Monday, May 28, 2018

MansonBlog Tour 2018: Heartbreak and Change of Heart about the Manson Girls


Walking Encyclopedias
I went on the Manson Blog Tour to see if I could feel, see, touch, or hear something that would get me a little closer to learning why the murders took place. 

I was the last to arrive at the house where we were all staying.  As a newbie, I'd met none of the bloggers before. Honestly, I was kind of scared I'd be walking into the "Star Wars" bar. Thankfully, it wasn't as creepy as I imagined. 

It was crazy-cool to spend time with the bloggers and others in real life. They are information superheroes. It was like being around a bunch of walking encyclopedias. Many times, I just listened. 
The creator of Shorty's memorial box, etc.

When I talked, I found myself saying, over and over again, "This is heartbreaking." I said it at all the cemeteries -  especially at Shorty's grave in the potter's field. I repeated it at Cielo, Waverly, and the location where Shorty met his demise. I could be heard again at Spahn, when we saw the memorialized box containing Shorty's finger bones and again when we saw his possible murder weapon (and loudly when someone suggested I touch it to see if I got any vibes). I was probably the most heartbroken when we walked by what was left of the road on which the killers drove out of Spahn. How could those murders have happened?  What destroyed those young adults' morality and compassion? 

David suggested a book that may help: "The Manson Women and Me" by Nikki Meredith. Initially, I poo-pahed another book. After you read as many Manson-related books as many of us have, they get tiresome because we tend to judge the author's knowledge with a microscope instead of trying to learn something new. But, because I respect David's opinion, I gave it a shot.  The author is a social worker and former probation officer who went to high school with Stephen Kay and Catherine Share. She spent several years interviewing Krenwinkle, Van Houten, and their families trying to determine the answer to this question: If the women weren't psychopaths, sociopaths, or had personality disorders – what happened to their humanity on those nights?  She chose not to interview Atkins, suggesting that Susan's behavior may have been caused by the condition of hematolagnia (bloodthirst).  Yuck.


Although the author spends an exhaustive and, in my opinion, unnecessary amount of time trying to correlate her own life to those of the killers, her theory is that the murders were Manson's idea and the group lacked the ability to stop him. Why?  Too much empathy for the Family.  A brief summary:

1.   Manson created an environment that eroded feelings for people outside the group. "One of the techniques for mobilizing ordinary people to commit mass murder is to identify potential victims as subhuman." None of this is new, if you think about it. Nazis thought the Jews were subhuman. Same with the Hutus and the Tutsis, Guatemalan military and the Mayan Indians, etc. In the book, Meredith describes studies which show that the brain's empathy circuit can be fired up or down depending on how people are labeled.

2.   The intense empathy the group had for each other, particularly Charlie, is what made them so dangerous.  They perceived themselves having a fused identity. Similar to other extremists (she writes a lot about ISIS), anyone who didn't share their views were enemies and all enemies must be destroyed.  "How does fused identity lead to cold blooded killing?  It is the perception that if the group is threatened, dramatic action is required to defend it." Together, the Family would do what none would do individually.

3.   "Any program that succeeds in boosting an individual's empathy for his or her own group might actually increase hostility toward the enemy." This part was exceptionally poignant to me. In a large scale, the author relates this to almost every war on earth. On a small scale, to the Family. Leslie and Pat had unwavering loyalty to the Family and lacked empathy for their victims for years after their arrests. Remember that during her interview with McGann, Leslie said this about the family: "You couldn’t find a nicer group of people."

This doesn't mean the author gives them a pass. She offers her opinion on parole suitability at the end of the book.  Van Houten: Yes, but with a caveat: What does it say about a society where any nice girl can be made a killer?  Krenwinkle: Meh, due to anger and other issues. When Krenwinkle asked her, the author wouldn't even write a recommendation letter to the parole board.   

Did the book help me understand why the murders took place? No. But, it did make me more empathetic toward Van Houten and Krenwinkle, who I have never, ever thought of as anything more than dirt. So, thanks David for suggesting I read it. I didn't plan for my newbie post to be a book report, but that's what evolved. Kind of like how the Blog Tour evolves each year. This year's tour became about paying respects, and I’m glad it did. I never thought that paying respects would lead me to having a (very small) change of heart about two of the female killers. I guess we all have lessons to learn. 

Several years ago, Squeaky was interviewed in prison. She must have been about 50. She said she still supports the "girls" for committing the crimes, because "they did what they thought was right." At the time, that comment made me want to vomit. Now? The comment makes my heart break, but it also makes me wonder...

Spahn Necessity
Let's imagine ourselves as 19-year-olds. Imagining ourselves as girls would be better, since there were more of them on the ranch. We are very impressionable. A little lost - wanting something different, but not knowing where to go. It's the late 60s, we are in California, and we've just started dipping our toes into the counterculture. We meet this cool cat who tells us we are beautiful, that he loves us for who we are, and takes us into his family where he says there is no wrong. We sing songs, have sex, take fun drugs, and play make-believe on a ranch all day. (Spahn is very cool if you don't have allergies!) We all love each other very much. It's real love – not this fake, conditional stuff our family has shown us. This is a real family. The women are our sisters, and the men are our brothers. California is the only place on earth. We feed each other, care for each other, and protect each other. Then one day, our group is threatened – we're told Black Panthers are coming, and we know from the news how truly frightening they are. Charlie starts teaching us how to fight with knives. And then another one of us is put in jail.  We've been taking so many drugs we are sure that what Charlie’s been saying all this time about war is starting to happen. He asks us repeatedly if we would do anything for the family. We all say yes because we are ONE.  No one understands what real love and unity are but us. We prepare for battle to protect our own. One night, Charlie asks us to do something special. He tells us to get a change of clothes, go to a house, and do whatever Tex says. 

What would you have done?  Would you have been loyal?

159 comments:

SixtiesRockRules! said...

Excellent, thought-provoking post Monica. Your comment that being around the Manson Blog crew is like hanging with walking encyclopedias of Manson-related info makes me wish that THEY had written the recent bio instead of Jeff Guinn, who imho delivered a very disappointing and unsatisfying book. I have no doubt that, collectively, the people who run and who contribute most frequently to this site could assemble a book that featured 100x more new and fascinating bits of knowledge regarding Manson, life at Spahn, the murders, background on the key players, etc than perhaps ALL the Manson books combined.

GreenWhite said...

Nice post. I read the Meredith book and ended up basically in the same place as you as far as insight gained although I'm not sure where I am on empathy, especially for Katie. I'm happy I read the book though. One of the common complaints I read about Meredith, some of them from super nasty by bigoted commenters, is that the author inserts her own life into the writing ad nauseam. She does get a bit lengthy imo but I think she's employing a more academic/scientific style instead of a straight nonfiction biography writing format. An example of similar book constructions would be when an anthropologist goes and lives with some tribe somewhere remote and includes why she/he was driven to go there. I also read a lot of long trail type books. If the author doesn't explore the genesis of their wanderlust and how they got to where they are, I typically feel like the book is pointless. This is in no way a criticism of you well thought out post, however. I just like to know the whys behind the author sitting down and busting out a nonfiction book. If none are given, I assume the motivation is only money.

Monica said...

Hey! Good ideas Sixties. With the connections ans knowledge the Walking Encyclopedias have it could be a very good book .
Greenwhite, I too am always interested in they whys. Obsessively so. I'm no longer impressed by someomeone's retelling of events...but a unique take on motive:you got me. I probably should have read the author's story with an open heart instead of focussing on Leslie and Pat so much.

hippie doll said...

Hi Monica!
This is a great thought provoking post. Especially your break down of the situation. I too have tried to think about the why/how, that these murders could have happened. But you went a little deeper in your trying to understand the whole situation. Good write up girl!
I sure wish you could have made it to the tour the year I went. I was looking forward to meeting you, talking with you, and hearing your thoughts.
Thank you for sharing your experience of the tour. If I felt more confident in my writing skills & putting myself out there, I might have written a post. But I'm more comfortable being a lurker/reader. Who sometimes comments, but mostly reads.
:o)

Orwhut said...

Great post Monica. As others have said very insightful.
Now my problem:
Monica, this is not directed specifically at you. I assume you're the lovely lady standing beside the man who built the Shorty box. I've been reading this blog for years and am always impressed with the photos from the tours. Occasionally, someone will label the people pictured or through context clues or an avatar I might figure out who's in the pix. The avatars that show someone other than the blogger are a real problem.
I'll shut up right after requesting that more posters identify the people pictured. It's nice to be able to put names with faces.

