple’ narcissist but in this layman’s opinion he did have an Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Sociopath/Psychopath). If the ‘flock’ was insecure, perhaps even narcissistic the ASPD is the perfect ‘predator’.

The ASPD too craves attention- good or bad. The ASPD will tell his target that black is white especially if the target is prone to suffering psychologically/emotionally from rejection or abandonment. No sense will make sense if the ASPD says so.

I think part of what you are running into is that you are treading on the sacred cow: motive.

One camp that consists of a variety of theories usually rejects Manson’s control over anyone and, in some cases, even rejects his knowledge or involvement in the crimes at all.

The other camp relies upon a motive that strikes all of us on one level or another as unbelievable at least in the sense of ‘could anyone have really believed that?’ or ‘could anyone have really killed someone because of that?’ This problem helped spawn the first camp.

The first camp in some cases is going to reject any notion of Manson ‘command and control’ and argue that Manson never directly ordered anyone to kill anyone because in several cases it messes with their motive. The second camp is going to be more receptive to ‘command and control’. I’m in this camp and I see it this way….

Take your ‘group think’ concept. Sprinkle in Grim’s post from that other site (up above- very good post by the way) and add a bunch of seriously insecure (perhaps narcissistic) kids. Add a dash of the counter-culture movement and the divisions in the country in 1967-9. Add any ASPD’s uncanny ability to see the insecurities of others and his willingness to exploit them for his own ends and indeed it is a good stew.

You don’t need a direct order: “Go kill everyone at Cielo Drive”. You need a common understanding. For me Van Houten provides some good evidence it existed, here: http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/leslie-van-houten-interviewed-by-marvin-part/ .

Listen to the part where Van Houten talks about the need to murder to start the race war. I believe it is response to the question from her lawyer ‘but why the killing?’. It needed to be done.

Where did that come from? She made it up? Did she then coordinate the story with Watkins, Poston et al? If she believed it that strongly where did that belief originate? Clem? Her 9th grade civics class? How did she get the idea they had to kill to make it happen? Maybe they all got together around some dumpster turkey and dressing over Thanksgiving ’69 and said “we need a fake motive for these murders, wait, I got it, it was to start a race war”? Who did plant that seed in Van Houten's brain? Kasabian? Bugliosi? Or someone else.

St Circumstance said...

Here are my questions- what is there more proof of? Why would Bugs need to lie?

It just so happens that everything Bugs said is backed up by testimony and/or physical evidence. I did a post on this before you came along- its back there somewhere. There are certainly many holes in H/S and many questions. But there is also some actual physical, and testimonial evidence to support it. There is not nearly as much to support any other motive. Not even close. Bugs had a once in a life time case and the defendants played exactly to his story. They acted out exactly what he said. He could have said Charlie ordered the crimes for any of those other reasons. They would have behaved the ame way in court and he still would have shown Charlie was the boss...

Just maybe that's because Charlie was the boss?

He was going to win and write a book no matter what the reason for the crimes. The defendants didn't even try to get off. It was the crimes that shocked everyone shitless. Nobody cared why they were done before they knew.... He had no reason to invent a motive...

just maybe that was the motive??

All I am saying is that we should be to clever. It is possible we already know the truth and just refuse to believe it.

possible...

St Circumstance said...

shouldn't be too clever lol- sometimes better not to overthink things...

after all- no sense makes sense right?

:)

Manson Mythos said...

The people who lived with him did....after law enforcement, lawyers, the media and the district attorney talked to them. Of course Watson would parrot the official narrative while on the stand and pleading not guilty since it opened the door to a diminished capacity defense.

You buy yellow journalism and take the word of people looking to throw responsibility off their back at face value, but somehow we're sheep.

Your critical thinking skills are that of a fruit fly.

St Circumstance said...

Maybe lol I have to admit- I really only do this when I am buzzed so my critical thinking skills don't really exist. and I don't really think you are a sheep.

I also am predisposed to believe that Charlie is a bad guy based on how I was raised and what I have read and believe to be true.

