Monday, August 6, 2018

Creepy Crawls



This is not a review of Jeffrey Melnik’s book, Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family.

[Aside: At the outset I have to make a confession. Until about 2002 I had never read a single thing associated with these crimes. I had never read Helter Skelter or The Family. I did watch the made for TV movie back in 1976. That same year, I believe, some friends and I piled into my one friend’s Camaro and drove 30 miles to see Robert Hendrickson’s documentary Manson (for any newbies, that was “Mr. H” around here). Being teenage boys ranging in age from 15-17 we were disappointed, especially with the Manson ‘girls’. It was almost 30 years later that a friend asked me to read Linda Kasabian’s testimony so he could ask some legal questions. He was obsessed. I agreed, assuming it would be about 50 pages long. This confession will become slightly more relevant below.] 

Creepy crawls are one of those things that make the whole aura of the Family, well, “creepy”. In fact, I would argue that the entire horror film aura that lingers around these crimes today is rooted in the creepy crawl. 

“What the Family meant by creepy crawling was at once simple and profoundly upsetting. Leaving their communal home at Spahn Ranch in the San Fernando Valley, the Family would light out for private homes. Once inside, the Family members would not harm the sleeping family members. Instead, they would rearrange some of the furniture. That’s all. Stealing was sometimes part of the agenda, especially toward the end, but it was not the raison d’être. 

*****
No dead bodies, no blood on the wall. Just the bare minimum of evidence that the sanctity of the private home had been breached—that the Family had paid a visit to this family.”

(Melnick Jeffrey. Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family (Kindle Locations 126-130). Arcade Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

It is all rather frightening if you think about it. Someone comes into your house while you are sleeping. They don’t attack you or even rob you. They simply rearrange some furniture, maybe eat some food, leave the door open, let out the dog, turn on the stereo or the TV and perhaps go as far as coming into your bedroom and watching you sleep. It’s an invasion that is almost paranormal in a way. You wake to find that poltergeists crept out of the shadows of your closet while you slept.

Vincent Bugliosi was convinced that creepy-crawls were dress rehearsals for the murders that would follow. Were they? I don’t think so. And how prevalent were creepy crawls? Some suggest they were so infrequent as to be irrelevant. I think they were fairly commonplace. 

How Many Creepy Crawls Were There?


We actually know very little about creepy crawls other than that they happened. According to Ed Sanders, the ‘girls’ made up the name and, while the activity had been going on for some time, they were not called ‘creepy crawls’ until July 1969. (Ed Sanders. The Family. De Capo Press. Pp163. 2002). 

To the best of my knowledge only two witnesses ever testified at the time regarding the subject: Susan Atkins before the Grand Jury and Linda Kasabian at the trial. 

Atkins

_____

Q: How did you do that? What did you do? 
A: Well, we went out on garbage runs and we went and panhandled and one time one girl and I put on dark clothes and took it upon ourselves to do this -- Charlie had no knowledge of this -- we went out and creepy-crawled. 
Q: Creepy-crawled? 
A: Yes. 
Q: Explain to these members of the Jury what you mean by that. 
A: Moving in silence so that nobody sees us or hear us. 
Q: Wearing dark clothing? 
A: Wearing very dark clothes and move at night. 
Q: Where did you go? 
A: We hitchhiked over into -- I forget the area -- and we were scared to death, it was something neither one of us ever experienced, and wanted to experience it because everybody else in the Family was doing it. 
Q: They were doing what? 
A: Creepy-crawling. 
Q: Entering residences at night? 
A: Yes. 
Q: And taking things inside the residences? 
A: They never actually took anything inside the residence other than money. I never actually saw any money that they got from inside any of the residences. 
Q: You and this girl on one occasion did enter a residence and take some money? 
A: Not a residence, no. 
Q: What was it? 
A: There was an automobile parked on the side of the road. I opened the door and looked inside the glove compartment and saw some credit cards. I reached in and took them.

(Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations 231-244). Kindle Edition)
_______

To say Atkins had credibility issues would be a vast understatement, I have to admit that. But under her version of the creepy crawl everyone was engaged in creepy crawling, although she only did it one time with a girl the world later learned was Linda Kasabian. And on this one occasion she and Kasabian didn’t actually enter a home. But Atkins clearly conveys the impression that creepy crawls were fairly commonplace as ‘everybody else’ was creepy crawling. 
 

Kasabian


[Aside: I have deleted Kanarek’s objections and shortened the quote by over half.]
_____

Q: You testified you did not know what was going to happen that night. Did you have any idea what was going to happen?
A: Yes. I thought we were going to go on a creepy crawl mission.
Q: A creepy-crawl mission?
A: Yes.
Q: What is a creepy-crawl mission?
A: A creepy-crawl mission is where you creepy-crawl into people's houses and you take things which actually belong to you in the beginning, because it actually belongs to everybody.
Q: Who told you what a creepy-crawling mission was?
A: Everybody did.
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever tell you what a creepy-crawling mission was?
A: I remember one specific instance where the girls made Charlie a long, black cape, and one of the girls was fitting it to him, and he sort of said, "Now when I go creepy-crawling, people won't see me because they will think I am a bush or a tree."

(Linda Kasabian direct testimony Tate-LaBianca Trial)

A: I thought it was going to be a creepy, crawly mission.
Q (Fitzgerald): Your intent was to go out and steal, right?
A: Yes.
And your intent was to steal and you did not care where, or what you were stealing came from, did you?
A: I was told it was mine to begin with.
*****
Q: And you had been on creepy, crawly missions before, is that correct?
A: Yeah, I guess it was creepy, crawl. It wasn’t roaming into a house, that is what I consider creepy, crawl. 
*****
A: Well, I remember Mr. Manson was not at the ranch; he had just left for Big Sur, and that night I went out with Sadie on maybe what you could call a creepy-crawly mission. 

(Linda Kasabian cross examination Tate-LaBianca Trial)
_____

"Yana told me about "cutting capers" with her friends out in L. A. What they would do was break into some expensive suburban house at night, either alone or in groups, and while making no attempt at secrecy or quiet, take or break anything they wanted to, Yana had gone into homes alone, unarmed, and turned on the stereo or television while she ransacked the house. She said no one ever tried to stop her. They were so "afraid of themselves," she said that they'd just lie frozen in bed thinking, "Oh my God! There's a BURGLAR in the house!"

(No writer attributed. The Road from Gallup to Albuquerque.The Harvard Crimson. December 18, 1969)
 _____

Kasabian corroborates Atkins testimony and actually provides us with the date of her creepy crawl. Her acknowledged creepy crawl took place on August 5, 1969 if Manson had ‘just left’ for Big Sur. But while hitchhiking across New Mexico Kasabian expressed to James Brekenridge (the actual author of the Harvard Crimson article, above) that she had creepy crawled several houses, not just one car. She also suggests that all her friends in the group in LA were participating in creepy crawls. 

As I read Kasabian's testimony and statements she is saying everyone knew about creepy crawl missions and many participated. That says they were fairly widespread. 

There are also reports by other members of the Family. 
_____
 
“At night, he started sending the girls out on what he called “creepy-crawls” slipping into darkened houses while the owners were sleeping and crawling through them, rearranging things. Although it might seem that this kind of game was designed to frighten the people who woke up the next morning and found that things had been subtly shifted in the night, the real purpose was to make the girls doing the crawling face their fear and go beyond it. We began stealing anything we could get our hands on: money, credit cards, traveler's checks, dunebuggy parts. It was all for Helter Skelter, Charlie told us; we had to be ready. We creepy-crawled a couple of houses in Malibu and walked off with clothes and some tape equipment that turned out to have already been stolen from NBC.”

(Will You Die For Me? by Charles Watson as told to Chaplain Ray Hoekstra, Copyright 1978 Renewed Copyright 2010 by Steve Housden)
_____

“Catherine Share:  The Family had been preparing for this. Charlie would take the kids on what he called “creepy crawls.” They’d break into houses and move around the furniture. There were a lot of creepy crawls before the Tate murders. He’d say, “Get your black clothes on, get in the car, and do a creepy crawl.” Tex, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, Clem, Squeaky, and Patricia Krenwinkel—they all went on creepy crawls.”

(Manson: An Oral History, Steve Oney, Los Angeles Magazine, July 1, 2009)
_____


“Charlie began to instruct the older girls in what they called creepy-crawly missions. He would have them dress up in dark clothing that would be hard to spot at night. Then he would send them to random houses with the mission of moving things around unnoticed just to play head games with those he called “the sleeping pigs” or stealing small items to contribute to the coffers. These creepy-crawly missions were not burglaries per se. Charlie said these were training missions, a way to help them overcome their fear and learn to be silent and undetectable. I was never included in these.”

*****

“Still, at the time, I was disappointed about not being included on the creepy-crawlies. While in hindsight, this non-inclusion was the best thing that could ever have happened to me, it was difficult feeling so separate from the group.”

(Lake, Dianne. Member of the Family: My Story of Charles Manson, Life Inside His Cult, and the Darkness That Ended the Sixties. Kindle Locations 4884-4888, 4895-4897. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition)
_____

“I went “creepy-crawling” with Linda into homes and garages—an expression that came from me as we practiced and mastered silent entry into places, armed with our knives, and moved about the occupied houses without being detected. Barefoot, in old, dark clothes, deadly earnest, we became expert in burglarizing right under the noses of the occupants. The fear and thrill were exhilarating. I had always liked danger, although it kept me close to hysteria and panic. Furthermore, I felt we were perfectly justified in what we were doing. We were “in the Thought” . . . “in the now” . . . “free from thought” . . . “escaping from a doomed society. . . .”

(Susan Atkins. Slosser, Bob. Child of Satan, Child of God (p. 118). Menelorelin Dorenay’s Publishing. Kindle Edition)
_____

Creepy and crawling but not creepy crawling
“Something big had happened the night before. Leslie didn’t know exactly what it was, but she knew it was part of Manson’s “Helter Skelter” plan. She concluded from the comments she’d overheard in the morning that unlike previous outings, this one had not been a trial run. In the past they had conducted what they called “creepy crawlies.” They would all dress in black and break into people’s houses as dress rehearsals. The point was not to be detected. On the previous night’s venture, confrontation was the point. She was pretty sure people had died. She knew Pat had been included, along with two others of Charlie’s inner circle: Tex and Susan.”

(Meredith, Nikki. The Manson Women and Me: Monsters, Morality, and Murder (p. 280). Kensington. Kindle Edition)
_____

There are even reports that either were or sound like creepy crawls from the victims of the creepy crawl. 
_____

“Lucille Ellen Larsen is the owner of Lucy's Pet Shop, 2524 Hyperion. She claimed to be a close friend of Rosemary.
*****
She recalled Rosemary once making the statement "someone is coming in our house while we're away." Larsen suggested it might have been the children or their friends. Rosemary said she had questioned them and was satisfied it was not the children or their friends. Larsen asked Rosemary how she knew someone was coming into her home. Rosemary replied, "Things have been gone through and the dogs are in the house when they should be outside or visa versa." This was first mentioned prior to 1968. There were reported burglaries at the LaBianca residence yet it is common knowledge that Rosemary left the keys to her car and the house in her Thunderbird, which was usually parked in the rear of the house.”

(Second LaBianca Homicide Report)
______

“I had been in Arizona doing a film. When I came back, Al told me, “Some people are crawling over the wall, and every night at midnight, they crawl to your house and then they leave.” I thought it had to be some Manson people. So the first night I was back, I waited up and, sure enough, at midnight, they came over the fence. I had a shotgun and so did Einstein Eddy. I told my old lady to fetch Eddy. I saw the Manson people coming across the lawn and I was thinking, “What am I going to say?” I thought of a classic yet profound line I had learned from my earlier movie-extra days: I yelled, “Stick ’em up!” And that worked, just like it did in the movies. Their hands went up.”

(Kaufman,Phil. Road Mangler Deluxe (Kindle Locations 861-866). White-Boucke Publishing. Kindle Edition)
_____

 “Most of the Family’s creepy-crawls took place near Spahn Ranch, but sometimes they ranged all the way into upscale neighborhoods, once even creepy-crawling the Bel Air home of Mamas and the Papas’ John and Michelle Phillips.”

(Jeff Guinn. Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson. Simon & Schuster. pp 212. 2013)
_____

“Ed Sanders suggests in the Los Angeles Free Press that Wilson had, in early interviews with Bugliosi, taken a decidedly “mishiga” approach and was making it clear to the prosecutor that he would act crazy on the stand if forced to testify. By his own admission Wilson would not testify because he was scared—and by most accounts the musician had reason to worry. In addition to creepy crawling Wilson’s house, Manson also directly threatened to hurt Wilson’s son.”

(Melnick Jeffrey. Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family (Kindle Locations 2912-2917). Arcade Publishing. Kindle Edition)
_____

“According to numerous reports, they creepy crawled the Malibu home of Doris Day, where Melcher and his girlfriend Candice Bergen had gone to live after leaving their Benedict Canyon house on Cielo Drive, a house soon to be occupied by Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski.”