Monica said...

Hi Christina! Wish you could have made it!
Whut...First Photo: DebS, Matt, Davis, Panamint Patty, Stoner Van Houten. Second Photo: Michael Channels, me .

Monica said...

David, not Davis

Orwhut said...

Monica,
Thank you very much. Patty and David had me confused. I remember Patty as a blond and don't think I'd seen a labeled photo of David before.
Thanks to all who've let me tag along on the tour through your posts and pictures.

GreenWhite said...

Monica, I admit to skimming through her stuff at times until she returned to the Manson women :)

David said...

GeenWhite,

That may be the perfect review of the book.

AstroCreep said...

Hey Monica, I too just finished the audiobook version and found it super interesting. At times, I did feel a lessening of my hatred for the killers but each time I felt those feelings lessen, I imagined Steven Parent as my son and lost any sympathy pretty quickly. The book also made me think of how the same happens all over in our country, even in 2018. Gang bangers are recruited and made to perform atrocious acts just to gain entry into their gangs in order to have a sense of belonging. Rarely do we feel pity for little Johnny after he smokes an 80 year old lady at an ATM so he could feel a sense of belonging to MS-13. In the Family’s case, it was a test of dedication and devotion of love to Charlie.

LVH is the only exception in my mind, because she didn’t fall into the “convicted and sentenced to death” situation that the others did. Do I think any of the family would commit murder today? No. Do I think there are 1000’s of murderers in prison today that wouldn’t commit murder if released? Yes. But part of this equation is punishment for crimes and LVH deserves all the punishment we can bring.

Orwhut- I’m one of those people. I’m very public on social media so I choose to keep this a secret from others. I don’t need my fascination with this case being drug into my public world. So in that regard, I’ll stay that way here.

This book, and Dianne Lake’s book made me think about something on a much larger scale- 1960’s communal living and the supposed benefits of such a lifestyle. In the 1960’s, the counter culture would have you believe that communal living in open relationships was the best thing since sliced bread. If it really was/is, why did it never take hold? We’re they wrong? I believe they were wrong or it would have taken hold and we’d all be living in communes now. Yet, to date, there’s been no admission of that thought process being wrong.

StillGrooving said...

Is that a sketch pad under Matt's arm?

I can, in no way, sympathize with the Manson women simply because they were conned into committing murder. My compassion is all about the amount of time these women have been in prison. I truly feel bad only because they have missed out on so much of life. I suppose the punishment truly fits the crimes, in these cases, so I cannot endorse parole for any of them.

Matt said...

StillGrooving said...
Is that a sketch pad under Matt's arm?


Indeed it is. That pic will be our album cover photo some say.


Orwhut said...

AstroCreep,
What I was trying to say is that when a person puts up an avatar of a real person other than his/her self, I can't use the avatar to identify the blogger who's gone on a tour and posed for a photo. I doubt anyone who wanted to remain anonymous would pose for a photo. It didn't work out well for Butch and Sundance.

AstroCreep said...

Orwhut- got it. I have noticed the same and mainly read the comments to deduce who is in the pics.

Matt said...

Apologies, guys. We figured everyone knew our ugly asses by now...


ColScott said...

The guy on the right in the first picture is wearing a vest of one of the Manson Girls pictured on it but is not in any way a creepy, stalker, grave rubbing fanboy. Pinky Swear.

The post does provoke some thought, even as it leaves out the effect of massive drug use. My big question though lately as I cogitate on the murders is what was REALLY said to these people. True, no one claimed "cause" but did say Patricia really go to Cielo and have NO IDEA that she was going to murder random people? Or was she told that they were targeted.

Just for example- Charlie says obey Tex. Tex says we are going to Terry's house to fuck up some drug dealer friends of his as a lesson. No one expects Sharon/Jay and no one is prepared for murder.

Can it really be this simple?

Panamint Patty said...

Dickhead

ColScott said...

Mr. Richard Head? Was he along too?

Thank you Monica for the book reference I just bought it from Amazon

Orwhut said...

AstroCreep,
The comments sometimes help me too.
Matt,
It's not your fault. I probably have a touch of face blindness. If someone makes a change in hair length or color, gains or looses weight, or gets significantly older since the last photo I sometimes have a problem. You, Deb, and Stoner were easy to recognize.

Peter said...

I have always wondered what these people really did all day. Other than Brooks who apparently shoveled horse shit from dawn to dusk. While Watkins and Lake discuss certain events, none of the books really go into the day-to-day existence at the ranch. Dune buggy fixing, garbage runs, band rehearsal, and orgies couldn't possibly fill up all of their time-has-no-meaning time.

ColScott said...

Paul's book, which was at one point transcribed for your reading enjoyment on the ONLY Official TLB blog, actually does summarize what they did. Sleep. Fuck. Drugs. Hang Out. Scrounge for dumpster food. Fuck. Listen to Charlie's rap.

Peter said...

Sounds pretty f##king BO-RING. Bad food and despite all the talk, most of those chicks seem like they were pretty uptight. Maybe Brooks had the right idea.

ColScott said...

Brooks was last seen having an animated conversation with a sand dune, so I would not think he had the right idea about much. Those I do like a lot of his music. Available in bootleg form from acid casualty Jon AesNihil or a free dropbox link on the ONLY Official TLB Blog

Peter said...

Wow. That Official TLB blog has it all.

ColScott said...

It did. For a very long time it was the only web presence with intelligence/wit/commitment. Then Bret G came along for a hot minute- then he od'd. Cielo started posting more regularly. Very intelligent. Matt took over for Evil Liz and this place completely changed. I felt secure that the GREAT WORK would continue.

Currently not so sure since my posts have been deleted here endlessly, actual facts are made up and represented as true and I am subject to ridicule. I once believed the death of the BUG would lead to a wide opening of the case- now I feel that this whole thing will never yield answers.

Monica said...

ColScott said:
"Brooks was last seen having an animated conversation with a sand dune"

That gave me good ole belly laugh! (I read Paul's book on your site yrs ago. Thanks for the work!)

Peter, good point about their boring days. Probably wasn't such a utopia as their memories suggest. That said, most days I'd give anything to sit around and play - just not with murderers, STDs and garbage food.

Monica said...

Interested in your review Col.

AustinAnn74 said...

The Family didn't have unconditional love. Shit, if you wanted to have friends outside the group, love your parents still, go into town for a cheeseburger, or LEAVE you could possibly run the risk of being sliced open like a watermelon. I am one who has never felt a lot of empathy for the perpetrators. They did what they did, and now have to waste away in an institution the rest of their lives. There were a lot of other people in that "Family" who did not kill. Diane Lake, who was only 14, and even more impressionable chose to leave and even testify against a group of people she loved & thought of as her actual family. I understand where Monica is coming from, however. I just cannot get the old film footage I've seen of these women laughing, singing while having shit-eating grins on their faces about what they did out of my mind. They were proud....Gleeful even. I am actually surprised the victims' family members didn't die right then & there from heartbreak from what these people did. The horror of being rounded up in your own house, then killed is beyond cruel. Sharon Tate having to sit there and watch is like a horror movie. Rosemary LaBianca hearing the gutteral sounds of her husband having a knife plunged into his throat while she is being held down is enough to make you vomit. These women (and men) chose to do what they did. If they had not been caught, then what? Is there a possibility that these murders would've continued?

Peter said...

I hear ya. It's a blog-eat-blog world out there Colonel. You put all this work into it, spend your nights and weekends trying to make it better, and everyone just gives you shit for what you didn't do. I once hosted the world's premier Brazilian music of the 60's and 70's website sabadabada.com. Spent untold hours collecting records, digitizing them at a time when nobody else was doing that kind of thing, making them available for download, paying all the hosting fees, scanning and organizing hundreds and hundreds of album covers. I had thousands of visitors in a day and people writing to me from all over the world. But in the end, all it took was few assholes who did nothing but criticize to turn me off to the whole thing. Just be careful not to turn into one of those assholes.

When I stopped paying the hosting fees some spam operator bought the web address probably based on the web traffic statistics, and used it to sell insurance, but now it looks like another music oriented site must have purchased it.

An archived version of my site can be seen here if anyone is interested in that kind of thing. https://web.archive.org/web/20091008005057/http://www.sabadabada.com/

ColScott said...