I am willing to consider I may be wrong :)

Dreath said...

Saint said: "There are certainly many holes in H/S and many questions. But there is also some actual physical, and testimonial evidence to support it. There is not nearly as much to support any other motive. Not even close."

I believe you are absolutely correct. And frankly I can not understand how someone looks at all the evidence (as it was presented) and reaches any other conclusion unless they start with their conclusion and then find the evidence to support it.

I won't go there but I actually started out anti-HS and just couldn't stay there.

I don't mean to lead to the conclusion Bugliosi lied: I don't believe that. I do think the evidence is suspect. That is why I keep doing my posts on that and have more.

Manson was the 'boss'. He even says so in those vids. There are so many witnesses you have to say 'they all lied' to reach any other conclusion.


St Circumstance said...

Dreath if I could buy you any beer you like more than Coors-light- I would lol

Bugs was most likely full of shit to some extent. He probably stretched things a few times and manipulated a few things to his favor...

But he had this thrown in his lap and if any one of us was in his position to both serve the public interest and cash in we so surely would.

He didn't need to invent a single thing. This was one of the most fantastic tragedy/horror stories to have ever occurred...

Dreath said...

Saint said: "Dreath if I could buy you any beer you like more than Coors-light- I would lol"

I know you are in Florida somewhere....Ft. Lauderdale if memory serves.....if I get that way I will let you buy me a beer, even a Coors Light.

I don't understand this kind ion comment: "Your critical thinking skills are that of a fruit fly."

I have to assume some people don't understand the amount of time involved in posting something with quotes like this (or don't care). 'Yes' the poster can be wrong- I think Cielo Drive has pointed that out to me multiple times if not Grim if not you, Saint, if not Deb, Matt, Patty, Ann, Starviego, Ziggy, if not.... whomever I forgot....

And 'yes', we should disagree- that inspires research, discussion and thought. Critical analysis is how scientific research progresses.

But I'm not sure what result we get from this kind of comment. Perhaps MM you could explain that to me?

Perhaps, MM, instead of calling someone's critical thinking that of a fruit fly or his post BS you could just leave that part off as it adds nothing to the discussion- it is sort of like claiming 'millions' of illegal voters, voted after you won. Thank you.

St Circumstance said...

I wonder how much critical thinking it takes to just agree with everything Charlie says?

Im serious... All joking aside.

I do not know what the real motive was. I am willing to consider that H/S was, and that it was not. I look at all the evidence and conclude maybe.I read all the testimony, and all of the eyewitness accounts and listen to the witness's and look at the physical evidence to form my opinions. Still I make sure to point out these are my opinions and ideas based on what I have read, studied and listened to...

Charlie speaks and its absolute. That is the other side. Everything he says is true and right and every wrong he has done is understood and justifiable.

Honestly- who lacks the ability to think critically and fairly?


The only reason I brought up the Peyton Manning analogy was to show that even in the most personal of cases- I can be honest with myself. If I am wrong about something or someone- I can admit it to myself and move on. I can find another football player to cheer for. I don't have to be so insistent on one person's greatness that I ignore his flaws. I never assume anything just because everyone else says so- which is why I am one of the last ones to still take a beating for defending the possibility that H/S really is the real motive.

But to just champion a person at any cost and not be willing to admit they did anything wrong or take any blame in any way for a situation they were right in the middle of....

well you tell me who lacks critical thinking...

But again- I am really high, so I am not really in the mood to any thinking at all

:)

starviego said...