(Melnick Jeffrey. Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family (Kindle Locations 340-342). Arcade Publishing. Kindle Edition)
_____

There are even tales of daylight creepy crawls.
_____

“Peter Biskind recounts a telling anecdote in his book on the New Hollywood, about Donna Greenberg—a woman who “wasn’t in the business” but who was “clever, wealthy, attractive, and had a wonderful home, with rooms and more rooms for guests, a swimming pool on the beach, and an expansive patio.” As Greenberg later recalled “One beautiful, sunny Sunday morning, I was having breakfast on the patio with my four-year-old, the nanny, my husband, and our oldest son, who was thirteen or fourteen…. We had just had a paint-in, painting our seawall with peace signs, graffiti, that sort of thing. Suddenly the most frightening group of hippies walked onto our patio, stood around and stared at us, wandered through our house. I was petrified, but I didn’t know what to say, and it was also the ’60s, being nice to people who wore lots of beads and jewels and bandannas. There was a piano covered with all the pictures one collects of children and family and loved ones and everyone I knew…. They gathered around the piano and looked at the pictures. Then they walked out, leaving us shaken. They got down to the end of the beach, but they couldn’t get out, and a police car came, and I found myself walking down there and telling the police to let them go, they were my guests. Don’t ask me what the impulse was. It was the Manson family.”

(Melnick Jeffrey. Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family (Kindle Locations 2267-2277). Arcade Publishing. Kindle Edition.)
_____

And then there is this.
_____

“At the end of the sixties I was renting an apartment in the Hollywood Hills and my life was still in chaos. I drank too much, jumped into bed with the worst choices of men and had again gotten fired from my job in advertising.

Grisly stories in the newspapers were about the Sharon Tate/LaBianca killings and one of the murder scenes was only blocks from my apartment. I'd gone to bed early that following weekend and sometime during the night my dog Mickey stood growling at the edge of the bed. I almost turned on a light, but stopped when I heard whispering. The hair twitched on the back of my neck. I slid my hand from under the sheet, grabbed Mickey's hind leg and the dog wiggled in beside me. My heart raced. I listened to the toilet flush, water splashing in the kitchen sink and what sounded like more than one person scooting around on the floor. I pulled the sheet over my face and pressed into the mattress. I lay barely inhaling until there was silence. Even then I didn't move and my heart continued to pound.

When sunrays filtered through the window, Mickey jumped off the bed and I stepped cautiously onto the floor. I entered the bathroom. The sink faucet was running. I hurried into the living room. The front door was standing open. I reached for the phone, but changed my mind. What could I tell police? Maybe I'd left the faucet on and had forgotten to close the front door. Maybe I'd dreamed the rest, or the place was haunted. Maybe my chanting had brought in the demons.

Years later I read Helter Skelter, the story of the Tate/LaBianca killings told by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who put Charles Manson behind bars. There's a chapter about the Manson family "creepy crawling" a house. Manson told his followers to go into homes in the Hollywood Hills and crawl around on the floor while turning on water faucets and flushing toilets. Chilled to my very core, I put down the book and paced the room. I knew during a scary night in the sixties, I had been "creepy crawled."”

(Suzanne Tilden-Mortimer. Brushes with Evil. www.freshyarn.com) 
_____

Reports of having been creepy crawled by the Manson ‘girls’ almost feels like a badge of honor like the list of those invited over to Cielo on the evening of August 8th or the number of stuntmen who beat up Manson. But I believe creepy crawls happened and likely happened at houses the Family was familiar with as well as random houses. 

Based upon what we know I would go so far as to say creepy crawling had been going on for a while before July 1969 and that it was fairly widespread. I say this with a caveat: notice that aside from Kasabian and Atkins who testified they only went once the other Family members only report the activity of others, not their own creepy crawling. 

What was the Purpose of a Creepy Crawl?


I can see three possibilities here (1.) fun (2.) dress rehearsals for murder (3.) Manson’s first crack at the establishment. 

Fun


This where that confession comes in. When I was in college I was in a fraternity. One that more closely reflected the True House than your traditional notion of a frat. In the traditions of the Greek system at my university back then when you wanted a party with a sorority you went through a strange ritual where you stole their composite photograph of the members. They had to come over and sing to get it back and somewhere in there a party was arranged (or visa-versa if the sorority wanted the party). One semester our social chairman, a very nice but passive guy, got severely snubbed by a house. We stole the thing and they didn’t return his calls. In fact, they sent three goons from another frat to get it back. Had a few of us been home that afternoon, that might have gone badly for them. 

The next semester I held that post. I didn’t like sororities and didn’t want parties with them so myself and a couple others came up with a different plan. A plan that started as revenge against that sorority. We called it ‘A Mission’. Our inspiration was Mission Impossible and one guy even played the song on a cassette while we got ready. We would dress in dark clothing. We’d break into the house, rearrange the furniture (maybe even take it outside). Eat their food. Leave lights on. Etc. On the way home we’d have a gay old time imagining their faces the next morning. 

It was fun. The fear-based adrenalin was quite the rush. The absurdity of our actions was the point and we never got caught (although some guys from another house tried to take credit for it so we sent an anonymous letter to the Greek monthly paper, thingy, debunking their claim.).

Could creepy crawls have been just fun? Yes, they might have been part of those things the Family did like dress up in costumes. It could have simply been part of the Magical Mystery Tour.
 _____

“The creepy crawl was nothing if not theatrical. The rearranging of furniture and consciousness was devised as a sort of real-world guerrilla stage direction: “Square family members wake up from their nighttime stupor as Family members exit through doors and windows. They look around. On their faces we see that they are questioning everything they have believed in until this point.” In his book on the Doors, Greil Marcus refers to the Manson Family as a “band,” but a “troupe” is more like it.”

*****
“John Waters, whose early films and later sculpture are so indebted to Manson, finds evidence of the creative impulse well in advance of the murders: “Was Manson’s … ‘creepy crawling,’ some kind of humorous terrorism that might have been fun? Breaking silently into the homes of middle-class ‘pigs’ with your friends while you are tripping on LSD and gathering around the sleeping residents in their beds, not to harm them but to watch them sleep…. It does sound like it could have been a mind-bending adventure. When the Mansonites went further and moved the furniture around before they left, just to fuck with the waking homeowners’ perception of reality, was this beautiful or evil? Could the Manson Family’s actions also be some kind of freakish ‘art’?”

(Melnick Jeffrey. Creepy Crawling: Charles Manson and the Many Lives of America's Most Infamous Family (Kindle Locations 6024-6030, 6046-6050). Arcade Publishing. Kindle Edition)
_____

I think an argument can be made that the sole purpose of the creepy crawl was fun, thrills if you will. That is certainly why we did it in that fraternity, not even knowing we were creepy-crawling. 

Rehearsal for Murder


Vincent Bugliosi certainly thought the purpose of the creepy crawls was to prepare for murder. 
______

“These creepy-crawling expeditions were, I felt sure the jury would surmise, dress rehearsals for murder.”

(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 214). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition)
_____

And Jeff Guinn would certainly agree with Bugliosi. 
_____

"According to Guinn: "Charlie wanted the Manson family — about two dozen mostly drug-addled kids — to believe they had the power to enter anyone's home at any time, without the people inside knowing that they were there. And so, he trained them, two or three at a time, to follow him. He would tell them to dress in dark clothes, they would get in the car and then they would drive to some of the fancier residential areas in Los Angeles.

"They knew some rich people, mostly rock stars. And what they would do is try to gain entrance into their homes — a lot of times doors weren't locked or windows weren't completely shut. Then, while the people inside slept, the creepy-crawlers would stealthily rearrange furniture. They might put the dining room table where a living couch had been. And then they'd sneak out, knowing that when the people woke up and saw how things were different, rearranged, they'd know someone had been there inside and could have done anything they'd wanted — murdered them in their beds. And they'd also have no idea who these people were." 

One of the break-in victims was Michelle Phillips, a member of the Mamas and the Papas, who wrote about it in a book.

Manson was using the creepy-crawls as "a sort of horrible spring training" for what he really intended. And that would most notoriously include the "Helter Skelter" rampage of back-to-back nights of murders that terrorized Los Angeles in 1969. The victims famously included Hollywood actress Sharon Tate, wife of director Roman Polanski.

"Everybody talks about the Tate-LaBianco murders, but I think they miss just how calculating Charlie Manson was in orchestrating the training he thought that his followers needed to carry out real murders," Guinn said on Strange." 

(Christopher Wynn. The Most Frightening Thing About Charles Manson was that He 'Never, Ever
was Insane'. dallasnews.com. Noevember 20, 2017)
_____

There is evidence that supports this theory. One result of the creepy crawl would have been to diminish fear in the participants. Ed Sanders claims Manson showed the girls how to jimmy locks and slice screens and says Manson used creepy crawls as a teaching method. (same cite as above). 

There also is some indication that murder was the final step in a sort of creepy crawl progression. Atkins told Virginia Graham as much while they hung out together in Sybil Brand. 
_____

 “That would be no problem, Susan said [killing the Hollywood hit list]. It was easy to find out where they lived. Then she’d simply creepy-crawl them, “just like I did to Tate.”

(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary 
Edition) (p. 440). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition)
_____

The timing of Kasabian’s creepy-crawl, August 5th is interesting. Notice, above, Kasabian’s one creepy-crawl (Atkins in her book says there were others and Kasabian contradicts herself as Yana) is one on one with Atkins, one of the killers, three days before the murders. Then look at Catherine Share’s comment. Every one of the killers went on creepy crawls, which likely was her point. Perhaps your performance under the observation of one of the elite helped determine whether you were ‘ready’. Whether you had sufficiently drunk the kool-aid to commit murder. 

But I don’t think creepy crawls were dress rehearsals. First, that would likely mean Manson was planning murder long before July-August 1969, if we assume creepy crawls were going on before July. Personally, being a proponent of a theory that this was a millennial movement gone bad due to outside threats and the charismatic prophet-leader’s perception he was losing control, I don’t believe the murder planning started long before the murders. The stressors were not there in January or March. It seems to me that everything unravels fairly quickly in July-August due to a combination of two factors: Melcher’s snub and the shooting of Bernard Crowe. 

Maybe Manson did suddenly unveil the creepy-crawl rehearsal after the Crowe shooting but to me the comments above sound like they had been going on for some time (even if they were not called creepy crawls). 

Phase One


I think we can agree that Manson had a miserable childhood. He spent most of his time in the clink. He was separated from his parents and spent little time in a traditional family setting. The bond that comes from that experience is missing and likely he harbored significant animosity towards ‘the traditional family’. An experience he never had and thus didn't value.

Joining ‘the Family’ had a few ‘initiation’ requirements that support this theory. You had to give up all your stuff to the group. You had to break your own family bond by, for example, giving up your children and your name. And, of course, your parents (family) were, according to Manson, responsible for all those hang-ups, fears and ego trips you had that you had to get rid of to reach enlightenment. 

As Ed Sanders put it: “They were into such a trip of mystic transformation that the Family evidently believed that there was an archetypal core personality in each human that could be discovered though acidzap, mind moil, role-playing, bunch-punching, magic, blasting the past and commune-ism. This was the Magical Mystery Tour” (Ed Sanders. The Family. De Capo Press. Pp 27. 2002)

Destroying the family was part of the game. But not the only part. ‘Fear’ also played a role in the process. Manson preached that one came to full awareness through fear. In fact, that was, apparently the catalyst for the creepy crawls: allowing the members to reach that level through fear.

But fear also had a second role. It was a weapon. The attack at Cielo was, according to Atkins to ‘instill’ fear into Melcher. Atkins also rapped with Ronnie Howard about “throwing some fear into the world”. Before the Grand Jury Atkins expanded the concept to the entire establishment. 
_____

Q: Well, you can't ask me any questions, Susan, I'm just trying to find out what happened to the best of your recollection. Did you say why this [the murders] had been done? 
A: To instill fear into the establishment.

(Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations 741-743). Kindle Edition.)
_____

Fear as both a weapon and a higher consciousness also explains another aspect of that bizarre notion that ‘you really have to love someone to kill them’. If fear is the ultimate level of consciousness then in the twisted minds of these acid casualties the fear they inflicted while murdering someone was raising their victim's consciousness.
_____

“As Virginia understood it, there was this group, these chosen people, that Charlie had brought together, and they were elected, this new society, to go out, all over the country and all over the world, to pick out people at random and execute them, to release them from this earth. “You have to have a real love in your heart to do this for people,” Susan explained.”

(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 127). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.)
_____

Initially, the Family and Manson’s schtick was love, flowers, sex and dope. Manson symbolically tosses guns off a bridge, he gives things away to those who need them. He seeks to rescue the young girls from Haight Ashbury. He sits around singing songs, having sex and rapping about acid-soaked philosophy. In fact, the Family would have been nothing more than another failed 60’s commune had everything ended in December 1968. It’s at that point where things slowly begin to go bad, teetering over the brink by July 1969. 

So, my theory is that the creepy-crawls were not rehearsals for anything but initially they were a sort of light hearted way to attack the family and the establishment and progressed from there rather suddenly when other motives took over. Entering a house late at night and leaving the bizarre calling cards of moved furniture and open doors undermines the sense of security a home provides a family. It unsettles the family. They start locking doors, buying guns and live in fear. In the weird sense of reality possessed by the Family they likely even thought they were doing their creepy crawl victims a favor. 

Creepy crawls, in my opinion, were a way to damage the sanctity of the family by invading the home and to instill fear in the establishment. They were a way Manson could take away from others a piece of what he never had. Call it Phase I of what eventually led to the murderous creepy-crawls of August 1969. 

Pax vobiscum

Dreath

Postscript: It appears creepy crawls continue decades later. 

“Russian intelligence and security services have been waging a campaign of harassment and intimidation against U.S. diplomats, embassy staff and their families in Moscow and several other European capitals that has rattled ambassadors and prompted Secretary of State John F. Kerry to ask Vladimir Putin to put a stop to it.