Peter
Sorry to hear that. Did you know the BUG was a big fan of Latino music? Kinda ooo-eee-ooo no?
AustinAnn- how are you lovely Ann? I think that is kind of where I come out.You can feel bad for Roseanne/Harvey Weinstein/Patricia Krenwinkel/Brian Davis/Howard Unruh/Bill Nelson/Debra Tate/- I mean everyone has an apologist somewhere, right? I can see WHY Leslie tries to get out- the cards SHOULD have fallen her way like they did with the Blog Celebrated Musician Adam Gabriel. But they didn't. And she EXCITEDLY entered a stranger's house and left the occupants slaughtered. Fuck you and your parole. And I cannot even get started on Bobby. I still have a lot to answer for supporting him as I did in my early days on the ONLY Official TLB blog.

Ann the points you raise are the very reason I am in trouble with people on the blog. Tourist to slaughter is just not a thing in my book. And I fear it was for a while.

Monica - I will review it and seek a place to review it now that I am PNG here. Amazon reviews make it seem more about the journalist that the girls. The last book about the "girls" was by that sixties freak who wanted to fuck LVH while she was free then remembered detailed conversations with her 40 years later. HA

AstroCreep said...

I enjoy the comments and learn as much (if not more at times) from the comments than in the article itself.

Clearly, we all have our own opinions and are all different. What is tasteless or offensive to one person might be completely fine with another. We do all share one thing- a fascination with this crime. There are people here from all walks of life and that’s what makes this blog interesting to me. Different perspectives.

I’m always reminded of this at events like Giants games or concerts. We’re all different but we share this one love and for a time, we can all get along.

In the past, the Col has called me an idiot and suggested my 20+ years in special operations serving this country (and your right to speak anything you want to no matter how ignorant) as a political stunt for oil. We could not be more different. Yet, I’m 1000% positive, we could hang in Long Island and drink a beer and talk about this crime and get along just fine.

Clearly Col, you keep coming back here and are interested. Why not bury the hatchet with Matt and just know that not everyone here sees eye to eye and deal with it?

ColScott said...

Astro- As recently as last night I reached out to Mrs. Matt looking to bury the hatchet. Providing a pint of blood in the process seems to be the only way and I am not likely to do so.

I do not remember the context of the personal attack. After all you are just an odd handle on a blog. I have avoided Long Island the last few years but my parents do remain there. But yes, pretty much ALL US Military operations post Vietnam have been for oil. I mean read something some day.

AstroCreep said...

I wouldn’t expect you to remember- war is a lot of things- it’s business to some degree and in that regard it’s more about money than oil. Regardless, my service was in many locations and all of which wasn’t meant for public consumption. Capturing war criminals in the Balkans being one example that most Americans have no idea (nor should they have) was happening for many many years.

When I retaliated to your comments, Matt deleted them all. Yet yours stood. I emailed him and he defended you “he’s not really like that in person” blah blah blah.

Anyway, life’s too short to carry around BS on a blog that’s supposed to be interesting and thought provoking.

PS- I hate reading. One article and comments a week here is about all I can deal with.

sheisalocal said...

Col, is your blog still available to view?

Panamint Patty said...

It still just baffles Patty how someone who has made a fortune on exploiting murder can be so damned judgmental.

Ahmad Wifebeater said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ahmad Wifebeater said...

Stoner and Patty Rock!!!

Monica said...

Hey Ann – I hear ya. I, too, have wondered if the murders would have continued and I think not. I think TEX and only TEX was the muscle behind Charlie’s madness. The point of my post was to try to understand WHY, given the times and the girls’ frame of mind. I have always been anti-Manson and pro-Victim’s rights. I would never murder anyone, but I do think environment and immaturity can cause people to do really bad things, and now, I think Leslie should be paroled.

AC, you have a good screen name. It took me a long time to not be a lurker and then, I had to think – real name or not? Mostly because I everyone I know in real life thinks my interest in this topic is nuts. Takes a whole lot of explaining. Then, I just went for it – although I can understand why you keep it to yourself.

Everyone – thanks for keeping your cool.

ColScott said...

Astro- fair enough- war is never any one thing is it? I guess for me given a choice I would not want to be involved.
Not sure what I am like in person. I know if I met Adam Gabriel in person I would a) leave if it would upset my hosts or b) ask him what he has done to help the La Bianca and Shea relatives lately- very loudly. Selfies would not be on my agenda

Patty- The people who die in Transformers are digital as are the robots. No one is actually murdered. Hope that helps.

Someone named WIFEBEATER supports the actions of P and S. This shit writes itself

Monica- what MADE LVH ride in the car, enter the house, stab people and eat their food? The fact that she had an abortion? F that. She chose to kill these people and deserves whatever the law give her.

Panamint Patty said...

What about jack the fucking ripper?

Panamint Patty said...

Did you do that one pro Bono?

ColScott said...

Patty feels bad for the dead hookers from 1892. Nice!!

Lynn said...

Paul's book, which was at one point transcribed for your reading enjoyment on the ONLY Official TLB blog, actually does summarize what they did. Sleep. Fuck. Drugs. Hang Out. Scrounge for dumpster food. Fuck. Listen to Charlie's rap.

May sound boring, but I am guessing that they did not do much in the summer heat (July-Oct). Temps soar to over 100 degrees (nights do cool down though) I am not far from Simi. Can't imagine summer days without air conditioning. It's definitely nothing like the cool ocean breezes that you might find in Santa Monica.

AustinAnn74 said...

Dearest Col, I am well. How are you groovin? My general disgust with Manson & Family is well known on the blog. Matt has always given me the freedom to go with what I passionately feel about these people, which is repusion....Bobby Beausoeil included...

Orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Monica said...

I agree about the repulsion, but all emotions aside, at what point do the prison sentences for those with life sentences with the possibility of parole become about the law and rehabilitation? Col..if I remember correctly didn't you support Bobby's release for a while? He tortured a gentle soul for three days, giving him hope before he stabbed the life out of him. Plus, he still bounces around with that cockamamie story about needing to pay a bad drug deal. Pfft. I feel sick to my stomach comparing the badassness of killers. They all sick. And honestly none of them deserve it. But rehab wise, I would give Leslie a chance.

Not gonna happen with any governor.

brownrice said...

" Sleep. Fuck. Drugs. Hang Out. Scrounge for dumpster food. Fuck. Listen to Charlie's rap."

If ya replace "scrounge for dumpster food" with "score food" and "listen to charlie's rap" with just "rap", it sounds an awful lot like what many kids used to do in the summer holidays. Oh yeah... they also played a lot of music. Idyllic really :-)

Orwhut said...

If Col. Scott did a film or something concerning murders after 1888 that were blamed on Jack, I'd like to know which one it is so I can watch it.

There's so much peripheral mystery going on around here that I only get bits and pieces of when a spat breaks out.

Monica said...

Col Scott said:

"Charlie says obey Tex. Tex says we are going to Terry's house to fuck up some drug dealer friends of his as a lesson. No one expects Sharon/Jay and no one is prepared for murder.

Can it really be this simple?"

Now this is food for thought. Would explain a lot. But what would explain the second night? Any ideas?

Orwhut said...

Talk to me Col. Which ripper movie did you do? I may already have seen it.

brownrice said...

Orwhut, I'm certainly not the Col but ya might wanna check out "From Hell", adapted from the (truly awesome Alan Moore's) graphic novel of the same name.

Orwhut said...

Brownrice,
Thank you! I certainly have seen "From Hell". I thought it was an excellent movie.
Good job Col. and please be nice to Panamint Patty.

Peter said...

I think it's great that this Astro / Colonel feud has been going on for almost a decade and they still manage to remain moderately civil towards each other.

It's actually pretty impressive for a couple of mooks from Long Island. I can judge you like that because I'm from Westchester.

ColScott said...

Peter- I truly have no feud with anyone, I am just low on tolerance for ignorance

OrWhut- the film is fine, not as good as the book. And I cannot be nice to Patty, she is the crux of the problem going on at the moment here

Monica 1- please read earlier comment where I expressed regret for ever supporting Bobby- it was just a few above you

Monica 2- One theory- remember one of the asserted quotes is "Last night got out of hand with you all and Tex - tonight I am gonna show you how it is done." (paraphrase). They drive around like crazy, fucking around (I never believed that Charlie was going to kill a priest or a family with kids or the car at the stoplight)...but then magically they go to a house where they have all been (again like Cielo)- The True house. Then chaos next door. Did Charlie meet Joe and Suzan there before?

This shit is connected to drugs more than anything else. Hinman was drugs and drug money, Crowe was drugs. Biker gangs are drugs.