The evidence strongly suggests that, in the case of the murder of Hinman, Manson did indeed order one of his followers to kill:

http://www.lsb3.com/search/label/Gary%20Hinman%20Documents
"And then Mr. Manson stated, 'Sure, I went to Hinman's house and got the gun and sliced his ear. I don't deny that. I told Bobby [Beausoleil] how to stand up like a man. He had a woman's thoughts. I told him what to do -- no. [Interruption] ...
"Uh -- 'I told him what to do. Hinman deserved to die. He was selling bad dope.'..."
Whiteley's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Officer Clifford Patrick Blackburn who overheard the counsel table conversation between Manson and Whiteley except that Blackburn testified that Manson said: "... I held the gun on him, and -- I told Bobby ... [Bobby Beausoleil] -- to kill him. And I even showed him how to do it." ... it wasn't really a conversation. ... Manson did all the talking.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140209204015/http://truthontatelabianca.com/threads/true-detective-1970.2881/
..Beausoleil said he found it necessary to call Manson a second time and it was at this time that said Manson told him "You know what to do--kill him."

starviego said...


Tex a victim of MK-Ultra?

Though almost everyone agrees that CM was doing a brainwashing number on his followers, there might be reason to believe that some were in fact victims of the much more serious Mk Ultra style of mind control, something far beyond what Manson would have able to deliver.

http://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-trial-09-01-71-am.php#dln
DAVID LYNN NEALE (Watson's friend from TX, and LA roommate)
Q: And had you noticed any change about Charles Watson at that time when you visited him at the Spahn Ranch?
A: ... -- he was beginning to have an absence of emotion. He had a very blank look on his face.
... he had a stare, absence of emotion almost.

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/watson-admits-slayings-denies-stabbing-sharon-tate/
All I know is I could see and hear Charlie’s voice saying ‘Kill everyone in the place’,” he said.
“Did he take any form or shape?” Bubrick asked.
“Kind of a mass. I felt like I was in a dream, half awake, half not,” Watson answered.

The absence of any emotion and the inability to distinguish between reality and dreaming are highly suggestive of this type of programming. And if this was really going on, then it means that the killers are not as culpable for the crimes as we have come to believe.


/

Cielodrive.com said...

Starviego, here is the transcript of the exchange you mentioned from People V. Manson.

starviego said...

Thank you Cielo! You the man.

lurch said...

I think Tex's vacant stare and lack of emotion had more to do with his heavy drug use than any MK-ULTRA, government sponsered program.

Most who knew him at the time have commented on the change in Tex's personality after he moved to California and started using drugs. And after his overdose on Belladonna in April(?) of '69, even those in the Family have said he was never the same, and it was hard to tell if he was high or not!

Was Watson part of an MK-ULTRA plot to discredit the counter-counter? Since I can't say for sure......maybe.

But for my money, that dog just don't hunt!

MHN said...

None of them had any choice.
Neither do we.
It's a religious myth.
The brain can be observed making decisions before 'we' become aware of them.
There is a stream of information and processing that is identified as the self, as 'me'.
We do not author our thoughts, we merely experience them, and claim them as our own.
Infinite regress: how do you make yourself think a particular thought? Do you first think about having it? Then how did you make, or will yourself, to have that first thought? At some point an initial thought has to *just happen* beyond your control. You cannot and do not control your thoughts or your decisions. They happen, you observe, and for the sake of organisation and sanity you call them yours.

Either there is no sin, no right and wrong, or right and wrong are pre-written and all of human life scripted in advance.

None of these mammals had any free will, any choice. None of us do.

St Circumstance said...

I coach basketball for kids. I have no kids of my own. I play in the mens league and the president of the local youth rec league is on my team. He told me that over 700 kids signed up this fall and they didn't have enough volunteers so some of the kids weren't going to get to play. I told him I would take a team ad wound up with 3.

my boys 14 to 16 year old team is made up of all the kids none of the other coaches wanted. They all took their own kids and their kids friends. I got what was left. I usually have to pick up a group of 4 of them from a shitty apartment complex.

they are poor and have no parents and really don't have much positive going on in their life's right now...

A few weeks agp when I got to the place I pick them up. Only one of them was sitting there. I asked where the other three were and he told me an older cousin came along and told them he was going to "get some money" and asked if the wanted to go with him. When they asked the older cousin how he was going to get it, he told them "shut up and dont worry about it. If you want some cash then follow me".

I shook my head and asked him why he didn't go with the rest of them?