At a recent meeting of U.S. ambassadors from Russia and Europe in Washington, U.S. ambassadors to several European countries complained that Russian intelligence officials were constantly perpetrating acts of harassment against their diplomatic staff that ranged from the weird to the downright scary. Some of the intimidation has been routine: following diplomats or their family members, showing up at their social events uninvited or paying reporters to write negative stories about them.

But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S. officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.”

(Josh Rogin. Opinion: Russia is Harassing U.S. Diplomats All Over Europe. Washington Post. June 27, 2016)

189 comments:

Dan S said...

Great post! A couple posts ago it was suggested that the creepy crawl was mostly made up and there were really no missions.

RudyWebersHose said...

After all these years people so confused over such a simple subject, the killings were a series of events in a falling domino situation starting with needless paranoia over the Crowe situation, IF the "creepy crawls" happened they were nothing more than residential robberies, Bugliosi and his book created mythic figures out of a bunch of small time thieves and drug users

Peter said...

"We didn't take anything except cash and credit cards" sounds like a residential burglary to me despite the "we didn't really take anything." However, I do think Manson used it to see who was ready, willing, and able.

StillGrooving said...

So, they said the creepy crawls weren't intended for theft, yet they took money and credit cards. Sounds a lot like theft to me. This was a "game" Manson thought up so that people would steal for him, yet call it something different.

starviego said...


In his book, My Life With Charles Manson(Chapter 13), Paul Watkins describes another act of creepy crawling:


http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-life-with-charles-manson-chapter_02.html

"Sometime in March, Charlie began sending people out on creepy-crawly missions around Canoga Park. The idea was to enter someone’s room without being detected. “When it comes down, we got to be prepared to save the babies. It might mean some sneakin’ and peekin’ around…takin’ some chances.” While I never went on any (breaking and entering) creepy-crawlies, I heard reports from those who did; everyone seemed to enjoy it. Snake said it was like going out on Halloween and taking your treat without ever knocking on the door. Only months later would it become clear that these exercises were dress rehearsals for murder. ....

"One night, shortly after Sadie and Ella had gotten home from dancing at a bar in the valley (it must have been around two a.m.), Charlie ordered them to go with Tex, Clem, Mary, and Bill Vance to creepy crawl a couple of houses on Variel Street. Within five minutes they were on their way. Bill, an expert when it came to breaking and entering, had taught most of the girls how to remove screens, slip locks, avoid watchdogs, and to implement the tools of the trade: penknives, razor blades, bobby pins, pieces of wire; he also showed them the best places to look for valuables. No one liked to steal more than bill, and no on in the Family was better at it.

"Around four p.m. the following day, Charlie asked me to take the jeep and drive Sadie to work at the club. Sadie had slept all morning; she was in good spirits as we pulled out of the driveway. “Hey, Paul, see that place?” She pointed to a white stucco house set off the road near the corner of Variel and Gresham. “That’s where we went last night, through that window…that one, see, next to the garage…walked right by this guy and his old lady, then right into the kitchen and had some orange juice and cookies. Then we split. They didn’t even twitch. We didn’t take anything—except for Bill; he grabbed a couple of credit cards for Charlie.” "

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


Another creepy crawl:

Los Angeles Free Press Vol. 7 No. 45 Issue # 329 Nov. 6, 1970
Vern Plumlee is famous in Mansonian circles in that, armed with a sawed-off shotgun, he creepy crawled the homes of Jack Jones, the star, and Marvin Miller in July of 1969. From the home of Jack Jones, creepy crawled at 2AM even though the lights were on, the c.-c.-ers took only a cowboy hat. For verily they creepy crawled only to experience the tidal wave of the Great Fear.

Peter said...

I've pointed this out before, so apologies for the repetition, but:

I think the significance is that Jack Jones the singer supposedly lived on Cielo Drive at one time.

Jack Jones the singer is not a country singer and I don't know what he would be doing with a cowboy hat or why the theft of it would be significant. He was a pop singer in the Sinatra mold whose career, oddly enough, was tanked by the British Invasion. The liner notes to one of his LPs proclaims: "Voted best male vocalist of 1963." Oh well. The only remotely country songs I know of him singing is The Race is On and King of The Road. His big hit was Wives and Lovers.

Jack Jones the actor, on the other hand, was a cowboy. He made his last picture in 1935. That's why I think the story is a fabrication. The idea that all that was stolen from Jack Jones was a cowboy hat only makes sense if the cowboy hat had some kind of significance. Like if they creepy crawled John Wayne's house and only took his cowboy hat the story would make sense. If someone told you that, you would go, "Far out, his hat, his identity. The one thing we all identify him with." But if they told you they stole his Dodgers baseball hat, it would have no significance and the story wouldn’t make sense.

Robert C said...

I agree with those who feel creepy crawls were infrequent. It seems to me had they done this at a high level, sooner or later they would have been 'caught' because most if not all were neither particularly bright nor skilled at burglary. Also, had it been frequent and sustained it should have created neighborhood stirs with much greater police attention and involvement, particularly the wealthier the 'hood. However, I can see a case for this being partial 'fear control' training for the coming murders although not necessarily in a well planned way.

starviego said...


Jeff Guinn. Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson
“Most of the Family’s creepy-crawls took place near Spahn Ranch, but sometimes they ranged all the way into upscale neighborhoods, once even creepy-crawling the Bel Air home of Mamas and the Papas’ John and Michelle Phillips.”

In her book, Michelle Phillips claimed John Phillips interrupted a creepy crawl, but in his own book John Phillips doesn't even mention it, so take it with a grain of salt.

Mr. Humphrat said...

It's funny that Little Paul said Snake recounted a creepy crawl to him while in her book she said she's now glad she never went on one. So typical of the constant contradictions and fuzzy memories.

The whole part about Manson's hostility toward the family and wanting to blow the minds of square people/do them a favor reminds of Max Cady/Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear in his actions towards Nick Nolte's character; seducing his daughter, exploiting the family's weaknesses, getting onto their property to freak them out, "I'm going to teach you about loss.." And ultimately Nick Nolte kills him and the family, having gone through these trials, becomes stronger.

beauders said...

Now how many of you out there would feel it would have been slightly cool to be creepy-crawled by Manson and his people?

StillGrooving said...

beauders said...
Now how many of you out there would feel it would have been slightly cool to be creepy-crawled by Manson and his people?


Nope. Not me. I grew up in a house that had frequent, bizarre things that go bump in the night, and I can tell you, none of that is pleasant or cool.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Great post by the way, David. I enjoyed especially the stories of the people who said they were creepy crawled. The one in the middle of the day and she was sure it was the Mansons, and the one AFTER TLB? It never occurred to me there would have been any creepy crawls after TLB, if it's true.

GreenWhite said...

Thanks for the work you put into this post, David. Excellent job as always.

starviego said...

Robert C said...
"I agree with those who feel creepy crawls were infrequent. It seems to me had they done this at a high level, sooner or later they would have been 'caught' .... ."

Yes, I've always thought it weird that in all their break-ins they never had to confront locked doors and windows, furiously barking dogs, burglar alarms going off, security lights coming on, angry homeowners screaming at them or wielding handguns, etc.

Dambuster said...

Indeed. It seems highly improbable that any of the principals involved in two successive nights of energetic bloodletting would possess the neccessary sang froid to risk continued slippery sliding, creepy crawling incursions knowing the populous and police were in the grip of their own altered state of consciousness and that apprehension whilst slithering about in the dead of night would be certain to draw unwanted attention. However... No sense makes sense.

RudyWebersHose said...

Maybe its just me but i think a home invasion is probably the riskiest, most dangerous thing a person could do, like you said sight unseen you dont know what is waiting for you in that house, seems like a pretty big risk to take to simply re arrange some furniture or steal a few bucks, jewelry or credit cards

RudyWebersHose said...

After all the ensuing chaos after the murders with the raid, Bobby in jail, Shortys killing and trying to gather things for the Barker run i doubt there were any break ins after Aug 8-9 but its possible, wasnt Charlie still trying to hit up Dennis for money right after the murders?

RudyWebersHose said...

If they broke in my house theyd be leaving either in handcuffs or on a stretcher

RudyWebersHose said...

Lol i still remember taking a girl to see that movie back in 1991, she was creeped out by it, probably not the best date movie but if i remember correctly not much else was playing

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

i still remember taking a girl to see that movie back in 1991, she was creeped out by it, probably not the best date movie but if i remember correctly not much else was playing

Oh man, you kill me sometimes !
Great handle, by the way.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I enjoyed especially the stories of the people who said they were creepy crawled

I think they bulled so much shit that they all should have PhDs in sewer management.

The one in the middle of the day and she was sure it was the Mansons, and the one AFTER TLB? It never occurred to me there would have been any creepy crawls after TLB, if it's true

So, Susan Tilden-Mortimer was creepy crawled by the Family the weekend after TLB ? Did the Family all astral project themselves out of jail and then back in after they'd finished ? There's the small matter of the Spahn raid......
Those people that claimed to have been creepy crawled remind me of the guy that thought he was driving the white sports car on Sunset.
As daft as it sounds for the last few years here in the UK, there's been this phenomena/problem of people, younger kids in the main, though not exclusively, that just want to be famous and have their name out there, known by everyone, regardless of what people think of them. But judging by all those that should have been at Cielo on Aug 8th or beat up Charlie or had Susan babysit for them etc, it's not really a new thing.
As for the words put forth by Family members about creepy crawling, a mass of contradictions arise. The Dianne Lake/Paul Watkins one is an obvious howler, but then, there's Tex going on about it in his book, yet telling a parole board member recently, something to the effect that all that stuff was exaggerated and that he never knew of anyone doing it. Catherine Share in her 2009 statement sounds like she's doing a Tex and recounting what she's heard; it's interesting that she includes Tex as part of the number even though he says he never did. Also interesting that she doesn't include Linda. And that she includes Leslie who said that her only experience was burgling her Dad's place ~ when he wasn't there. She didn't cc.
I'd prefer it if these tales of mass crawling were true but the reality is only two people have ever come out and said "Yeah, I did this" and could only point to one event and that, with a car. And when there are fingers pointed like Gypsy does, there are major problems from some of the people she claims were at it. The whole thing comes across as rather nebulous to me, something that did happen infrequently but which, after the murderers were in custody, went on to assume mythic status. In a sense, Bugliosi could be blamed for that and kind of got his wish. He was hoping the jury would connect creepy crawling with murder. It's almost like he gave life to something that few would have noticed otherwise.

beauders said...

Now how many of you out there would feel it would have been slightly cool to be creepy-crawled by Manson and his people?

I don't even like the idea of mice getting into my place !

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said...

A couple posts ago it was suggested that the creepy crawl was mostly made up and there were really no missions

Well, I wouldn't say people said no missions. Some of felt that it was overblown. I still feel that now. That said, I agree with some of David's reasoning as to why they happened. I think it was part of his MO in trying to shake a family structure that not only had he never had, but that he saw as aligned with the very system that he felt had shat on him most of his life. I've long felt HS in the overall picture settled many of the scores Charlie felt were outstanding. But life before HS was heading in that direction anyway.

Jeff Harper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Harper said...

Mortimer was creepy crawled the next weekend? Kinda hard considering Spahn Ranch was raided on the 16th.

Dan S said...

So what you're saying is, Charlie ordered the murders, including practice runs; or maybe the practice runs were more of an organic growth curve from dumpster to invasion to murder.

Hendrickson was always hinting there was much more to it than randumb tomfoolery. Id like to read Death to Pigs, that's for sure. Starviego was making a good case for secret government involvement. It does seem to connect some dots. I guess im still leaning towards Tex trying to impress the girls as the motive. I guess that technically puts me in the Copy cat camp.

David said...

Dan S said: "So what you're saying is, Charlie ordered the murders, including practice runs; or maybe the practice runs were more of an organic growth curve from dumpster to invasion to murder.'

No, I'm not. Maybe someone else is in the comments.

This post has nothing to do with motive.

I'm saying (1.) creepy crawls happened with some frequency (2.) they were done for fun or to take a shot at the 'traditional family' or establishment and that (3.) they were not a dress rehearsal for murder but (4.) fear was a big part of them on two ends of the spectrum.

I'm also hinting I had that toy-burned my fingers a couple dozen times.

RWH could be right- home invasion robbery and nothing more. Could be.

Grim could be correct they were not that prevalent- everyone says they happened, no one says they did them, save Atkins with Kasabian a half dozen times, not once, Grim, Kasabian says once. Don't trust her.

What I am saying is they were a first step in striking back, f--cking with the establishment. Pretty cool actually, IMO, if it would have stopped there.

Do I believe HS is the motive? No. I like Sander's response to HS in the FREEP.

Copycat? Ah...no, sorry George. Came too late in the game. Doesn't appear before the DP phase. Too easy, too convenient and frankly no corroboration except a bunch of liars and last but not least....points directly to the Fam. I guess maybe if they are stupid.

Drug burn blah blah? Nope, too many holes. Don't you actually need to 'know' the person who ripped you off? Way too much of a stretch to tie in night #2 and LAPD closed all the leads unless you consider Witold K a reliable witness.