All of this would be forgotten like most 60s killings except a stunning 9 mos pregnant actress was home unexpectedly.

Ann- Disgust is warranted and as I said I was wrong for the Bobby loving. I just found out that you spent all of last week deleting my postings personally because they hurt your widdle feelings. Is that nice?



Peter said...

Nobody is ever going to convince me that Hinman had anything to do with drug money. They all thought Gary had money saved up to go on his trip to Japan. Just like Kasabian had money saved up to go to Mexico or wherever he was going. Remember, Linda had just scored an easy $5,000 less then a month before they tried the same thing with Gary.

ColScott said...

Peter

It is your right to be an ostrich, I get that. Just like it is Dinesh's right to be a garbage human.
But Gary Hinman was in fact making drugs in his bathtub.

Linda ripped off her loser husband. Tex ripped off Crowe. Hinman in your version is a home invasion robbery.I never ever heard this Japan theory- supposedly he had inherited the money they wanted to take from him in the original story.

Now we do what the Col always advises and we take a breath and close our eyes.

In the inheritance version what did they think? He had the money lying around in cash in his house? Okay....
In the revised Peter version was he traveling with wads of cash? Or credit card and back then Traveler's checks?

What is the main currency of a drug dealer? Oh yeah, cash.

Just sayin....

GreenWhite said...

I've been going through the Hinman Files on Cielo Drive (thanks, Cielo) this week and no one says anything about Bobby and the girls going there to get money back for bad drugs. Bobby blabs after getting arrested that he hitched to Gary's with two girls, Kitty (and maybe Stephanie) rats out Sadie, Sadie rats out Sadie, Danny puts Mary in it, and things unfold down the line. But the bad drugs are never mentioned by anyone.

AustinAnn74 said...

Huh? I spent last week doing what?

GreenWhite said...

Also, a Bill Vance sighting.

"Miss Brunner added that a fight started in their residence and that sometime after Mr. Hinman had been subdued, one Charles Manson and Bill Vance arrived at the location. Mr. Manson was reported to have been carrying a long double-edged sword. Miss Brunner stated that V/Hinman was then struck on the side of the face by Mr. Manson and that she and Susan Atkins and Robert Beausoleil then remained with the victim for two days attending his wounds and attempting to get the victim to divulge the whereabouts of any money or personal property of value on the premises. Miss Brunner then continued by saying as victim would not reveal anything and stated he had no personal property, she and the aforementioned Susan Atkins and Robert Beausoleil prepared to leave the location."

http://www.cielodrive.com/gary-hinman-homicide-report-12-08-69.php

Peter said...

My explanation, the inferential distance is like two steps from the established facts to the conclusion:

Gary's family had money, Gary supposedly owned various property and he was planning to leave for a long pilgrimage > Gary had money on hand for his trip > Bobby kills Gary

The drug theory requires like seven:

Gary may have used drugs > Gary made drugs > Gary sold drugs to Bobby > The drugs Gary sold were bad > Bobby sold the bad drugs to the Satan's Slaves > The Slaves wanted their money back > Gary didn't have the money or any other drugs to pay Bobby Back > Bobby kills Gary.

ColScott said...

Peter- I can trounce your theory though- I do not believe Bobby ever would have killed Gary if Charlie had not slashed his face

and also read what I actually wrote- I think the Drug burn story may be bullshit. I said DRUG MONEY

ColScott said...

Whale
Nothing Brunner says can be believed. It was Davis who came along not Vance

Austin Ann- uhhuh

Peter said...

I agree with you on the fact that Charlie precipitated the violence. So you can add an extra step to each. But drug money or inheritance/savings money, the fact is the money didn't exist. Which scenario is most supported by the lack of money? If he was dealing drugs, there would have been money? It makes a nice story, but you have to insert a fact in there somewhere.

ColScott said...

Peter

I have not seen his estate planning. Even today that house is very valuable and he apparently did own it.

No where in any testimony does anyone say he denied he had money. He refused to give it to them. They were beating him because they believed he had money to give.

Where did you get this Japan shit from?

GreenWhite said...

Nice Bradbury reference!

Peter said...

Keep it clean. This is a "family" blog

http://www.cielodrive.com/gary-hinman-homicide-report-08-09-69.php

While at location, undersigned received a telephone call from Mr. ROBERT HINMAN, father of victim, from Ft. Collins, Colorado, ****, phone ****. Mr. Hinman stated his son had been in Colorado approximately one month ago and at that time he had given his son $1,050 in checks and cash for a pending pilgrimage to Japan.

This is just one of many articles and I believe various interviews with those around at the time show the family was aware of his planned pilgrimage.

Your second sentence is unclear. He very much did deny having any money. But yes they did believe he had it. As we all know, they believed a lot of stupid Sh#t.

I think the house at the time was described as 'Ramshackle". But even so, it probably had some value. But how were they supposed to get the house?

Maybe the unknown person that showed up with Charlie was the closing attorney. "Okay Gary, just sign here and here, and initial here, here and here"

AstroCreep said...

Um, Peter, that link isn’t to the ONLY OFFICIAL TLB BLOG and isn’t certified by the Col.

Dan S said...

Contrition? What have you done with the real col?

Dan S said...

"War is a Racket"by general Smedley Butler. Everyone needs to know about the bankers coup of 1933. You may question if it was real. You may believe the warren commission. You may believe the NIST report on 911. You may believe aggressive war is freedom. I don't.
Robert Hendrickson wants you all to read Roger Stone's exposé on LBJ. THAT'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S ALL ABOUT.

More recently we have the bailout; the banks have stolen our future. Goldman Sachs is running the treasury department. That's like the head of Haliburton being the leader of the country (I'm talking about Dick Cheney to be blatant).

Seriously, though, what changed your mind about BB, Col? He's obviously a mega liar with his story changing all the time. Is that what it is, or is it something...else? (the elipsis is me trying to write like Peter Thomas narrator of Forensic Files talks)

What if PT was married to the Snapped narrator? Their dinner conversation would sound super funny (oops i said i was being serious; my bad)

Terrapin said...


Blogger Dan S said...
Seriously, though, what changed your mind about BB, Col?

Why did he support him in the first place?

Orwhut said...

Dan S,
When you mentioned Peter Thomas you were talking about one of my favorite narrators. Yours too, I guess. Knowing that he was very old, I've often been amazed at how strong his voice was. I just looked him up only to find that he died on May 1, 2016. It would have been a sad day for me had I known.

Dan S said...

You guessed right, good sir. PT ruled.

Dan S said...

This post has piqued my interest in the killer girls. I've been focused on stabby tex as he is the main perp and I've been thinking of the girls as automotons and basically uninteresting. I guess i need to read this book too.
I'm especially interested in their relationship with stabby. Lttle Paul describes CW as being on the fringe and not a good participant in the Freakout orgies, but LK, the newcomer, and he have a cosmic consexction; and, i believe LVH too. Can anyone tell me more about that? Is that why LK is along for both nights? Stabby and her got a special connection or what?

David said...

Dan S said: "Is that why LK is along for both nights?"

Of course, the 'official' reason was she was the only one after Brunner was picked up after the Sears caper who had a valid driver's license. However, Watson drove the first night and Manson drove part of the second so that really doesn't seem to be a valid criteria. Also there is a record of her being picked up back east in May '69, if memory serves, for driving with a suspended license, which raises another question- did she?

Manson and Tex could have discussed who was to go and her relationship with Tex might have factored into that. There is no evidence of that discussion that I have seen and the killers all say Manson singled them out: go with Tex.....

It might be Manson's perception of loyalty. Kasabian had stolen 5k for the Family a month prior- not a paltry sum in 1969. When she was being wisked into jail she shouted "I'm not going to talk" or words to that effect. There is a Harvard Crimson article- she is referred to as Yana the witch- from December 1969 where, if it is her, she sure sounds 'all in'. There is also an interview with her attorney from the 80's, I believe, where he claimed, again, if memory serves, that he and his partner described what was going to happen to her (ie: the gas chamber) and that is what 'broke the spell'.

I hope this helps.

ColScott said...

I read Smedley Butler years ago. Great booklet. Reprinted by the lovely Adam Parfrey who just passed away. RIP.

Linda was along because she was Tex's squeeze and all in. EVERYTHING in HS is invented by the BUG. She is garbage. Her daughter is a well known criminal known as Lady Dangerous FFS. I think she hid the wallet IN the bowl not in the toilet not to be "good" but because she actually didn't want to be caught with the evidence. Race war indeed.