"Someday I want to be in the pros coach and I don't want to get in any trouble"



MHN said...

You're slightly misunderstanding, Saint. It's not that nobody can say no to bad choices, it's that nobody actually *makes* such a decision. The decision gets made unconsciously in the brain, the brain informs the stream of information that forms the illusion of the self, and the self tells itself it has made a decision.

And that is not merely semantics, that is neurological science.

Mr. Humphrat said...

MHN I refuse to believe I am a mammal.

St Circumstance said...

Its above my paygrade lol but I will take your word for it :)

ColScott said...

ST

I haven't been able to read/reply because I have an actual life. But your comment "Why would Bug lie" boggles the mind. You claimed to have followedmy ONLY Official TLB blog back in the day- do you know how many posts we did on this subject?

Bug lied. The main reason was to make him look better. But the fact is he lied. Indeed he committed perjury in a capital case, in itself a death penalty offense.

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

Specifically- When I asked in that case why would Bugs lie:

If Bugs had said the motive was anything else- I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the verdict.

I simply just wondered why he had to make up any motive when the defendants were playing around and not trying at all to get off...

The only thing he needed to prove in Charlies case was that he was calling the shots and giving the orders. Charlie and the others did nothing in court to convince anyone otherwise. As far as the verdicts- I don't see why he needed to make up a motive.

Its just a question I have- perhaps there is a very good answer?

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

I dont want to debate now about motive or Bugs. I dont know half what you do Col :)


But...

Putting speculation and theories aside. Stopping the blaming of BUGS, the lawyers, judges, or anyone else who didnt kill anyone.

Whatever the reason-

why couldn't these kids realize they were going too far in the name of "The Family" or love for Charlie?

I would personally prefer to understand more how these kids could go so far to hurt others in the name of pleasing an older con man- than I am in knowing why the con man wanted them to hurt anyone. Charlie was a bad guy. He has all kinds of bad ideas. Maybe we never find out why this idea was put in motion...

But How Tex and Katie became cold blooded killers at his bidding is fascinating.

Putting it another way:

If Susan had gone to South America to get Charlie a coconut that one time- would you be more interested to know why Charlie felt like eating Coconut- or that Susan walked a 1,000 miles to get him one?

:)

Dreath said...

Saint said: "I would personally prefer to understand more how these kids could go so far to hurt others in the name of pleasing an older con man- than I am in knowing why the con man wanted them to hurt anyone."

I don't think there is a simple answer. I think Manson's preaching HS played a role. I think the isolation by Manson and 'programming' played a role. I think the times played a role and LSD. But mostly I think the answer lies in the individuals.

Ella Jo Bailey ran. Atkins went to Hinman's. Atkins is a sociopath. Bailey is not. Van Houten went all in loopy on HS. Atkins never bought it. Both willingly got in that car. I think it's a case by case type of thing. I think perhaps the way to see it might be to figure out why some didn't kill. Bailey was there a long time and so was Watkins but both lit out when things got too weird.

PS: Perjury isn't that simple. The lie has to be material to the case. If you lie under oath and say you have 5 kids and you only have 3 but the issue is whether you stole $100 from a wallet it's not perjury. If it is in claiming an exemption on your taxes, it is. Perjury only becomes a capital offense in California if it is material to a wrongful execution.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Dreath, but you might want to move out of the way lol

I feel like a colossal Col ass whipping is coming to me and you probably dont want to get in the way of that :)

It is fair that both Col and Leary point out my lower level of education every time I write a post. Sophmoric term paper, freshman Psych report- high school book report.

Its all good. I am not as educated as they are ( or you are for that matter lol) and I do try to come across as the smartest guy in the room sometimes- which I am certainly not. I need to be reminded from time to time.

Col does that as well as anybody :)


But I am smart enough to see the patterns and understand something really strange was going on there. So I read and I study what I can find and it tells me that...

Charlie was able to push these people (Some- not all) to incredibly heinous things. I am not very intelligent about this stuff- but it does interest me to understand how people could go so far.