CIA/FBI: Nope. The establishment couldn't fail and after Chappaquiddick the 'true left' was dead, politically. The Haight was a drug ghetto by '69 and the anti-wars movement had started breaking laws by throwing bombs. Why give a crap about a Panther Party you had already executed or think this short, hairy 50's con man with a certain charisma and apparently, a certain virility, could bring down the new left? Really? A CIA handler from Esalen? That and it gives way too much credit to Joan Didion.

Ok, back on track- and the only evidence to support it is the lack of evidence but...there is only one possible explanation....extraterrestrials.

Revenge? Not the way it has been articulated that is for sure.

I think Sandra Good told you why everyone was murdered back about 25 years ago (???). I think they all told us why long before the books were written in an attempt to either turn Manson into Voldemort or try to make him Aslan which is where all the BS motives come from. Well, or the trial, which for HS and copycat is the same thing as a book. I think Manson told us.

I just don't think we listened.

IMO

RudyWebersHose said...

Have you ever given any thought to Cielo being simply a planned home invasion and burglary gone bad? Think about it, one man and 3 diminuitive girls enter a home carrying 40 feet of rope and buck knives and a 9 inch long .22 Buntline AFTER cutting phone lines, add to that changes of clothes and parking 1000 feet away from the gate

RudyWebersHose said...

If the plan is to kill why cut the phone lines and wrap rope around the victims hands and necks?

Dan S said...

Sorry, David! I was replying to grim in my last post there. Lemme read the rest of your response here as i just started it and immediately wanted to clear that up. Great original post btw

Dan S said...

The agent provocateur action would target hippies and communes. Not the Panthers.

Tex wants to be like Bobby. It's a high school jealousy dynamic. That's my copy cat theory. The rope and cutting the phone lines points to some kind of torture angle. Maybe.

Just where did Charlie get his acid? Just who is Dr Roger Smith and why would he be Charlie's parole officer? Is Sharon Tate still alive and living as her little sister?

Dan S said...

Oh, and what did Sandra say 20 years ago? From the interviews I've seen I know it was a lot.

RudyWebersHose said...

The rope and cutting phone lines point to a "were here to get what we know is here so give it to us and we'll be out of here", someone said something that made Tex lose his fucking mind, possibly someone playing dumb acting like they didn't know where what they came for was, problem is Tex wasnt in the mood for games

Dan S said...

He shot Parent immediately with no provocation so that doesn't jibe with Rudy's comment. Also what's the source for "the devil's business" quote? I wonder if that's some born again false recollecting. The living witnesses are the most unreliable sources imaginable

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

Blogger Orwhut said...
Blogger Dan S said...
Oh, and what did Sandra say 20 years ago? From the interviews I've seen I know it was a lot.

David,
I'd like to know the answer to that question too. The only thing that comes to my mind was something to the effect that, the killings were an act of war.

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said...

I was replying to grim in my last post there ¬>So what you're saying is, Charlie ordered the murders, including practice runs; or maybe the practice runs were more of an organic growth curve from dumpster to invasion to murder

What I said earlier doesn't match any of that.
There is a kind of "grooming" element within Family life but that was inherent from when Charlie got together with Mary in '67 and men showing women that they were not exclusive fuck buddies was not exactly unusual in 1967. In some parts of the world, it's never been unusual !
I think by the time of the murders Charlie had enough experience of his troupe to have a good idea that they'd do pretty much what he wanted them to do. If you tell people to crawl around and baa like sheep and they do it, if you get the women to screw guys to gain some advantage and they do it, if you make it clear to people that they must pretty much abandon their families and old principles and they do it, if you're beating up multiple women and they're still sticking around, then I think you'd have to be pretty unaware not to think that these people will go in the direction you want them.
On top of that, the idea of the Family being the ones to start anything {if one goes with HS} or even the Family having to proactively kill at all came comparatively late in the day.

David said...

could be correct they were not that prevalent- everyone says they happened, no one says they did them, save Atkins with Kasabian a half dozen times, not once, Grim, Kasabian says once. Don't trust her

Breckenridge's article has some bits that cause a head scratch or two, like saying that Linda CC'd alone and unarmed {in her book, Atkins says the opposite, that they went with knives} or that she turned on TVs and stereos. In a previous thread, one could tangibly feel Starviego's incredulity when they asked if anyone actually believed some of the CC tales. Breckenridge's "cutting capers" bit on Yana seems rather far fetched, as if the teller {and I have no doubt that Yana is Linda} was trying to "big up" her role and standing. Because that's about the only place where it's said that there was no care taken to be discreet when entering these houses. Atkins again states the very opposite. The point was not to be detected so that the objective could be reached.
I don't see where Atkins says she specifically CC'd 6 times. Outside of the GJ, I actually find her surprisingly vague on this one. There seems to me to be a lot of exaggeration where CCs are concerned {"everyone was doing it", "everyone told me about it"} as well as contradictions. The latter is all the more interesting to me because it is specific people who are earmarked as being crawlers that end up contradicting by saying they weren't involved. And the understanding of what a CC actually was seems to range from person to person. When asked if she took part in CCs, Pat said just once ~ but it was to steal a dune buggy. She dismissed the creeping into people's houses thing {there again, I find her largely incoherent and remembers little in real time}. Leslie equated it with burgling her Dad's when he was out.
The time frame of when they started seems to be something of a mystery too.
Actually, if George reads these posts, could he ask Sandy and Lynette if they could add any light or weight ?
But you know, a bit like the speculating about the "roommates revenge," it's all much of a muchness to me because it doesn't really change the essentials. It is interesting to delve into though. I can't help feeling, at least at the present time, that, a bit like the stories that surrounded the Family about Shorty being cut up and beheaded and the head bouncing down the road, complete with Clem inspired sounds, that as well as being conflated with general thievery, more has been made of of CC-ing than was actually there.

David said...

DanS said: "Also what's the source for "the devil's business" quote?"

Atkins at both her Grand Jury testimony and in her interview with Caballero and Caruso. I don't recall if Watson admitted it at his trial.

David said...

Orwhut said: "The only thing that comes to my mind was something to the effect that, the killings were an act of war."

Correct.

"She was killed. That was war"

"We were at war with society."

"In war people die, Patti."

"People are being killed [in war] every day."

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said...

Also what's the source for "the devil's business" quote? I wonder if that's some born again false recollecting

Susan Atkins was saying that publicly as early as December 5th 1969 and she'd said it privately to her lawyers a few days before.

The living witnesses are the most unreliable sources imaginable

It's the great paradox ~ they are.....and they aren't.

RudyWebersHose said...

Have you ever given any thought to Cielo being simply a planned home invasion and burglary gone bad? Think about it, one man and 3 diminuitive girls enter a home carrying 40 feet of rope and buck knives and a 9 inch long .22 Buntline AFTER cutting phone lines, add to that changes of clothes and parking 1000 feet away from the gate

The presence of a change of clothes alone tells you that things were expected to be bloody. Which points to killing.
Cutting the phone lines before you go in is chillingly logical. If someone is on the phone near midnight and it suddenly goes dead, what are they going to do ? Aside from that, if the phones are dead, that means that whatever situation you find in the house, you've taken care of any possible surprises that may arise from a live phone, like someone locking themself in a room and getting a quick call into the Police or dialing the number and leaving the receiver off the hook so the officer on the other side can listen in.
As for the rope, it seems there was initially intent to hang the victims.

David said...

Grim said: "I don't see where Atkins says she specifically CC'd 6 times. Outside of the GJ, I actually find her surprisingly vague on this one."

Why, because it doesn't agree with your theory? Or because they are all liars except Kasabian?

Did you notice back there how Atkins and Kasabian testified to almost precisely the same statement being made by each of them when they arrived at the True house, which, in fact, did appear in Atkins' story on December 14th.

You are right Grim, she didn't say six times, I was wrong, she said "homes" and "garages" plural.

jerseydevil said...

Almost finished reading Reflection I think this is the only Manson related book I've read which is over 30 has nothing to do with the crimes I really enjoyed this book very well written it's mostly about the whole lifestyle & the freedom they had before everything turned so bad

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

The rope and cutting phone lines point to a "were here to get what we know is here so give it to us and we'll be out of here"

Tex apparently told one of the Doctors "As we drove along I could hear Charlie's voice inside my head computing what he had said, 'Go up to the house where Terry Melcher used to live and kill them, cut them up, hang them on the rafters'."

David said...

I don't recall if Watson admitted it at his trial

He denied it. He denied most of the details that Susan and Linda had ascribed to him ~ except the 9 murders.
At his trial, he did make reference to CC-ing, when he was questioned about the dark clothes found after the Cielo deaths.

RudyWebersHose said...

You forgot the most glaring reason for cutting the lines which interestingly is also in the homicide report which is putting time and distance between the crime and the perpetrators meaning if someone got out of their restraints and tried to call police the phone would be dead and another reason for the rope which is just as logical would be to tie the people up while things were searched for, the reason no ransacking wascsern is because Tex freaked out and shot Sebring before that could start

RudyWebersHose said...

Ever since I first read about this case ive thought that "devils business" quote sounded corny and made up to make the story more interesting

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Why, because it doesn't agree with your theory? Or because they are all liars except Kasabian?

No, neither. For the record, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I couldn't find where Atkins made that many specific statements about creepy crawling. And I do find her surprisingly vague {or perhaps a better word would be 'general'} on her own participation. I find her usually more forthcoming, even if it's where she's giving herself a bigger role than it turned out she had.

RudyWebersHose said...

He told doctors, lawyers, police, friends, etc etc etc alot of things that turned out to be lies, just look at his trial

RudyWebersHose said...

I remember wondering once whether maybe Manson snd the girls thought maybe theyd be prosecutors for other smmaller crimes like stolen crefit cards, stolen auto parts and dune buggy parts, home break ins, etc, i remember in the Ted Bundy case when he was apprehended for the last time in northern Florida hed been on the run for a month and a half after escaping jail in Colorado and had been surviving on stolen credit cards and shoplifting and prosecutors charged him with dozens of counts of stolen credit cards

RudyWebersHose said...

Sorry about the typos, got a new phone and the keys are even smaller than the last lol

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

You forgot the most glaring reason for cutting the lines which interestingly is also in the homicide report which is putting time and distance between the crime and the perpetrators meaning if someone got out of their restraints and tried to call police the phone would be dead

So what would stop the victims going next door ? It didn't stop Mrs Chapman.

another reason for the rope which is just as logical would be to tie the people up while things were searched for

It is just as logical.
And that is where the words of the perps provide some direction.
The following night, Tex & Charlie tied up the victims with strips that fitted round a man's neck. So a question to be asked is, what, if any, significance, was there to rope ? Is anything said or does anything come up in the Family philosophy about rope usage ?

David said...

Did you notice back there how Atkins and Kasabian testified to almost precisely the same statement being made by each of them when they arrived at the True house, which, in fact, did appear in Atkins' story on December 14th

I used to think they were virtually identical until I compared them. Both women make statements about it to different entities and they're really interesting to compare, both alone and together. When Atkins is recounting {as opposed to recanting !} the event to Caruso and Caballero, she does it in two parts. She says she asked if it was the house they took the acid trip in '68, to which Charlie replies “No, it’s the house next door.” The way Atkins says it, either her or Manson could be referring to either house. But a few sentences later comes:

RICHARD CABALLERO: Some time later the people that were left in the LaBianca house, the one that you call the Beverly Hills episode, came back. At that time did they relate to you —

SUSAN ATKINS: I got Katie to tell me because Katie and I are close

Q: Before you got Katie to tell you, had you by this time had any conversation with Charlie regarding that house next door?

A: Oh

Q: When did that come in?

A: On the drive back, I believe he mentioned the house next door was the house where we took the acid trip. That’s all I can recall. I don’t remember what I told you yesterday.

Q: That’s what you told me yesterday. You said that you knew the area and he said that’s the house where we had taken an acid trip, including yourself, that you hadn’t recalled exactly, but indicated you had been there. Is that correct?

A: Yes, sound about right.

To the GJ, Atkins says she was asleep when they pulled up to the former True house. When she awoke Charlie wasn't in the car. So any conversation she had with him about the house came after he'd already been in and she never said she recognized the house ~ she recognized the area. She doesn't appear to show any concern for "Harold's house" {ie, the inhabitants}, simply a question as to whether 'the house' was Harold's. Whereas Linda claims that her question was a concerned "you're not going to do that one are you ?" kind of question. She also testifies 2 different ways and in the Tex trial, says that it was as Charlie was going up the drive to the former True house that she posed her question to him, to which he then replied no, that it was the house next door to which he was going. The newspaper article that carries the story of Atkins' confession culls that part from the interview with the lawyers not the GJ testimony and the writer rewrites it in a way that's so grooooovy, that is, someone trying to talk like what they'd imagine a hippie would talk like. In doing so, they take so much of the steam out of it and also make it hard to make a case that Kasabian copped her story from Atkins because they're actually rather different on closer examination.

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

He told doctors, lawyers, police, friends, etc etc etc alot of things that turned out to be lies, just look at his trial

I totally agree. What he said to that Doctor though, was in line with things that Charlie had said about hanging pigs by their feet and slitting their throats.
As an aside, there were things that were supposed to happen on Cielo night that didn't. Come to think of it, that applied to both nights.
The reality is that sifting is hard.

Gorodish said...

David wrote (re the source of "the devil's business" announcement from Tex) :

Atkins at both her Grand Jury testimony and in her interview with Caballero and Caruso. I don't recall if Watson admitted it at his trial.

From Tex's trial (where he basically lied his ass off) :

Q: Did you wake him up and tell him, "I'm the devil here to do the devil's work"?