Re Bobby. Suffice it to say that in so may ways Capote was right. He will play you, use you and manipulate you to get what he wants. His LA nickname was Bummer Bob and Eve Babitz describes an obvious con man who got by on his good looks. Back when I was speaking with him weekly, 99/00, he did have a chance to get out and told me some things that have since proven untrue in spades. When I confronted him on this he got super nasty.
I believe that what happened is we both bonded over this counter culture groupie guy names Brian Butler who wronged us both. "Hey we both hate the same guy we should be friends."
Looking back I guess like Mulder I wanted to believe.

Yes it is me. As a serious TLB scholar I have to admit when I am wrong.

Astro- No Cielo is not an Official Blog but it is very trustworthy and not run by retarded persons like the LS Blog. But the link doesn't establish that he had the fucking money hanging around. And why the poster finds the mention of house mock worthy I do not grasp. 1969 was not super credit cardy, yes. But I recall Traveler's Checks being a big deal to the mid 80s. WHY would anyone think Gary had a lot of cash around for a trip? From an inheritance?

From drugs? That makes sense.

Dan S said...

Great summation of the known facts. Thanks! They're all such mind scrambled liars it's impossible to glean any truth from their memoirs. As a jah loving stoner myself, i can also add to their wilful lying the fact that i can barely remember anything period.

ColScott said...

Clarity

Everything about Linda in HS is fiction as is 40% of the book

She hid it in the bowl not by the sink or something

Dan S said...

To terrapin, That's a good question: why was col scott favorable to BB in the first place? I've been avoiding BB reading a little. I did read some archived q&a's from his old website.
I ll start reading the BB marked posts here. Col could make a post about his BB feelings and the roller coaster they've been on. Everybody loves roller coasters.

starviego said...


ColScott said..
"Even today that house is very valuable and he(Hinman) apparently did own it."

Do we know that for sure? Gary's finances have always been a somewhat murky subject. For a guy who was basically a professional student he was living a pretty nice lifestyle.

Peter said...

Colonel. When she was on the stand, Kanerek's theory was that Linda hid the wallet because she was already planning her escape and was going to go back and get the wallet for the credit cards in it. I think this is a pretty good theory. She would probably be able to use them for a day or two before the news became wide spread and back then it took a while for a stolen credit card to make it onto a list.

Claire Robinson said...

The Manson women were in the middle of second wave feminism. I wonder if that affected them. Caught between the 1950s ideal woman, putting men first, to the 1960s where she is realising she is just as important, just as capable and just as ready to have full autonomy. I wonder if the tremendous focus on the women was a backlash to the 2nd wave. In their punishment as well as everything else.

David said...

Peter said: "When she was on the stand, Kanerek's theory was that Linda hid the wallet because she was already planning her escape and was going to go back and get the wallet for the credit cards in it."

From the Harvard Crimson article:

"The girl [Yana the Witch] did return with a tow-truck after about an hour and a half. One and Two rode on the back of the truck and the girl and I rode in the cab with the driver. The driver was going to try to fix the car at his station, and if he couldn't, he'd take us to a Volvo dealer in Albuquerque. The girl said something to me, but for the benefit of the driver, about how she wished her "father" had gotten the car checked out before she left L. A. By this time, I was quite sure that the car as well as the credit card was stolen.

At the station the driver called in the inevitable check on the credit card. Then he apologized to the girl and said the card was no good and that he had been instructed to pick it up. Furthermore, we couldn't have the car until we payed forty dollars for the tow. And it still had to be repaired.

The girl said her father had been threatening to cancel her credit card and that he had picked a bad time. The driver apologized again to her."

Perhaps, Kanarek was right.

Peter said...

But I don't think she ever had the chance to return to the gas station because she left LA by another route.

Monica said...

Claire, interesting. The author of the book I read touches on your thoughts. The parole board and certainly much of the public may feel it's more frightening that someone who could be a liberated "every woman" could have done more horror than one who is truly creepy.

Dan S said...

The manson girls are not liberated feminists! Charlie's attitude towards women was that they are men's servants.

Lynn said...

Thank you Colonel, for mentioning Eve Babtiz. She is vital to Los Angeles and I love her writings.

I had correspondence with BB for awhile. He is a smooth talker- stopped it some time ago although I still get his e-mail blasts.

Your take on Gary Hinman is interesting. I have a friend who is a professional bartender...he remembers Gary from years past- Gary played in a band that played at his club. It was a little bar in Northridge- the had been there since the 1920's....complete with hideous loud red wallpaper....it was a college bar that is now long gone...he remembers Gary as being quiet but had a perhaps "dark side". Wasn't there very long and then was gone. Since it's hearsay, never thought much of it.....

Monica said...

Dan. I never said they were.

Terrapin said...

I wonder whether the whole "lets get Bobby out or jail" thing really is the actual motive? Lets assume it was... Charlie can't admit that it was because he'll lose face as the 'leader'... Tex can't admit it because then he'll lose face to Bobby as the 'tough guy' and the so called 'right hand man'
Just a random thought ..

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks for the book report Monica. I may get around to reading that -it sounds interesting. I heard the author interviewed and another reason she gave for not wanting to interview Atkins was she felt she had taken a short-cut by claiming to be changed by religious salvation, instead of a more natural self-evaluation. Maybe she mentioned that in the book too?

Monica said...

Mr.Humphrat, I dont recall that, but she did write about her interview with Tex and his wife and their region, and his need to publicly and selfservingly share his story (via his website and book). That said, she liked him more than she thought she would. Ew.

Monica said...

Religion not region...

Claire Robinson said...

No that’s not what I’m saying Dan. Second wave feminism was happening around the time the women joined the Family. Until this time, women were considered almost the property of the male members of their family - initially their father, then their husband. During the second wave of liberation this started to change. Society changed and women’s expectations changed. Charlie was able to recruit a few women with low self esteem, but gradually over time his common-as-muck misogyny drove them away. How many tried to escape? And quite a few managed it! I wonder if they were influenced more than they realized by the second wave.
Besides that, throughout history, every single time women have made gains with their human rights, there has been a backlash. I wonder if the intense focus on the women’s involvement, whereas Tex appears to be a mere footnote to so most people, accounts for this. Or are they simply more interesting? And are they more interesting as they seem to be the antithesis of how we expect women to be, to act...they fall so far short of the insanely high standards we usually hold women to!!

Sorry - rambling here but the whole issue of the women in the Family subordinating themselves to a misogynistic troglodyte against the backdrop of the second wave is fascinating to me!!!

Claire Robinson said...

It’s so interesting Monica! I must check the book out - I am devouring all the books I can now!! I really enjoyed your post as well!!

Peter said...

They woukd have written "Smash the patriarchy !" But they ran out of blood.

Riley Crenshaw said...

Don't you mean "SmeAsh theA PateArchy?"

Sorry...I just couldn't resist...a little bit of "frigid" cheesiness

(Doug - wouldn't give me a sign in option...)

Dan S said...

Hey she spelled skelter right

Dan S said...

Thanks, claire. I had a feeling you had a more nuanced take on it. I love your last paragraph. Charlie says over and over hes a 50s child, not a 60s one. As far as them getting away, his whole game was to only keep the suckers, let the others leave. A numbers game where he'd try his shtick on everyone and the ones not driven away were the resulting harem. Give up the ego or you gotta go. I was just reading an old post where it's stated they would ask a hanger on to hitch hike to NY and of they would still be hanging around they would starve them. Desperate people, total losers and rejects trying to eat scraps from the garbage people.
Charlie the pimp has em working as strippers, but it's more interesting if they re homecoming queens and librarians (tho i dont know if LVH or Mary were stripping). Who was working as "dancers"? I know Sadie was

AstroCreep said...

Mr. Humphrat- throughout the book, she mentions a number of reasons for not interviewing Susan. At one point, she stated that it was because she (the author) wanted to have someone to hold accountable to direct her anger towards the women/family. I’m summarizing here, but she could hate Susan for the crimes while liking LVH and PK because of her compartmentalizing.

Another reason she mentioned was because of what you heard in the interview.

These were very briefly mentioned and not many words dedicated to explaining or discussing much further.

brownrice said...

Claire Robinson said: “Second wave feminism was happening around the time the women joined the Family”

You make some great points but I’m not sure that feminism had that much influence in the hippie world by 1969. Outside of very rarified circles, it wasn’t really until the 70s that traditional sex roles were even beginning to be challenged anywhere… even later in the rural commune scene. For an example, the women that were part of the Digger commune (originally a Haight Ashbury group that were most decidedly at the cutting edge of psychedelic political thought in the late 60s and then in the 70s, morphed into the Free Family a much looser knit group spread over several rural communes) all spoke later about only gradually realising that the “revolution” wasn’t doing much about liberating females in the 60s. The guys were all happily getting stoned and planning insurrection but the “chicks” still had to make the tea & cook dinner.