If I watch someone walk over and punch someone in the face- I ask why did you do that?

If I see someone walk over and stab someone 40 times and then write in their blood I ask HOW could you do that?

I think you are right Dreath- that answer in each case lies with the individual which makes it even more interesting to me as they all conform the same way- but all for different reasons....

I think lol

ColScott said...

Sigh you couldn't just search the only OFFICIAL TLB Blog?

Short answer to why lie-


There is NO other motive other than fantasy that gets Charlie locked up. NONE.

Bug has the actual killers- confessions, testimony, forensic evidence. They are all DONE.

But if he can get Charlie and make him out to be a fucking demon then BUG becomes the Demon slayer. It is all George and the Dragon shit.

Drugs- sure but Charlie didn't kill anyone
Payback- sure but Charlie didn't kill anyone
Robbery- sure but Charlie didn't kill anyone

Black White Civil War wherein Charlie used programming and MADE these kids kill strangers? This makes him a Demon. Bug gets a Demon down and all the glory.

Remember- Stovitz et al expected Charlie to walk. Everyone did. Because they had the killers and he didn't kill anyone. Bug wanted Charlie. He lied and told the big lie to get him.


Charlie maybe liked Hitler's philosophy I dunno. Telling Hitler's big lie is what BUG did.

ColScott said...

St

I have no desire to smack you down and you are not ignorant. I met you twice and liked you both times.

The issue with you is that you think "straight" and do not seem to impart actual evil motives to people in authority.

BUG was a mailman stalking, mistress whipping, lying nutjob. Unlike what you wrote above his plans for a book came ONLY after he was exposed and outed as a loon and lose the DA election. They did him a HUGE favor actually.

I don't know how you voted, but again people thought TRUMP was on their side. The only way you get that rich is by being a psycho crook- the only way. You can be a lovely psycho crook but you cannot amass that much wealth without being a crook. His fans are now seeing that he is not draining the swamp he is filling it.

Sometimes Shit just happened. 48 hours later and Sharon Tate would have never been killed. I believe this 100%

Dreath said...

Col said: "Drugs- sure but Charlie didn't kill anyone ***"

He doesn't have to kill anyone to be where he is today.

You may not like the laws, lawyers, judges, juries but unless you have some pretty good evidence Manson never got in that car the second night the moment he did a DA straight out of law school could have put him away. Now, if you have that evidence that's something I'd love to see.


St Circumstance said...

I actually went to a Hillary rally lol I think if this was a political blog the Blind Sheep title would be more appropriate about Trump Supporters...

But I can only debate one topic with this many people at a time :)


Col- I think you are right about my thinking and maybe Mythos was as well. I sort of make my mind up and then only look for things that fit in with that. I do write posts that way as I am not a professional writer but want to be interesting.

As far as H/S being the "Big Lie" ...

You know twice as much as I do about this and everything you say makes sense...

But I still have questions and just cant be a sheep

:)


penny lane said...

Well...who left the gate open ? Cranky pants got in..:)and St I really like your posts..:)

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Penny, Trilby and everyone as always for the very comments and participation :)

ColScott said...

Dreath

I usually ignore you because it isn't worth the effort.

For the avoidance of doubt Charlie was not convicted for being in a car. He was convicted for 9 counts of first degree murder under the theory that he was responsible for coordinating the attacks.

Under your theory Clem should be in jail for getting in the car the second night.

Please if you must sow dis information do it at your usual Birther sites

St Circumstance said...

Ya know Clem is really interesting when talking about the Psychology of the Family. Everyone -even a judge thought he had mental challenges. Yet he wound up having a totally productive and even mildly successful life from what I have seen/read. I have seen pictures of him performing with bob Weir and Steve Miller, and know he used to tour with a modestly well known band.

It is also interesting that the one who should have been viewed as potentially the most dangerous ( if they really believed he had mental problems) was the one who was able to skate the most on both charges and eventual sentences...

Dreath said...