A: No, I didn't say anything like that.

From "Will You Die For Me" (mostly culled from the Tex Tapes from December 1969, and IMHO more reliable):

Frykowski stirred at the sound of my voice and mumbled something like: “What time is it?” I kicked
him in the head. As he struggled up in confusion, mumbling: “Who are you? What do you want?” I
answered, “I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business.”

BTW, great post addressing an always controversial subject, the CCs.
For nice background effects I re-read it while playing the Who's "Boris The Spider" ;-)

grimtraveller said...

Pax Vobiscum said...

But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S. officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.

It would appear that Bugliosi's "беспорядок" and Sadie's loaf carried a further reaching influence than anyone could have imagined at the time.

Gorodish said...

RudyWebersHose wrote:

Have you ever given any thought to Cielo being simply a planned home invasion and burglary gone bad? Think about it, one man and 3 diminuitive girls enter a home carrying 40 feet of rope and buck knives and a 9 inch long .22 Buntline AFTER cutting phone lines, add to that changes of clothes and parking 1000 feet away from the gate

If home invasion robbery was the case, where was one of the main tools of the trade - ski masks or anything involving facial obscurity ? As far as parking 1000 feet away, that was the smart thing to do for any dastardly type of deed there, robbery or murder. I've driven up that cu-de-sac twice, in 1977 and in 1991, and if another car drove up it from Cielo (cop or whomever) and blocked it, your vehicle would be trapped. Tex of all people knew this. I firmly believe they went there for one reason-to kill.

grimtraveller said...

Gorodish said...

For nice background effects I re-read it while playing the Who's "Boris The Spider"

Whoa, I just love that song, one of Entwistle's first attempts at a song {brought about by Townshend's nagging to contribute to the songwriting} and apart from "Cousin Kevin" and "Fiddle about," rarely bettered, at least to me. I love those eerie "creepy, crawly, creepy, crawly, creepy creepy, crawly crawly, creepy creepy, crawly crawly, creepy creepy, crawly crawly, creepy creepy, crawly crawly" backing vocals and the way in that final verse, the "crawly" backing vocal acts as a counter melody to the vocal. Such a simple song, yet so effective.

the Tex Tapes from December 1969, and IMHO more reliable

They probably are but I do wonder sometimes how much licence Chaplain Ray took in the writing of the book as his focus was other than a true crime tome. I'm often critical of the way Tex describes things in the book. It feels like he's picked up the info from elsewhere as there are a number of familiar phrases that have appeared elsewhere first. But it would be one heck of thing if it turned out that actually, he was the 1969 originator of much of the info that it feels like he's merely repeating.

Gorodish said...

Hey Grim...I won't disagree with your assessment of WYDFM....Tex has always been a dodgy individual. The book is interesting to me for filling in certain other things, like the Death Valley stuff and the pre-murders evil carousings. The crown jewels would be to actually hear the raw Tex/Boyd tapes...I pray that they will get released some day but not holding my breath.

beauders said...

Tex has admitted that he was so brutal because he was trying to impress the women and wanted to be as powerful as Manson in the Family. That worked out real good for you now Tex, didn’t it.

RudyWebersHose said...

They went up there to steal drugs and money associated with drug sales, Tex didnt care about being seen because theyre not going to report the drug ripoff to police, what they MIGHT report is the theft of possible valuables

RudyWebersHose said...

How do you know what was supposed to happen on Cielo Dr that night?

RudyWebersHose said...

Well then for that matter why cut the lines if theyre going to just kill everyone anyway?

David said...

Gorodish said: "I pray that they will get released some day but not holding my breath."

There are some people who are trying to get the tapes. The question is how far are you prepared to go in the effort. As for me I'm waiting for LVH's current appeals to be exhausted by her release or otherwise as she has raised the issue on appeal. Then we will see.

In my last FOIA request I indicated I would receive the tapes in any one of 11 +/- different ways, including MP3, cassette, upload, thumb drive, etc. even listening to them there. I also said I would accept a transcript (which I would pay for). That was a mistake as they ignored the other options and stated correctly they are not required to give me a transcript.

I will file another one, soon.

ColScott said...

Reading the Squeaky Book is bumming me out. Like randomly in the middle of a page we learn that no one liked Hoyt, she was legally blind, broke her glasses and oh yeah, was banging Karate Dave (the guy who have Karate clinics for Charlie per Tom O'Neill) and....nothing just end of random thought


The story ends in 1969 just when Squeaky's back stage shenanigans get interesting.

And the author profile- yeah she pulled the gun on Ford because she wanted he friends all in a courtroom again, that's the ticket.

I'll read the whole thing because ya gotta but seriously saddened by my skim

starviego said...

ColScott said...
".... we learn that no one liked Hoyt..."

I'll bet the guys liked her.

RudyWebersHose said...

If youve got a fat girl fetish, maybe

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

She [Linda] also testifies 2 different ways and in the Tex trial, says that it was as Charlie was going up the drive to the former True house that she posed her question to him

Actually, it's Tex's lawyer that says this but she answers in the affirmative, which puts a whole different spin on it.

ColScott said...

The story ends in 1969 just when Squeaky's back stage shenanigans get interesting

In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" there are some bits from what was then an unpublished tome of Squeaky's that she'd been working on in the early 70s. I wonder if it's the same one. She was a really engaging writer, kind of flowery and not at all like Dianne Lake, Susan Atkins, Paul Watkins or Tex. But I suspect she was on the other side of their bank.

RudyWebersHose said...

How do you know what was supposed to happen on Cielo Dr that night?

How do you ?
Watson and Atkins both spoke of things that were meant to go down. It may be horseshit, it may be slanted, it may be semi truthful, it may be true. But I'm not going to take the view "they're just a group of liars therefore everything they say is lies." There comes a point when you can only ignore the words of the perps for so long and even the devil says some things that are true. And sometimes, bits of evidence {such as a huge length of rope or 5 corpses or valuables left or the leaving of signs} point towards a mindset that is not out of step with what some of the perps say was supposed to happen.

why cut the lines if theyre going to just kill everyone anyway?

To ensure no surprises that lead to phones having a chance to be used. It's called planning and anticipation.

David said...

In my last FOIA request I indicated I would receive the tapes in any one of 11 +/- different ways

Did they require you to say why you wanted copies of the tapes ?

Orwhut said...

David,
Thanks for confirming the "War" reason for the killings. I'd kind of hoped Sandra had given a motive I hadn't heard about.

David said...

Orwhut,

Sorry.

Grim,

Yes, every freedom of information act request requires that you tell them why you want it.

RWH said: "They went up there to steal drugs and money associated with drug sales,"

Ah, the irrefutable drug burn argument. The fact there is no evidence to support the argument is the evidence that supports the argument. They stole the drugs and/or the cash that's why there is no evidence. You got me.

David said...

Unrelated.

I just spent two + hours working on a post, trying to find a quote I had found in the trial transcript several months ago and staring at a word doc where I jot things down. I had typed "August 6th". I have now poured through days of Kasabian's cross examination unsuccessfully searching for what amounts to two or three lines of testimony and banging my head against the wall, knowing it is there, somewhere.

Anyone want to guess where it was?

RudyWebersHose said...

Theres also no evidence to support Helter Skelter either

RudyWebersHose said...

Regarding the phone lines i could say the same thing when it comes to the robbery motive

RudyWebersHose said...

Atkins slso said it was Lindas idea to go to Cielo tor drugs, if were going to believe one thing a known liar says we have to believe the other, if not then we discount both of them

Orwhut said...

I'm on the east cost and yesterday when Aug. 8 would pop up on my computer I thought there was some reason I should remember that date. Now, the date is Aug. 9 and I remember what it was.

Orwhut said...

My brain must be working fairly well tonight. I finally caught the significance of RudyWebersHose.

Gorodish said...

Orwhut wrote :

My brain must be working fairly well tonight. I finally caught the significance of RudyWebersHose.

I'm in California and it's 12:55 AM, and it just dawned on me that exactly 49 years ago at this time Tex was probably hosing himself off with Rudy Weber's hose. Wow.

Gorodish said...

I'm going strictly from memory here, as I lost my copy of Ed Sanders "The Family" many years ago, but one of my favorite lines from the book went something like : "..when Weber asked what they were doing, tall Tex dialed his mind to smiling psychopath and and answered "Hi, we're just getting a drink of water..." I always enjoyed that book, knowing that a lot of it was a stretch, it was a hoot to read.

Orwhut said...

Right or wrong Sanders is entertaining.

Peter said...

Cut the phone wires to keep someone from calling the police. This does not necessarily mean they didn't intend to kill everyone. They didn't k ow who was in the house or where. All it would have taken is someone to lock the door to any room with a phone it and make a 20 second call to the police.

You know what I think Charlie told Tex before he left. "Dont fuck this one up like Bobby did. I dont want to get any phone calls from you asking for help"

StillGrooving said...

Maybe the Creepy Crawls was just something some of the them did out of boredom or for entertainment when they were high as kites. I remember, as a young, over zealous, too inebriated and high as a kite woman, myself, I once wandered into a stranger's home in the early morning hours. I actually thought it might be a friend's home, plus it was one of the more interesting, historical homes in my hometown. I wandered around, bumping into things as drunk persons are want to do, and left the home when I realized I recognized no one in the photographs I encountered. I didn't "break and enter" - the doors were unlocked. It wasn't burglary - I didn't take anything. But putting oneself in stranger's home. uninvited, is still a stupid thing to do.

AstroCreep said...

In reference to cutting of phone lines, that signifies just one part of the premeditation to commit murder. Were the bolt cutters given to Tex or did Tex grab them himself? If they are given to Tex, then it implies he is supposed to use them. Bring bolt cutters, knives, a gun, rope, wear something dark, bring a change of clothes- to the average human, that doesn’t sound like robbery planning- that sounds like slaughter planning. Why immediately shoot Steven Parent when the group could have stayed hidden in the bushes undetected? If one intends to commit burglary, but NOT commit murder, does one immediately commit murder so as to not get caught? The Cielo crew could’ve sped away if they’d been seen by Parent. Which leads me to....

If their only option was to kill Parent, why? To not disappoint Charlie? If one commits murder so as to not disappoint Charlie then I take that to mean Charlie WAS the ringleader and they were following HIS orders.

Or did Tex immediately shoot Parent to impress the chicks?

If committing murder is how you impress THESE chicks, then that speaks volumes as to what these chicks are into.

AstroCreep said...

In terms of the creepy crawling missions-

I seem to recall all sorts of stories about Rommel and dune buggies and overwatch positions in the desert. I would imagine that the creepy crawling missions happened at the same time as the dune buggy Rommel reenactments. Who was in charge of the training and why were they training? Did the group just take it upon themselves to conduct this training while Charlie was busy peacefully bringing dead birds back to life? Which leads me to......

All of the training missions support the constant race war narrative- to protecti themselves in the desert while the great race war is happening. Does it make sense that all of this training is happening because of a copycat motive? Or that maybe Lotsapoppa was tooling up a desert dune buggy raid on the family hideout?

None of the alternate motives play into all of the other facts about the family- well documented and corroborated facts. You can’t have one without the other.

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

Theres also no evidence to support Helter Skelter either

Teall theat to Pat !

Regarding the phone lines i could say the same thing when it comes to the robbery motive

But no one is denying that.
It is totally conceivable that the phone lines were cut as part of the MO of a robbery. The phone lines could have been cut for any number of reasons. It wouldn't be wise to say "the presence of cut phone lines rules out any notion of a robbery." Furthermore, if Tex is to be believed and if what Susan told the GJ on this is true, one of the reasons for being at Cielo was robbery. "To get their money and kill whoever was there." When you "get their money" that generally goes by the name of robbery. Whether it's one 6 year old to another in the playground or a masked assailant in a petrol station at 4am. So there is evidence of an intent to rob. Just not the drugs you want there to be. The perps didn't care where the money they nicked came from, whether it was drug sale money, Mrs Chapman's grocery money or rainy day money that was around for tips to give the gardeners, or guys delivering bikes and steamer trunks. I'll even happily concede that if there had been large quantities of acid, weed and mescaline around that they had come across, there's a possibility they'd have taken the lot, both for sale and personal use.
But the reasons, at least in Tex & Susan's minds, for being there were two fold with the second being "and kill whoever was there." Much of what the perps did before actually killing the people in the house runs parallel with what one might do if one was going to rob a house. Murdering Steve Parent blows any notion of 'just a robbery' out of the waters however, although I'm fairly certain you'll say that he wasn't killed first because there's no evidence outside of the liars to say that he was.
Without any statements indicating robbery alone and every statement of the perps taken into consideration, at least as far as Tex is concerned, I'm with what Astrocreep said above.

Atkins also said it was Lindas idea to go to Cielo for drugs, if we're going to believe one thing a known liar says we have to believe the other, if not then we discount both of them

In some instances, I'd agree with that but when it comes to Susan Atkins, I can't. But without getting into long diatribes about Susan's many changes of story over the years, suffice it to say, she disowns that penalty phase stuff about Linda {as do the other two}. I'll never just dismiss something that someone says because they have a dodgy track record, but I will be more scrutinous of what they say. Take each piece and person one at a time, look at the context of what they say and weigh that up against past statements and actions and try to reach some conclusion.

David said...

Grim said: "Teall theat to Pat !"

That's a good one, Grim. Took me a moment.

RWH said: "then we discount both of them".