These were all very strong, intelligent & empowered women so if it took them a few years to catch on, I guess its no real surprise that teenage runaways with alleged self-esteem issues could easily fall for Charlie’s pimp schtick. I think viewed from a historical perspective, it’s easy to assume that the late 60s/early 70s all happened at once. Whereas at the time, it was a much more gradual “awakening”. Feminism (IMO) had it’s strongest impact well after the murders happened and everyone was locked up.

As for the girls getting so much media focus while Tex dodged the limelight, personally I see that as just plain ol’ “sex sells”. “Kill-crazy Teenage Girls” is a far more salacious & commercial headline than “Kill-crazy Texan Ex-jock”. Tex’s ability to hide from the headlines IS remarkable though. If I was of a more paranoid frame of mind, I’d have to assume he had some friends in high places. As for their sentencing, yeah the legal fraternity then certainly didn’t have much time for or interest in feminism. Not sure if it was a backlash though so much as just business as usual.

David said...

Brownrice, l would add couple things to your last paragraph, there. Watson’s absence from the trial of the century and the girls’ antics in the hallways of the courthouse.

brownrice said...

David said...
Brownrice, l would add couple things to your last paragraph, there. Watson’s absence from the trial of the century and the girls’ antics in the hallways of the courthouse.

Yes. Very true, David.

Robert C said...

brownrice -- you pretty much nailed that as I remember it too. In particular as resurgent 'feminism' was swirling in that melee of the late 60's it wasn't nearly at a stage to have had any influence at all on the Manson 'girls'. Murder, then rubbing it in society's face via singing and dressing as 'lulu's' while 'supporting their men' had a direct and unmistakable impact.

Wonder this ... what would the results have been for the three women had they dressed 'respectably', behaved remorsefully, pointed the fingers at the Manson men while attributing their wayward ways to youthful confusion and drugs ? Maybe sustained 5 year sentences with stern warnings while the courts went after the guys ? Hard to say ....

christopher butche said...

After sentencing the girls ended up on a special death row that housed five. when the sentences were commuted the other two women were I believe paroled before the end of the 1970s.
I often get the impression that the girls were expecting to serve short sentences. Around the 7 year mark. The average back then was 13-16 pretty much what Clem served. As early as 74-75 the girls were having pre - parole hearings . Tex also successfully got his time served before his sentencing taken off his commuted sentence.
As to the girls behaviour in court I believe it was widely known that the death sentence was likely to be repealed. In addition if someone had convinced them that they would be released within a decade the whole event becomes a kind of showtime event.

christopher butche said...

Col. Hinman Japan. I am aware of this. I remember a few years ago looking up how much flights were to there in 1969 to gauge how much cash Hinman required.

Matt said...

The Death Penalty and the Fairness of California's Parole System

brownrice said...

Thanks for linking to that post, Matt. I hadn't seen it before. It demonstrates pretty clearly (IMO) the disproportionate treatment that's been dished out to the so-called M family. I always thought that Tex got what he deserved but the incredibly long sentences that the women have served (compared to the finger-snapping boyfriend's wife-killer) makes 'em look like collateral damage in the culture wars. Maybe if Kim Kardashian could lobby Trumph for a presidential pardon...

AstroCreep said...

It’s my belief that because THEY caused the courtroom circus, THEY brought an incredible amount of attention to THEMselves. Because of the attention and infamy THEY caused, THEY will never leave prison. No governor will ever allow that to happen, it would be career suicide.

When people argue that Charlie wasn’t in control of the family, I always think about that more so in the context of the trial because that was captured for all to see. Any lawyer would have had the women (and Manson for that matter) play nicely and act the part. Manson wouldn’t allow that and turned the whole thing into a circus- now THEY are reaping what THEY sewed.

AustinAnn74 said...

We can argue till kingdom come, but where is the evidence & proof that Gary was murdered because he sold BB lame, poisoned drugs? If BB turned over money to Gary for these drugs for the Straight Satans 10th anniversary party, then where did the money go? Did the police find brand new items, or receipts in his home? Since this murder happened, wouldn't you think something would've come out by now exposing the truth? I am not trying to say Gary Hinman never did anyhing wrong, or was perfect, but it sure is convienient pointing the finger at a man who is no longer around to tell his side of this tragedy. When someone dies, all their dark, hidden secrets are usually exposed, but in this case, there is no proof or witnesses that can say Gary made a batch of poison drugs. Bikers would beat someone's ass, not request a refund. That makes no sense. How come Al Springer didn't mention shit about anything in his interview with police? From his interview, he sounded sickened by the murders, and went to the police on his own accord when he heard details on tv about the murders. Danny wasn't going to say jack shit, until they gave him a deal, very true, but he didn't mention anything about a 10th anniversary party either! Even after four years, BB was an arrogant butthole who shuffled into court, got on the stand, and acted like an ass in February, 1973:

“I’m at war with everybody in this courtroom. It’s nothing personal but the world has been gattling at my brothers and sisters and as long as they are ripping off our world, our friends and our children, you better pray I never get out.”
“I don’t even know right from wrong, man…I know I couldn’t conform to the morality of this society…I don’t think he (Bailey) could either.”

He testified about making a phone call after his arrest for the Hinman murder to the Spahn movie ranch near Chatsworth where the Manson family was then headquartered.

“I ran some things down to them at the Spahn ranch and within two days seven people were killed.”

In closing, Bobby wants to get himself as far away as possible from the Manson Family, simply because he realized that they will not ever let any of them out of prison. He is eating his own words, because they're coming back to haunt him! Tough guy, huh?! He was trying to act like a tough guy in court, then requested he be housed with Manson at one time. He is regretting all of that now! The truth is, he & the girls were sent over there, hoping Gary would join them, so he would turn over everything he owned, which apparently was a requirement from Manson. When Gary wasn't interested, they threatened him. BB called Manson and told him that Gary wasn't cooperating, Manson & Davis came by, sliced Gary's face, threatened him more, then left. BB freaked out, wanted to leave and called Manson to ask him what he should do, because Gary was going to call the authorities. Manson simply told him to do what he had to do, which pretty much equates to "kill him." This is what happened. BB says a few truthful things in the parole hearings, and the rest are lies, or braggings about how talented he is as a videographer & multimedia artist, but this ridiculous drug burn thing is absolutely stupid. He is desperately trying to change his past associations within the Family and ends up digging himself in deeper every time he opens his yap. The man wouldn't kill again, but he isn't going to get out...ever. He is incapable of toning down his arrogance, and acts like he is the one who is the victim.
If anyone has evidence & proof disputing this, be my guest: please indulge us with it..

GreenWhite said...

I agree with you, AustinAnn. Further, I think it's in the 78 transcripts where Bobby says something to the effect of "Gary had already turned over the money or whatever." So to whom? The bathtub he made the drugs in? I've also read where Bobby and others say he basically sold the pills to the bikers for the same price he bought them. Who tf does that by the 1000? The drug story doesn't make sense to me.

starship said...

Dear Monica,

This post and the discussion it was meant to evoke is very worthwhile. Matt's link above about California Parole is quite relevant and if you believe, like I do, that certain fiction can enlighten us to a certain period or mood from time to time, I suggest reading Emma Cline's novel The Girls. Please beware that I am one of the retarded persons from the LS blog as The Col has just called us above.

Dear Pete,

I am in the Westchester area often. Perhaps we should get together. I discovered during a recent trip to LA that face to face meetings can make all the difference as I was fortunate enough to be able to meet up with Stoner, Michael; Channels and Scott Michaels.

Dear Col,

I would have loved to have met with you as well, and I actually did try to fax you however my info was out of date. If not Long Island (where I also am there often) I am sure that Pete and I could make it into the city next time you're there on business. I've followed you a long time, Col, and am well aware of how vicious you have treated people in the past. I find it truly ironic how butt-hurt you are about having comments deleted here, but nevertheless offer you this olive branch. Let's head up to Fred's Bistro and drink a couple of those $18 cocktails. And talk like the men we are who probably have more in common than we do not.

-Kevin

ColScott said...