Col Scott,

You are right, that comment was misleading because I didn't try to explain how conspiracy to commit murder works and all that. I should have done that or not placed that comment. For that I apologize to all.

I agree with you if someone is going to make a comment like that I think they really need to explain it and, of course, get it right otherwise they could leave everyone with the impression, for example, that if you lie on the witness stand during a murder trial you too will get executed and that would be misleading.

Now, as for this comment: "Please if you must sow dis information do it at your usual Birther sites"

You must have me confused with someone else. I did everything I could to help get President Obama elected in 2008 and in 2012. You might want to check your facts before you comment.

ziggyosterberg said...


St Circumstance coaching a kids basketball team?

Anyone else picturing Walter Matthau in "The Bad News Bears"?

"The Bad News Bears" meets "The White Shadow".

penny lane said...

lol Ziggy ! I was going to make an off colour Pedo joke but contained myself ..Good on ya St !

penny lane said...

ST ,I too find Clem a mystery and I would love to inside story on ..does anyone know if his family had money or friends in high places ? why wasnt he tared with the Manson brush ?..i can feel a conspiracy theory coming on !

Matt said...

Clem grew up in a working class family close to Spahn Ranch. Seems the courts viewed him as stuipiding his way into prison. When the opportunity came to cut a deal, he jumped on it. Can't say I blame him. Robert Hendrickson said here more than once that he perceived Grogan as being quite bright.


St Circumstance said...

Funny you should mention that movie lol. It was partially filmed in Chatsworth at mason park right down the street from Where Spahn Ranch is. In the opening scene you can see the Santa Susana mountains in background when Walter pulls into field. It's my first favorite movie and I went to the field the last time I was in the area. It meant just as much to me as seeing Spahn. Like Spahn it is basically no longer in use but you could still tell it's a baseball field.

St Circumstance said...

White shadow lol. Holy shi...

Lol. I remember that show. A cross between those two guys is actually a good call lol

St Circumstance said...

Notice in this piece of Testimony Clem starts to say he was "Under the impression" before he gives his reasons why Shorty was killed- and then changes to make it sound like he is simply telling his own idea.

Who do you think gave Clem and the others this impression?



INMATE GROGAN: "I was under the – because Mr. Shea had told the police that we had a stolen car ring. Okay? Well, we spent three days in jail, and we were released. And we didn’t get back none of our property. The pink slips were confiscated – along with our property – to four or five dune buggies that we couldn’t get back from them: the children put into foster homes. And what it really did is made everybody really upset at this guy, because I was led to believe that he was doing it to get us evicted off the ranch, to get us thrown off the ranch. And that was the only place we had to stay at the time. And it was through his actions that he caused us this trouble. I think it’s – you know – excuse me. It goes – you know, it goes – it’s kind of hard for me to talk about this because there are a lot of emotions that I have experienced, guilt and stuff, you know, what I did. But there was, you know, a feeling almost of hatred toward the guy because of what he made us go through, the children and stuff. Like we had held the children in really almost the highest position. They were home delivered and breast fed. It was like – our feeling for the children was really the highest thing we felt. This was mostly the whole reason we was all together, to put the children in a good environment, free from social indoctrinations and stuff, try to raise them as natural as we could. And then to have someone come along and form a false story and have them put in foster homes, it was really a blow to the women and men that were at the place at the time."



He doesn't sound retarded,crazy, or unlike any of the other if you ask me. But still all of those people family and authority saw something in him....

St Circumstance said...

And if life is not ironic enough for you lol

Today Steve Grogan is married to....

A Psychologist :)

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

I had to delete that last comment because it was taken from an article that could still probably be goggled and I don't want to be responsible for outing anyone or causing anyone to be personally located, bothered or contacted. That is not my job or intention.


Suffice to say she apparently works for defense attorneys to some extent, including testifying in court - in the case of the article I found- to the insanity of a mother who killed her own young twin girls with a machete style knife... She said the accused mother suffered from psychosis, delusion, insanity and amphetamines abuse.



No sense makes sense they keep telling me...