You better. Unless you can corroborate any of them what they say should be seriously suspect. Some of it you can. But I always start from the proposition if Atkins, Watson, Krenikel or Kasabian says "X" something independent of any of them better also say "X". And sometimes it is not there and all you have are the four musketeers.

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

Atkins also said it was Lindas idea to go to Cielo tor drugs

She also said in the same set of testimony that she personally killed Sharon Tate and Gary Hinman and that Leslie was at the Hinman murder. Are you going to argue all those too ?

AstroCreep said...

None of the alternate motives play into all of the other facts about the family- well documented and corroborated facts. You can’t have one without the other

Elegantly and eloquently put.

RudyWebersHose said...

Point is you accept all of it or none of it

RudyWebersHose said...

No, to YOU that sounds like slaughter planning, all of those things could EASILY sound like robbery planning

RudyWebersHose said...

Also ive given my theory as to Parents murder, i dont believe he was killed as outlined in the official story

RudyWebersHose said...

Thats a very good point on the last part of your comment, personally i dont believe Manson told them to do anything other than "help your brother, i dont care how you do it" but what you said does make sense ill agree to that

Doug Smith said...

"Who was in charge of the training and why were they training? Did the group just take it upon themselves to conduct this training while Charlie was busy peacefully bringing dead birds back to life?"

EXACTLY

Your entire response is bang on AstroCreep

And, an aside - I woke up and saw a LOT more posts/replies here...didn't even compute that it was August 8/9. Camping with family - my nephew's 30th (8/8/88) got me distracted...annnnnnd, a dune buggy juuuuuust drive by as I typed this...oooo-eeee-ooooh

RudyWebersHose said...

I thought the way he called people "humans" was funny, like "they met a human on Sunset Blvd named Joe Blow" lol

David said...

I hate to go way back here but....

Grim said: “I used to think they were virtually identical until I compared them.”

Ok, help me out here.

Atkins (irrelevant parts redacted)

Q: Did Charlie indicate why he had picked this particular house?
A: No, not right away
A: I asked him if it was Harold's house.
Q: What did he say to that?
A: He said, "No, it's the one next door."

Kasabian (ditto)

Q: What happened after you stopped in front of this house?
A: I said something about, "You are not going to that house, are you?"
And Charlie said, "No, I am going to go next door."

I am trying to understand. My first question you don’t find these two statements remarkably similar?

You are using this statement (below) to raise a timing issue. If I follow you are saying Kasabian asked the question at the True House (hence Manson's reference to 'going') and Atkins missed the exchange because she was a sleep so her question comes later. Am I right?

A: On the drive back, I believe he mentioned the house next door was the house where we took the acid trip. That’s all I can recall. I don’t remember what I told you yesterday.

Of course, what you are also doing is protecting the credibility of Kasabian at least that is the outcome. I assume you would agree with me that because her revelation of the topic comes after Atkins by seven months if anyone intentionally ‘borrowed’ from anyone’s story it has to be Kasabian. I assume you don’t disagree with that, correct? Notice I said ‘if’.

Now, if they both asked the question you actually find nothing suspicious about the notion that, with both women in the car with him (regardless of when each question was asked) Manson answered the question with nearly identical words? And that would be twice, in the presence of both of them. You don’t find that just a bit, suspect?

Please correct me if I am wrong but to get there (Atkins asleep, misses the first go-round) and protect Kasabian aren’t you then assuming Atkins, at least on this issue, in that quote from Caballero, told the truth. Is that a fair statement?

If so, do you see anything in Atkins’ statement which is just plain totally inaccurate?

RudyWebersHose said...

I believe Steve was murdered because he witnessed the beginning of the robbery and was chased down and shot before he could drive off the property and alert someone, and just because Pat believes something doesnt mean everyone believed it or that HS was a motive for murder

AstroCreep said...

I understand your points totally- but I think this is where human error of recall and ownership of a remembered situation come into play. On many occasions I’ve recalled a situation and couldn’t remember if it was ME that said XYZ or someone else that said XYZ. I remember XYZ being said because it was actually said, but my recall of the WHO might be off. And, memories can change over time.

Also, I tend to think in regards to Waverly, the crew was smoked from all the “robbery gone wrong” the night before. Probably didn’t sleep well. They were likely replaying the “robbery gone wrong” blood spilling and death rattles all day in their heads. Then, during the car ride to Waverly, a fresh Charlie is probably running his gums non stop all excited about going to knock off, correction, I mean rob some pigs. He probably blabbed his mouth and cray talk the whole time and repeated himself 50 times that night.

RudyWebersHose said...

If you do a google earth search of 3301 and 3267 driveways they are so far apart that theres no way you could get either one of them confused, they also move inbtotally different directions with 3267 being a curved drivway and 3301 being totally straight uphill

David said...

Could I ask you guys to maybe add a name before your comments with or without the quote. I'm betting you are replying on your phones but over here its hard to tell who you are responding to. Thanks.

Astrocreep said: ".......And, memories can change over time."

Absolutely. Can't argue at all with any of your comment.

That is part of my point: whenever one of the Four Horsemen says something it should start at "extremely suspect" either because we know they lied or because of your points, or because of how Bugliosi interviewed witnesses or even a combination of the three.

Using Kasabian to corroborate Atkins or Watson to corroborate Kasabian or Krenwinkel to corroborate Watson doesn't help as the problem persist and one could be borrowing a memory from another.

For me corroboration comes from objective evidence and when the objective evidence contradicts them I, frankly, conclude they are wrong, lied, borrowed a memory or heard it from someone.

Grim frequently cites a perfect example. One of the best pieces of objective evidence that HS is the motive is 'Healter Skelter'.

RudyWebersHose said...

Lol one goofy broad writing Healter Skelter proves the motives for the murders was HS? Like Harold True said "she carries her brains in a lunchbox"

David said...

RWH said: "Lol"

You missed the point like you frequently seem to do. I didn't say it 'proves' anything.

RudyWebersHose said...

Just saying, basing anything on something Krenwinkel did or said is sheer lunacy

Robert C said...

RWH -- "Just saying, basing anything on something Krenwinkel did or said is sheer lunacy"

I think you're starting to lose your mojo again, SAG.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

A: "He said, 'No, it's the one next door.'"

"And Charlie said, 'No, I am going to go next door.'"

I am trying to understand. My first question you don’t find these two statements remarkably similar?


They have similarities but not remarkably so. For one thing, both are replies to a completely different question. Atkins asks Manson if the house he went into was Harold's. To which he replied "no, it's the one next door", ie, "the house next door to the one I went into was Harold's" or "no, it's [Harold's] the one next door." {As I noted in an earlier comment, the Atkins/Manson exchange works both ways; Manson's words could just as easily mean "no, it's the one next door to Harold's house"}.
Linda's question is "You are not going to that house, are you?" to which he replies "No, I am going to go next door" ie the LaBiancas.
Secondly, both replies come to a question that is being recounted by the speaker in a précis/summary form {"I asked him if it was...", "I said something about..."} as opposed to an exact quotation. I don't know that the answer isn't also a précis/summary.
Manson is correcting assumptions inherent in both the women's questions. It's not unusual that both would start with a 'no'. Because he is talking about different houses to the different women {if that is the case} but they happen to be next door to each other, it doesn't strike me as weird that he should include 'next door' in his answers.

You are using this statement (below) to raise a timing issue. If I follow you are saying Kasabian asked the question at the True House (hence Manson's reference to 'going') and Atkins missed the exchange because she was a sleep so her question comes later. Am I right?

Actually, Atkins, Caruso and Caballero are the ones that raise issues of timing. Nothing Atkins says to them or the GJ specifies her asking anything actually on Waverly. I don't know if Atkins missed the exchange with Linda because if one takes the Burbick version at the Watson trial, Manson was already out of the car and on his way up the True drive when Kasabian asked her question and she was in the front with a dozy Atkins on the floor at the back.

Of course, what you are also doing is protecting the credibility of Kasabian at least that is the outcome

It may be the outcome but it isn't the intention. For example, she completely omits Tex going to the house with Charlie which Manson, Watson, Atkins and Van Houten don't.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I assume you would agree with me that because her revelation of the topic comes after Atkins by seven months if anyone intentionally ‘borrowed’ from anyone’s story it has to be Kasabian

Most definitely. In the 'roommate' post, I actually emphasized that one of the most notable things about any dialogue regarding what was said about the movements of Manson and houses on Waverly was that Atkins said them first.

Now, if they both asked the question you actually find nothing suspicious about the notion that, with both women in the car with him (regardless of when each question was asked) Manson answered the question with nearly identical words? And that would be twice, in the presence of both of them. You don’t find that just a bit, suspect?

I hope I don't come across as being really pedantic but are the words nearly identical ? One sentence carries 6 words, the other carries 8 and there are three words common to each sentence and in each case an assumption is being nixed and in each case something is being asked that by necessity involves a house that is 'next door', however one looks at the Atkins/Manson exchange.
It's definitely noticeable but at this point in time, I can't say it's suspect.

Please correct me if I am wrong but to get there (Atkins asleep, misses the first go-round) and protect Kasabian aren’t you then assuming Atkins, at least on this issue, in that quote from Caballero, told the truth. Is that a fair statement?

You mean about asking Charlie ? Yeah.

If so, do you see anything in Atkins’ statement which is just plain totally inaccurate?

Well, her dozing off comes at a different place to what she told the GJ a few days later. She also told the GJ that she didn't see the house but talks about the two houses and describes their proximity to her lawyers.

RudyWebersHose said...

just because Pat believes something doesnt mean everyone believed it or that HS was a motive for murder

Both points are true but you contradict yourself by saying "just because Pat believes something" because you're acknowledging that well, ok, she may have believed it but it doesn't mean the others did ~ which at least makes it a motive for her. Leslie told her lawyer in private that HS was her motive ~ even though she pled not guilty.
I don't care if one thinks HS is the greatest load of tripe to roll off a cow's backside. To say there's no evidence to support it is just hiding one's head in the sand.

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

basing anything on something Krenwinkel did or said is sheer lunacy

There's a huge difference between evidence supporting a theory or motive and definitively proving it.

RudyWebersHose said...

Funny, i was thinking the same about you

RudyWebersHose said...

I assume you think Krenwinkel was a perfectly rational sane person by that statement which tells me all i need to know about you

David said...

Grim,

I'm going to have to leave this for a bit. Real world stuff intruding on my fun. But I'll throw one out there. It wasn't a trap. I thought you would see it.

"On the drive back...".

They didn't drive back to Spahn. They headed towards the coast- sorry can't remember exactly where (Venice?) for the last stop- the Kasabian friend. Not meaning to be an ass but driving towards the last stop is not 'back' to anywhere and especially not Spahn. Trust me I just drove LA three months ago. That would be like me saying I drove from London to Dover to get 'back' to Liverpool.

Atkins spent a significant amount of time in her last book complaining about VB's treatment of her and part of that was this issue- she never mentioned the last stop. She bitched that VB 'never asked' or she would have. No, she lied. And that makes this conversation being on the drive 'back' to Spahn, well, also a lie. And I think that means it likely happened at the scene. Of course I can't prove that. And that means Kasabian borrowed the memory. And that means her testimony is...suspect.

RudyWebersHose said...

I thought Susan, Linda and Clem hitched it back to Spahn

Dan S said...

"'The love thing is over; it's helter skelter all the way.'" Charlie's last words to Paul Watkins according to Guillermo Soledad.

RudyWebersHose said...

Lol yeah Paul is very credible

grimtraveller said...

David said...

It wasn't a trap. I thought you would see it.

"On the drive back...".......They didn't drive back to Spahn


Interesting conclusion. I just assumed that she meant on the drive back from the LaBiancas as opposed to 'back to Spahn' because they'd been driving around quite a bit that night. Obviously she lied about some of their movements after Waverly, both to her lawyers and to the GJ but in this instance, she stated that they headed to the gas station.
On a point related to the actual post topic, did you notice in the Caruso/Caballero interview that when Atkins is describing Pat's describing the LaBianca killers' exit from the house, she says "and she said it was almost dawn but they got out of the house and creepy-crawled —" ~ annoyingly {for us !}, Caruso interrupts her and then steers the conversation in a different direction so we never get a chance to hear what she was going to say. I think that whatever creepy crawling was when it started, by around the time that Susan was in custody, it had become something of a catch all term for a host of activity, including straight burglaries and even nicking cars/buggies.

Atkins spent a significant amount of time in her last book complaining about VB's treatment of her and part of that was this issue - she never mentioned the last stop. She bitched that VB 'never asked' or she would have

Yeah and it's so stupid. The book is full of holes and inaccuracies and reveals almost childish tantrumming. It could easily have been called "Waaaah ! Feed me !" On that point alone that you raise, I wonder if her husband ever asked Susan how in the world VB could have asked her about the Venice victim allocation....when he didn't even know about it until after she had recanted ?

Mr. Humphrat said...

It never occurred to me there would have been any creepy crawls after TLB, if it's true

According to Aaron Stovitz in the 1970 Rolling Stone interview over on Cielo's site, thefts and burglaries did continue after the TLB murders. He explains how it has been proven.

RudyWebersHose said...

I thought Susan, Linda and Clem hitched it back to Spahn

They did {if you believe Linda's story}. That was David's point ~ that Susan lied. At one point, Caballero asks her if, after dumping Rosemary's stuff, they went back to the ranch and she said yes.