Kev Baby- who the fuck faxes anymore? My colscott at Hotmail account as not changed since this scary guy Max Frost wrote to me in 1996. It is listen on the ONLY Official TLB Blog and has always been.

Admitting that you support retarded blogging and wanting to meet is another thing entirely.

Not sure who I treated as vicious except idiots and liars, but yeah, deleting truthful, accurate posts will always get me. I deleted retarded posts and shameful posts and Vera posts but my posts were pointing out behavior that was shocking to all right thinking people. If you disagree do not read them. But delete them? Who does that?

Austin Ann- I have a fully annotated with notes screenplay that Bobby added to. He does not distance himself from Manson and if anything aggrandizes his role in things. So why was the family friend Hinman attacked, tortured and killed? Should it make sense or no?
(Please do not delete this post again if it hurts your widdle feelings)

At the end of HS, the novel, BUG expects the girls to do 15- 20. It was his book and the lies and infamy that sprang from it that assured their eternal incarceration.

Monica said...

Starship,
Strange, I am certain I replied to your comment, and now it's gone! Someone must have deleted it...gyah. Well, in any case, I read The Girls. For a fictional version of "what could've happened after," I thought it was well done. I sure wish I would've come up with that book idea. There are so many good writers on this blog, and so many good ideas (even the conspiracy theorists!), I find the exchanges, even when I don't agree, fascinating.

I don't think there were any bad drugs coming from Hinman's. That story never existed until way after the murder. Related, I think CM told everyone a different story about why everything was done. I bet if we polled the remaining family members today, each would give a different reasons why Hinman and TLB occurred. What a bungled mess.

AustinAnn74 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinAnn74 said...

I don't have access to delete anything on this blog, except for my own comments. I thought you were joking. Also, feelings hurt? No way.

Peter said...

I actually live on the North Shore now. But I do go into NYC every day. Too poor for Westchester but too proud for New Jersey.

Peter said...

Colonel baby. Who the fuck uses Hotmail anymore.

Peter said...

According to the guy who was organizing the pilgrimag, Gary had already given him all his money to pay for the trip and so had no money at the time. There is an article on Cielo.com that quotes him.

starviego said...

starship said...
I was fortunate enough to be able to meet up with Stoner, Michael; Channels and Scott Michaels.

Did Channels ever say why his website is down, or when he plans to get it back up?

Dan S said...

Great answer, AA74! It has the ring of truthiness, of verisimilitude, to it.
So, to me, of that's how it went down, i can see why Charles tex stabby Watson took his harem to kill. I always thought copy cat was ridiculous; but now it makes sense (in a no sense kind of way) from a pathetic, peurile angle.
It's so high school. The alpha male jock is barely accepted by the clique of musicians.
Bobby is the coolest with his own harem. He even can pull older chicks. Tex watches from his outcast shack when Bobby pulls in and the girls all flock to him. Charlie really adores the talented young man who's got "it".
This is what the goofy kid from texas wants to copy cat.
Back to Hinman: I can see it starting like this: Charlie's been on a roll, getting fools to give him everything, using his ho's to get everything. He, and the family, [which includes Gypsy, the older woman (26yo) mentioned earlier (and musically the most talented) just brought over from Bobby's harem], have been on a roll, they expect success getting the possessions for membership in their fraternity. They expect a couple eager young women will coerce the goods from any red blooded male.
1st of all, i believe GH is more the pink blooded male.
2nd and more importantly, he spent his money on his Japan trip; so, there's no money there even under torture.
Charlie rolls in and escalates it. 1st blood, the crack to open the floodgates. BB then makes horrible decision after horrible decision. Ending with asleep at the wheel in the victim's vehicle, duh.
So.... The girls are all, "Bobby this," and "Bobby that." And CtsW is SO jealous. He'll steal way more type writers than that guy! He probably tells Charlie, "I'd kill, I'd totally do it."
Charlie thinks to himself, what a dipshit. "You know what d be freaky, man? If you went over to that house that that #ickhead Melcher used to live at and kill everybody there. I bet that'd freak him out good," he probably said (verbatim lol).
Then they come back all giggly and proud and Charlie's not impressed! WTF?
No, they were sloppy. Charlie tells em you gotta keep the situation cool. To Charlie it's like the victims don't exist. He's not there and what the other people do to complete strangers is just an intellectual exercise to him. As an exercise he explains how you would keep control of the situation.

He ordered the murders just to see what a dumbass Stabby Watson is.

Dan S said...

It seems BB tailors his communications to the person he's dealing with. I am not surprised he became a family member to the col and a distancer to the parole board. The truth is he was a serious collaborator with Manson. The Gypsy situation speaks of serious intimacy and the music connection is glaring. I think Bobby didn't stay at Spahns but he was jamming with Manson. A band member is more than a friend. More than family. They have more importance than any lover below the spouse level.

Peter said...

"They expect a couple eager young women will coerce the goods from any red blooded male."

So they send Sadie and Mary? Pass.

Robert C said...

"Too poor for Westchester but too proud for New Jersey."

No one back there ever calls it "New Jersey" except the news and weather people.

It's just "Joizee" :-)

starship said...

Yes, Col, I knew you would be outraged by my pathetic attempts to contact you via fax, and even thought of not mentioning it. And yeah hotmail, I don't know if I ever knew you had an accessible email. Nevertheless I did make attempts because I sincerely want to meet for the good of the order and to further our knowledge of the case.

As for "supporting" retarded blogging, I guess I'm too retarded to understand whether you are insulting me or not. In any case I would suggest you go back to your blog and look at any comments I ever made there in the discussions and you can read my posts at our blog too before making a judgement as to my intellect. Perhaps Peter and I can get together at the Belmont this weekend. If you absolutely always refuse to meet with us then perhaps I can invite Mr. James D. Robinson of Staten Island instead.

Matt said...

Starship, if Monkeyboy gets conjured up now, it is on your shoulders!


Dan S said...

Sadie and mary were slim young girls, the former quite stacked. Having them in the flesh would be a lot more attractive than in a photograph.

Dan S said...

And I really do think the dynamic between tex, Bobby and the family clique is the key to why tex got all stabby

David said...

Dan,

There is little doubt that the plan was to get Gary to join the family and thus give up his stuff. And little doubt that without Ella Jo Bailey that would be more difficult. She was the source of the inheritance rumor and he knew/trusted her. Where I think the theory gets questionable is the notion Watson could act on his own if that is what you are saying. There is a consistency between the later two nights that demonstrates a plan. That plan, call it instructions if you will, says premeditation. I don’t mean writing on the walls in blood or 50 stab wounds. Reverse the two nights and you can see the details of the plan. And that planning requires leadership. And that puts the turd in one persons lap and it’s not Watson. Gary was murdered for the same reason all the victims were all murdered. Because Manson said kill them/ him.

Dan S said...

He's not acting on his own. He's acting to impress Charlie. He's overacting. He's desperate to rise in the fraternity.
They come back from the first night all giggly and proud and Charlie's not impressed! WTF?
No, they were sloppy. Charlie tells em you gotta keep the situation cool. To Charlie it's like the victims don't exist. He's not there and what the other people do to complete strangers is just an intellectual exercise to him. As an exercise he explains how you would keep control of the situation.

He ordered the murders just to see what a dumbass Stabby Watson is.

AustinAnn74 said...

Thank you, David! In BB's parole hearing from 2010, he was so riled up & frazzled, that he accidently blurted out, "I was given instructions!" After that, his statements were all jumbled. That notorious jerk deputy DA Patrick Sequeira tore apart BB's ridiculous explanation, with good reason. It didn't make any sense, the DA said, because Bruce Davis still sticks to the explanation that this crime was planned well in advance, and that Gary was chosen as a source for possible money. The DA asked BB if Bruce knew about the drug deal, and BB said he didn't know if he knew. The story doesn't make sense. BB, in his annoyed state blurted out:

"He knew that I was going to get, you know, I had been instructed -- you know, I had never done anything like this before. This was completely out of any experience that I'd ever had in my life. I was told that the way to handle the situation was that if Gary didn't cooperate, I should hit him with the gun to make it known that I was serious. This was actually Danny DeCarlo who gave me that instruction. Bruce Davis was present at the time. And so I tried to follow their instructions, because I didn't know what the hell I was doing."
See, with that explanation, he was saying some half thruths. He was instructed. They were all present when this was planned. Listen to Ella Jo Bailey's statement to police. They'd been talking about it for weeks previously. If Bruce Davis was present, why would he not admit that Gary was killed over dope? How would he not know? It makes no sense!
Manson sent a man & two girls out on these murder missions. Gary Hinman's murder was the first. They follow the same, exact pattern.

starviego said...