I assume you think Krenwinkel was a perfectly rational sane person

Because you never indicate to whom you are replying, it's hard to tell if that is aimed at David or myself or even Robert C, but in case it's me, I think Pat was as sane as you. But I don't think she was rational.

David said...

Grim said: "Yeah and it's so stupid."

I have to wonder 'why' she decided to leave it out. Her deal wasn't going to change. No one died. There are times when I can see them not wanting to be a part of something. Although Sharon Tate's death was originally a hot topic for Atkins she subsequently ran away from that; no one mentions any attempt to hang her; Krenwinkel won't even say she was in the room. I get that type of thing but this on has baffled me. It is sort of no harm, no foul.

and Grim said: "I think that whatever creepy crawling was when it started, by around the time that Susan was in custody, it had become something of a catch all term for a host of activity, including straight burglaries and even nicking cars/buggies."

I did see the cut off on creepy-crawling and left it out because I didn't know what I could do with it. That is like the parole board dropping the ball on Krenwinkel's "I knew two women were supposed to die" comment.

Yes, I would agree with you here. Remember Atkins told Howard or Graham she would get Sinatra et al- I'd just creepy-crawl them like Tate- or words to that effect.

And he said: "Because you never indicate..."

I have given up trying to figure that out. He's using his phone. Mine lets me 'reply' and they show up as such but then on here you can't tell. Maybe a "Grim-" and comment.

RudyWebersHose said...

Technically its not a lie because eventually they did go back to the ranch, she just omitted the part about Venice

David said...

RWH said: "Technically its not a lie....."

She says she spoke to Manson "on the drive back....". As you noted, Atkins didn't drive back with Manson and driving to Venice is not 'back' but onward, forward, west or furthur.

Peter said...

Wasn't it Kanarek who said that the closest thing to the "truth" was Atkins's Grand Jury testimony?

RudyWebersHose said...

As much of an oddball as Kanarek was i wouldn't totally discount that statement, for instance if you take out the parts of Susans last book where she minimizes her involvement or makes herself appear more "important" for lack of a better word to the sorry she speaks alot of truth on things

RudyWebersHose said...

To the STORY not to the sorry, typo

RudyWebersHose said...

Grim i made a comment below a few minutes ago about Susans last book and i have to disagree with you on it, yes she obviously lied and omitted in certain parts and generally did what she always did which was minimize her involvement and also pump up her role and her importance in the story but after reading it 3 times in my opinion it lays out a realistic believable explanation to the events of June 69 and forward to their imprisonment, im not a big believer in the copycat theory but MOHS is as close to a believable story as ive read of it

RudyWebersHose said...

The book brings up a point that ive always believed which is that the Crowe shooting was the beginning of a downhill rolling ball that led to stupid mistake after stupid mistake

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I have to wonder 'why' she decided to leave it out. Her deal wasn't going to change. No one died

You know, I have long wondered about that. I can't see the slightest bit of difference it makes to Susan. In fact, at the time she was the witness helping the prosecution, it might even have been the one thing that could have put pressure on Kasabian, if Saladin Nader, Charles Koenig {the toilet guy}, the lady that managed the apartments at Ocean Front Walk and Juan Flynn could have been co~opted as at least partial corroboration of her involvement.
There seemed to be some sticking point with her when it comes to it. She mentioned to both her lawyers and to the GJ that on the night of the LaBianca murders that there were two death squads and this of course comes out in the LA Times newspaper article. And in her two books the Venice incident is barely mentioned and there's such a paucity of detail. Her penalty phase rendition of it is pretty wild and seems to be copped from Lida's account but inverted, with funny little details thrown in that make it hard to work out if they are actually from what happened or made up. But there's more detail there than every other thing she said about it put together !
I guess it's just one of those things that is easier to comment on in retrospect.

Peter said...

Wasn't it Kanarek who said that the closest thing to the "truth" was Atkins's Grand Jury testimony?

Blimey, where did he say that ?

Peter said...

Parent was killed first because he was the first person they came across. Otherwise Tex would have broke the Buntline beating Parent over the head and not Frykowski.

Peter said...

Grim. I believe he says this in the telephone interview available online.

But I've listened to it twice and I just can't listen to him again to confirm

Peter said...

Death squads.

Bobby, Mary, Sadie
Tex, Katie, Sadie
Tex, Katie, Leslie
Clem, Linda, Sadie

It fits the pattern.

Peter said...

Oops I forgot Linda in the second.

Nevermind.

Peter said...

The "funny little details" that all liars add to their lies to make them sound believable.

Peter said...

There is a great article recently on the McDonald's monopoly game conspiracy where the investigator for the FBI notes that when they were investigating the guy at the center of the conspiracy, it was the little details that he wove into his story that tipped them off that he was lying.

RudyWebersHose said...

No he wouldnt have, Steve was killed first but because he witnessed the beginning of the festivities, he was chased down by Tex and Linda thus explaining the "i wont tell anyone" and the backing into the guardrail in a hurry to leave

RudyWebersHose said...

And you have some special insight into what "all liars" do? Enlighten us peasants with your knowledge please

Peter said...

It's a good read.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-an-ex-cop-rigged-mcdonalds-monopoly-game-and-stole-millions

AstroCreep said...

RWH- Where’s the blood evidence to support that claim? Why did all of the murderers lie about Parent’s car rolling up on them after they scaled the embankment? Parent was just casually strolling by the main house and saw the victims running across the yard and gett stabbed to death so he promised not to snitch? Zero sense.

David said...

AstroCreep,

I think you are being a little unfair to RWH. This is the theory I originally saw over on another site a few years back (Cats'???). It goes like this.

Kasabian was left outside to stand guard. She hangs at Folger's car not Parent's- VB leads her to Parent's car- leading questions. She says originally if I recall 'the car'. He says Parent's car? She says 'yes'.

Parent comes down the path, sees the rounding up of the victims through the window. Some suggest the 'dog' looking in the window is him.

He runs. Kasaban intercepts him near the garage- he's parked over there. This is because of the picture of someone pointing at something not he floor of the garage and the missing blood entries in the report we have.

Kasabian intercepts slashes his hand. He gets away. To his car- there was blood on the outer handle- not enough to type or even say human blood, if I recall correctly. He crashes into the fence to get away. Kasabian runs to get Watson. He runs out catches Parent- bang bang.

Those inside see they outnumber their assailants and run. Frykowski gets intercepted by Atkins, Folger by Krenwinkel. Tate and Sebring reach the front porch just in time for Watson and Kasabian to return. Stabby, stabby, bang, bang- (channelling Sanders).

It is used to explain the fence, the garage photo and Sharon and Jay's blood on the front porch and the question asked Kasabian at trial 'when are you going to tell your part?' by Atkins?????. Of course to get there you abandon a everything every eyewitness says happened.

Peter said...

Linda Kasabian was a 5'1" strung out hippy who had been eating garbage for a month. Parent was a 6 foot high school student.

Peter said...

If some munchkin slashed you, would you stop to get your car? And Tex shot him four times.That's something you do when you have five more rounds. If he had already shot the others two or three times and they were still fighting he wouldn't have wastes 4 on a wounded Parent trapped in his car.

Peter said...

And if the two men were inside the house uninjured they could have easily overpowered the girls or at least injured them. And why would they run out the front door towards Tex rather than out the back?

David said...

Peter,

Under this theory Parent was still murdered, first. I didn't say I agreed with it. Don't put this one on me.

David said...

Shit, Greg King has Manson carrying Sharon and Jay out onto the porch, arguing for ten minutes and carrying them back inside to explain the blood on the porch.

That theory, above, also has Manson coming back and moving the bodies, inside and trying to hang them.

Of course neither King not these theorists quite understand the medical/blood loss aspect of those scenarios.

AstroCreep said...

David- appreciate the missing pieces and still say it makes zero sense. No fault of RWH- just have to completely overlook pretty much everything to come to that conclusion.

While I can appreciate that none of us know exactly which steps happened in what order and precisely when, I find it incredibly hard to erase it all to explain the broken fence and the garage picture with the detective pointing at a possible drop of blood.

It’s more plausible to say that Parent was a young and not a very experienced driver and may have clipped the fence than to change a year and a half of testimony, GJ testimony, stories told to cell mates, and on and on.

The magnitude of evidence that supports the official narrative is actually pretty overwhelming. Even by today’s standards.

David said...

'nor' not 'not'

Peter said...

I know it's not your theory but it's just silly. Even if he was murdered first. The others would have known there was a gun having seen Tex with it. It's like a foot long. They would have heard the shots and then it would have been on. No maybe if we just do what they say we won't get hurt at that point. No, killing the four people in the house required them to hesitate in fighting back.

David said...

AstroCreep,

It isn't my theory- don't put me there - that is why I channelled Sanders. It's crap.

But it does illustrate an issue with this case. Since the eyewitnesses contradict each other (Atkins, no Kasabian coming back/Krenwinkel saying she was not there when Sharon died (when Watson and Atkins put her there) it is easier to say 'they all lied' here is what happened.

Peter said...

Kasabian was hiding in the car and made the rest up to make herself valuable to the prosecution so she would get immunity.

Peter said...

They needed somebody to put a knife in everyone's hands and Kasabian was that somebody.

David said...

AstroCreep said: "It’s more plausible to say that Parent ...."

Yup. Even the penalty phase the testimony of Krenwinkel and Atkins say Parent was shot first per the official narrative. They were lying out there ass there but still have it the same way.

David said...

Peter said: "They needed somebody to put a knife in everyone's hands and Kasabian was that somebody."

Grim, did you see this?

Yup.

Kasabian admitted on cross examination that she had read Atkins' account. Bugliosi's interview style almost guarantees 'substituting memories'. Jakobson's interview is revealing as VB attempts his schtick: "Now we know that Manson X-Y-Z. Jakobson, being an intelligent person, actually responds at times with things like 'No, I don't know that/didn't hear/see that'.

Imagine multiple hours of VB dropping that on LK: "Ok, Linda, we know there was a broken bush, someone must have fallen there." "we know Frykowski came out the door, could it have been him?"

It is not lying (as AstroCreep said above), it is filling in missing pieces.

VB had Lk 'write down' what she remembered after their interviews. The whole Frykowski 'I'm sorry' part, that hangs everyone, silences the press and turns Sanders from pro-Manson to defender of the counterculture despite Manson, is after the fact- see his book- meaning she didn't remember that horrific event during an interview??? How could she not?

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

i made a comment..about Susans last book and i have to disagree with you on it

That it's full of holes, inaccuracies and tantrums ? OK. But it is and I could point them all out to you. But this is a family show.

it lays out a realistic believable explanation to the events of June 69 and forward to their imprisonment

It's a mish~mash of stuff that could be plausible, intertwined with stuff that can be so easily taken apart, laced with stuff that can't possibly be verified or substantiated. There's a statement she makes in the book that could almost sum up her rendition of that summer period ¬> "Unfortunately in our Legal System, if you choose to commit suicide on the stand there’s nothing anyone can do to stop you." There is definitely some stuff in there that has a place in the overall pantheon and some interesting thoughts. But it's sullied by so much self pitying whimpering and tied together by a need to present Charles Manson as the bastard Svengali supreme, Vincent Bugliosi as the dark Lord of due process and Linda Kasabian as the opportunist thieving magpie that made off with the shiny family jewels that should have have been bequeathed to Atkins.

im not a big believer in the copycat theory but MOHS is as close to a believable story as ive read of it

See, I'm the opposite when it comes to MOHS. Just to give you a couple of examples: check this out ¬> "When Bobby Beausoleil was transferred to Los Angeles County Jail, Charles Manson sent people to go and talk to him. It can only be imagined that Bobby Beausoleil gave them an earful to report back to Manson. The gist of Bobby’s point was this ~ take care of this or I’m not going down alone."
There was simply no time between Bobby's charging and Charlie finding out for "people" to have been sent to LA County jail prior to the murders. Or "The idea that the Cielo~LaBianca murders were in direct response to Charles Manson’s fear of Bobby Beausoleil rolling over on him ~ the copycat motive ~ is decisively supported by the fact that on the morning of Friday August 8, 1969, Charles Manson sent Mary Brunner and Sandra Good out to buy escape supplies, including rope, for a breakout attempt at the Los Angeles County Jail.
By mid-afternoon news came back that Brunner and Good had been arrested for trying to buy the supplies with a stolen credit card."

Manson wasn't even there that morning. Brunner & Good weren't arrested till late afternoon and weren't processed in the cop house till after 10pm according to Mary's mugshot.
When one builds a case as Atkins did in the book on foundations that crack under the weight of their own shallowness, the case can be said to be full of holes. There's quite a bit that does damage to the copycat and chief among them is this book.

The book brings up a point that ive always believed which is that the Crowe shooting was the beginning of a downhill rolling ball that led to stupid mistake after stupid mistake

Well, there's a lot of truth in that. Saying that, the pressures that that act triggered had been slowly building from the start of 1969.

RudyWebersHose said...

I didnt say that Astro, my theory is that upon getting to Cielo Parent asked Garretson about the girls in the house and Bill told him the stories about the parties and such that took place over the summer and upon leaving the guesthouse Steves curiosity got the best of him and he walked up the front lawn to one of the windows and peeked in and instead of a wild party possibly saw the beginning of the crime causing him to panic and get up and run not realizing Linda was more than likely in the vicinity of Jay and Abigails cars, she may or may not gave physically attempted to stop him but she did call Tex who came out and gave chase to Steve who by this time was inside his car and backing into the guardrail and after turning around and putting it in drive was caught by Tex and slashed and shot

Robert C said...