Hinman's murder was the first of the Helter Skelter killings:


From Beausoleil's 2016 Parole Hearing
cielodrive.com/bobby-beausoleil-parole-hearing-2016.php

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHONEY: ... it looks like it was, I don't want to use the word typical, but a typical Manson murder, almost. To, you know, lead into the race war that he wanted to create. There was the fact that the word political piggy was written in blood, and the paw print left to be of like, the Black Panthers. There was the fact that when you were stopped by the police, you told them that the car was sold to you by a black individual. So there's ample evidence that looks like, no, this is not a bad drug deal, this was part of the Manson Family, and part of a typical Manson Family murder.

Dan S said...

AA74, what are the lies or omissions in the half truths? Those statements sound like whole truth to me

Peter said...

But if Hinman was the kick-off to a planned race war triggering murder spree, why send Bobby. He wasn't really a full time family member and had his own thing going on. He didn't need to prove anything. Maybe it was Manson's intention that Gary die, but I think Bobby's understanding was that he was there to convince or extort. The whole Helter Skelter thing was pretext to keep everyone amped up and to mislead the police. Sadly, it's the oldest trick in the book to try and blame it on the black guys.

Interesting that all the murders includinf Gary was 1 man 2 women. I never made that connection before. Even the aborted one on night 2.

Peter said...

Matt is it true that you told the Colonel if he wanted to come back he had to bring you half a coconut?

Even if you have to go to Rio de Janeiro to get it.

David said...

Ah .... Cielo.... Kasabian. That would be four.

What is consistent at Cielo and Waverly is the ‘instructions’.

Dan S said...

Cupid was sent as the young bait. Could that be the angle?

Also i think the sheer immaturity of the group seems important. It's like Lord of the Flies up in there and Tex is Piggy, well not Piggy but some goon trying to fit in.

Seriously tho about BB as a sex object for GH, then it all starts to make some sense.

AstroCreep said...

I don’t view Hinman as the kickoff to Helter Skelter but it’s one of the factors that lead to the kickoff- Lotsapoppa, Straight Satans, and Hinman all of equal importance. Those events lit the fuse and are all contributing factors. At the same time, they’re stealing cars left and right- have helicopters flying over the ranch- Dennis Wilson tells Charlie he can suck it- little coward finally snapped and had his minions go do his thing for him.

AustinAnn74 said...

Dan, the truths/half truths is based on opinion: my own. Throughout BB's hearing transcripts, you'll notice some instances were he admits things the way they really happened, as an example, he gets asked by the DA in 2010 if he killed GH because CM told him to, and he said YES, but then he starts in on Danny DeCarlo, etc. He has an answer for everything, but they don't make sense. I read someone's comment on Cielodrive.com and they wrote that the timeline doesn't make sense with BB's version. Check it out:
What makes the story highly suspect are all the attendant details that, when put together, form a picture that strains credibility. Just one example of many; Bobby claims that the Straight Satans threatened him because Hinman's drugs were supposed to be bad. But if he delivered the drugs late on the Friday {he claims he picked them up from Gary on Friday night} and was at Gary’s by the Saturday afternoon demanding the money back, then the timeline is way too tight.
In trying to get away from the prosecution narrative of holding Hinman hostage from the Friday to the Sunday, Bobby claims they were only there for 30 something hours. So given that a mescaline trip lasted anything from 8-14 hours {and sometimes, even longer than that} and Bobby was supposedly at Gary’s by Saturday afternoon, at what point between the late hours of Friday and early on the Saturday afternoon did the Straight Satans and the other bikers at the party distribute and manage to ingest 1000 capsules of mescaline {Bobby says there were no drugs left over to verify whether or not they were bad}, get sick, determine all the takers were ill and the drugs were the cause, be fit enough to make their way across LA to Spahn after psychedelic bad tripping, find Bobby, threaten him with knives and violence and demand their money back and Bobby then find Charlie, ask him for advice, then locate Danny DeCarlo for advice on what to do then find Bruce to be given a gun and advice…….
It’s so lopsided. So much doesn’t fit but most telling of all, aside from Mary, Susan, Danny, Kitty Lutesinger, Ella Jo Bailey and Bruce not backing up Bobby’s tale, even Charlie, who is meant to be the one that corroborates his story, contradicts him at crucial points in the story. One cannot believe both of them because they cancel out each other.

GreenWhite said...

It's nice seeing it laid out like that, AA. I agree.

Dan S said...

Drug burn does seem like BS. Remember how Bobby says he didn't want his parents to find out he was a killer, (hence his initial stance of innocence); what about having them find out he was doing gay stuff with the family?
It fits the manson paradigm. Control through sex and GH was gay right?


Maybe GH was not so gay after all and it got really awkward, or BB couldn't go through with his instructions so he got strong arm... I realize the girls would have probably spilled the beans about that plan but they might not have been in on it and Charlie was always good at keeping secrets.

ColScott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AstroCreep said...

Would make for one hell of an entertaining movie- did you read the book?

David said...

Dan,

Ella Jo Bailey was the ‘bait’.

As she testified, she was one of about a dozen people present when getting money and Hinman came up. She also placed the following in that discussion: Brunner, Atkins, Cooper, Bill Vance, DeCarlo, Grogan, Davis and Beau (she didn’t know his last name), Little Patty, Beausoleil, Morehouse, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, Watson, Kasabian and Manson.

Two names came up in the conversation: Melcher and Hinman.

She knew Hinman in her own words “quite well” and during the meeting she mentioned Hinman owning his house and having stocks and bonds. She does not mention anything about an inheritance.

A few days later she said she was down at the dump at Spahn working with Bill Vance when Manson approached and told her to go with BB to Hinman’s. She was told to get Hinman to join the Family or get him to sign over what he owned. When Manson told her to go she says she shook her head. Then Vance interceded and told Manson she had better things to do on the ranch and that she wasn’t going.

She and Vance left on the 28th of July and she never went back.

As an aside, the Family’s lack of any concept of ‘time’ seems not to have aflicted Bailey. She recalls in her testimony dates (May 5th, July 26th, July 28th) days of the week (Monday and Friday)times (6:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 11:00p.m.) and she differentiates between week days and weekends.

When the decision was made to go to Hinman's, Bailey was Manson's first choice because she was fairly close to him. She was ‘chosen’ (her words) to lure him into the Family.

I had three takeaways from her testimony.

1. Someone actually told Manson to pound sand- it seems he was a bit of a Georgie Porgie.
2. When she was asked she and Vance both suspected something bad was going to happen to Hinman.
3. She was the 'bait'.

Panamint Patty said...

Patty's real name is Anne Colonel.

AustinAnn74 said...

Col: Mais je suis innocent!!

ColScott said...

comment reconstituted

starship- true knowledge comes from within


Fun Fact- a book agent last night offered me the Snake Lake book to option for film /tv. He did not know that I ran the ONLY Official TLB Blog. I almost choked on my tacos

ColScott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

It's not the worst of the books to turn into a movie. It's manageable because it's a first person narrative. But Snake wasn't the most interesting and too much of the book is her early life and that's just not that interesting either.

I would pass Colonel.

Peter said...

This is the book you want

https://www.amazon.com/Shorty-Clem-Michael-Slack/dp/0062421581

Orwhut said...

Peter,
I suspect that book is about a different Shorty and Clem.

timewarp 3 said...

Thank you for your service

timewarp 3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
timewarp 3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
timewarp 3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
timewarp 3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
timewarp 3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan S said...

David, why would they think Hinman would join the family? If EJB was the bait why didn't they put her on the hook? Plus family testimony, even with dates (maybe particularly with dates) is not credible. It is interesting, though, and our only portals to any clues sometimes (and thanks for summing it up for me).

Maybe the thinking was the musical connection. Just how much family jamming did GH do? If he was a teacher i doubt he'd be blown away by them. Brooks and Paul sound amazing in Hendrickson's Manson and Clem and Gypsy were talented and BB had some talent and charisma. There could have been some special totally liberating jamming GH partook in and maybe that's why they thought he'd come on board.

Anyway, how could EJB be the bait if she didn't go to persuade him?

David said...

Dan,

I should have said ‘supposed’ to be the bait.

tinkse7en ! said...

Coming out of lurker mode again. I actually don't see Tec as much different than the girls: wanting to be accepted, & I believe Charlie played him too. This is not any sympathy for him: he killed. But I do think meth had to do with that, among other issues.