Why not just administer truth serum to Watson, Krenwinkle and Kasabian and get just the facts, ma'am ? :-)

RudyWebersHose said...

Tex would not have even thought to bash Steve in the head with the gun butt because that would be extremely hard and also totally unnecessary to do to a man sitting in the drivers seat of a car

Peter said...

Charlie was less interested in world revolution then keeping his family together. The family ensured that Charlie got fed, got laid, and got to hang around all day. People were leaving, they were out of money, they were getting pushed off the ranch. He needed to bring them together and further insulate them from the outside world. What better way them to make them all hinted outlaws.

RudyWebersHose said...

He hadnt shot anyone yet, Parent was the first shots

RudyWebersHose said...

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, fact is they didnt...end of story, any boxing historian will tell you on paper Sonny Liston SHOULDA made quick work of Muhammad Ali but we all know it didnt happen that way lol

RudyWebersHose said...

Funny because the theory you outlined sounds exactly like the one i came up except i dont think Linda slashed Steves hand, all i think she did was call Tex and join Tex in the chase, the hand slashing i believe happened in the car hence Steves watch being found in the backseat

Peter said...

Crowe and Hinman were about money. TLB was to preserve the family and payback against the establishment because he spent his whole life trying to suck up to it and getting kicked around by it. Shorty was to settle a score

RudyWebersHose said...

There is no way ANYONE could not turn around in that huge driveway with more than enough room to not hit the fence IF they arent in a hurry and being chased

RudyWebersHose said...

Parent WAS SHOT FIRST just not the way the official story outlines, Bugliosi so successfully spun this yarn that it has become urban legend

RudyWebersHose said...

I agree with you 100 percent on Susans grandstanding and bullshitting, my biggest point about MOHS is that Charlie began a series of completely paranoid events with trying to cover up the Crowe shooting that eventually led to Hinman and then TLB, i do believe that almost everything was centered around raising funds to get out to the desert

RudyWebersHose said...

Peter this is a profound statement and 100 percent accurate in my mind, this case is more about Mansons selfishness and sense of entitlement than anything else, now while i dont believe he directly told anyone to kill he definitely INFLUENCED these kids (and thats what they were) to do his bidding and serve his needs and desires, his biggest crime was being a selfish piece of shit, a user, an opportunist, a pimp, a thief and generally an asshole but he wasnt a killer or a conspirator to murder, at least in my opinion

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

It’s more plausible to say that Parent was a young and not a very experienced driver and may have clipped the fence

Not to mention, according to Garretson, a little buzzed by the beer.

David said...

Peter said: "They needed somebody to put a knife in everyone's hands and Kasabian was that somebody."

Grim, did you see this?


How could I miss it ? ! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯O
O
O

RudyWebersHose said...

Who knows if they even know the truth at this point 50 years later

RudyWebersHose said...

Kings story is utterly ridiculous if only because Charlie would NEVER have dirtied himself handling bloody dead bodies, it just wasnt in him, at least thats my belief

RudyWebersHose said...

Charlie was a pimp and what is one of most pimps MOs? Separate the girls from family, friends or any other positive influence who will get in their ear and tell them what theyre doing in wrong

RudyWebersHose said...

So lets get this straight, Manson is going to give up 15-20 early 20s women ready to fulfill his every sexual desire, feed him, sew clothes for him, serve him, dance at strip bars and very possibly prostitute themselves to bring him money so he can sleep, play music, fuck, eat, take drugs all day snd throw that away so he can send people to the FORMER home of a guy who may or may not have not fulfilled a promise to him and kill the NEW RESIDENTS of the house to send a message to "the establishment"? Also remember hes not going to actually take part in the killings so he can actually SEE the peoples fear, just hearing about it is enough to give up all those other things? Ok gotcha lol

RudyWebersHose said...

David you summed up the genius of Bugliosi perfectly right there, what makes it genius IMO isnt so much that he used those tactics but that he was able to get away with it in open court for the most part

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

Parent WAS SHOT FIRST just not the way the official story outlines, Bugliosi so successfully spun this yarn that it has become urban legend

Ronnie Howard on 25-11-69:
"Oh, before that the young fella was leaving in the car, the one that spotted them and asked them, 'Hey, what are you doing here?' and Charlie shot him. I forget she said two, three, or four times, but I know that it was more than once. But she said the stereo was going so the people in the house didn't even hear when the fella outside was shot. And they went into the house."

Virginia Graham, the following day:
"She was talking rather quickly. And then she said that they killed the boy first, Parent or Parent. She said that they shot him four times. Now again she used the word "they," and I said, "Well, how come?" And she said, well he saw them. And then she said they parked the car down a ways and walked up to the house, and that, I guess, he must, from the way she described it, he must have been getting ready to come out or one thing or another. They felt that he saw them. So I think she told me, I'm not positive. I think she said that this Charles shot him. And so she said with that they continued on into the house."

You say Bugliosi successfully spun this yarn. But he'd not spoken to any of the perps when these two interviews were given. It is interesting that the one thing that all four perps agreed on without any variance was this events placement in the sequence. And not surprisingly either, they weren't really together for long after this, until they were heading to Rudy Weber's hose.....



RudyWebersHose said...

All I see them saying is that Parent was shot first by "Charlie and Charles" and then moved the car and went into the house, no sequence of events is outlined in either one of those statements

grimtraveller said...

The post has been creepy crawled by alternate theories ! 😉

grimtraveller said...

RudyWebersHose said...

All I see them saying is that Parent was shot first by "Charlie and Charles" and then moved the car and went into the house, no sequence of events is outlined in either one of those statements

I didn't say Howard and Graham did that. What Howard and Graham do however, is show that they were told that Parent was killed first before they ever got to the house. Howard saying the stereo stopped the inhabitants of the house hearing the shots is significant. So long before the prosecutor was on the case {because Atkins had these conversations in early November} it had been established that Parent was shot first and before any action had taken place in the house.

RudyWebersHose said...

What exactly is significant about Howard saying the stereo stopped the people in the house from hearing the shots? All that says is they didnt hear the shots not what order the events happened, they very well could have rouneed everyone in the house up into the living room and then Tex chases Parent and shoots him and comes back in, mind you my theory is just that..a THEORY, in no way am i saying that things definitely happened the way i outline, its justba possibility and i believe a viable one when you take into account the broken fence, the attempted speedy getaway and the "i wont say anything" statement

RudyWebersHose said...

And even better speaking of truth serum why not administer it to Garretson? Im sure wed have heard a few little gems from him, nothing drastic mind you just where the hell he was and where he hid when all this shit went down, one thing im convinced of is once he heard things start to get crazy he high tailed it out of that guesthouse and hid somewhere, id REALLY love to know if there was a secret way to get down the canyon slope to the twin house towards the bottom of the hill or some way to get across to Bella Dr on the other side

AstroCreep said...

RWH- theories are just that. You say VB spun all this and were then directly proven wrong given 3 people (SA/RH/VG at a minimum) made these statements prior to VB being assigned the case.

The “I won’t say anything” by Parent is more plausible when you put it in context- he sees 4 people dressed in dark clothing, possibly sees the cut phone lines, is approached by one of the 4 (Tex) carrying a knife and gun- he doesn’t BEG FOR HIS LIFE- he instead, tries to reason with Tex because he doesn’t know what Tex’s intent is. The fight or flight response isn’t triggered.

According to your theory- Parent is chased down and slashed by one of the four. Surrounded at his car by knife wielding people in dark clothes. His fight or flight response would be triggered and his reasoning would make even less sense.

If Parent were slashed in the hand on the driveway, there would have been blood all over the driveway- not a drop by the garage- a TON of blood. Heart is pumping with the adrenaline of being chased and scared for ones life- would have dropped a significant amount of blood along his path.

Peter said...

He gives up nothing in his calculation.

Cleaning house and bringing the core closer. He still had Mary, Squeeky, Brenda, Cappy, Sandy and his young loves. He had Bruce with the brains and little Paul to get more girls.

And he possibly loses crazy Sadie and Tex who was becoming a liability anyway. Hairy Katie and a couple new girls Leslie and Linda wbo ate totally expendable.

All potential upside, no real downside

Peter said...

How long would it take Tex to run outside and dispatch Parent and then run back inside? 2 minutes even 1 minute. That's a long time in a fight or flight situation where the people if they were tied up at all it was "with towels." I mean how hard could it be to get out of that. There's a reason Tex stabbed everyone. Because the girls didn't have the strength. If he had left that house for even 15 seconds the girls would have been routed. Even skinny Gary Hinman was able to take Sadie when she was holding a gun.

Peter said...

Maybe when she says "driving back" she means back from the LaBiancas neighborhood, an area she is for the most part unfamiliar with, to Venice an area she is familiar with. You go up out of the city where they had been driving around into the hills, then you come back into Venice, regardless of whether it's closer to the Ranch where you may have ultimately started or not.

AstroCreep said...

Peter- the whole driving back is semantics. If I drive from my house in Long Island to Woodstock NY for a concert, when the show is over, and I drive to Manhattan, then to Brooklyn Heights before returning to my house, technically the whole time I’m driving “back from the concert”. You drive back from an event.

RudyWebersHose said...

I didnt say he was slashed on the driveway, i said he was slashed in the car ehich explains the wristwatch in the backseat, i believe the ACTUAL KILLING of Parent happened the way the official story lays out but the leadup to it is where i differ and i totally agree when you say theories are just that snd thats exactly what i said in one of my comments, its just a theory, im just one average schlub trying to make sense out of the case

RudyWebersHose said...

Also Astro i think the stains on the garage floor have been debated before and in my opinion its probably just oil or grease of some kind, i honestly dont think investigators would have missed that even though there was other stuff they missed

RudyWebersHose said...

Peter you honestly think things would have stayed exactly the same had Tex, Pat, Sussn, Linda and Leslie had been caught and charged? Even if none of them made a peep about Manson (which is a one in a trillion chance) Charlie wouldnt have a moments peace wondering when someone was going to say something, that isnt to say i think he was guilty of anything besides possibly obstructing evidence but im 100 percent sure Charlie was at least somewhat aware of conspiracy charges with some rudimentary knowledge of how they worked, if not hes at least street smart enough to know hes the 35 year old ex con living with a bunch of 18-23 year old young people who are stealing cars, breaking into houses, stealing credit cards, selling and using drugs, etc, etc

grimtraveller said...

Peter said:

They needed somebody to put a knife in everyone's hands and Kasabian was that somebody

Of course, that is speaking figuratively because literally, it's inaccurate. And Susan Atkins had already fulfilled that role.

He gives up nothing in his calculation.....All potential upside, no real downside

It's a feature that every one of the Tate/LaBianca killers, when away from Charlie, told someone that he was behind or involved in the murders in one way or another. So his calculation, if it is as you say {the expendables}, was pretty good wasn't it !

RudyWebersHose said...

What exactly is significant about Howard saying the stereo stopped the people in the house from hearing the shots?

It's a whizz that you'll accept the perp rendition that Steve said "I won't say anything" but then in the next breath you'll not accept the perp rendition that he was shot before they continued with the night's butchery.
But to answer your question specifically, the significance of the stereo stopping the people in the house hearing anything is that if there was already action in the house, would it be with the stereo on ? There would be no comment about a stereo if Tex was already in the house then ran out. No one heard the shots on Steve inside the house because a stereo was playing, signifying that the shots had already happened which means Steve was already dead before anyone got to the house.

grimtraveller said...

signifying that the shots had already happened which means Steve was already dead before anyone got to the house

That should read "signifying that the shots had already happened before the perps entered the house which means Steve was already dead before anyone got to the house."

Peter said...

Grim. Sadie's statements could only be used against her at trial.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

Sadie's statements could only be used against her at trial

That's not the point. We're addressing your point that Charlie's choices of murderers constitute a win~win for him if they happen to get caught.
Manson eventually knew at various points that his women were blabbing. He got Pat to give up the safety of extradition from Alabama {he knew she'd crack and she'd been blabbing to Dr Brown}, he knew Leslie had blabbed just by Marvin Part trying to get her seen by trick cyclists and he got her to fire him, he knew Sadie had blabbed by the indictments and got her to fire Caballero and recant the very statements that got him indicted and he knew Linda had blabbed by the phone call that had come in from Joe Sage. Right from Cielo he had impressed upon them the need to not say anything about what had happened which doesn't chime with the "expendables" theory to me. He worked pretty hard to get them all to shurrup and turn because he felt that their loose mouths away from his influence were a danger to him. The irony is that their loose mouths under his influence were just as deadly.

RudyWebersHose said...

The two biggest threats to the ranch were in on every killing, Susan and/or Tex, I don't think thats a coincidence, Manson knew either one of them would bring trouble to the ranch that couldn't be talked away by Charlie or scared off by his crazy act

Dan S said...

"You've put me back in the penitentiary." When does Charlie say this and what's the source?

Also, as per Astrocreep stating there would be a lot of blood if Parent's hand were slashed, that is most definitely the case; there would have been a lot of blood dripping all over.

RudyWebersHose said...

He said it during his Geraldo interview from 1988, may have said it elsewhere though

Dan S said...

10 4. Thanks

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

Charlie was less interested in world revolution then keeping his family together

Quite possibly, but concern about one doesn't invalidate the other. Unless he spent from May of '68 bullshitting Gregg Jakobson during their many conversations, he seems to have really believed that some heavy shit was coming down.

Dan S said...

"She was sentenced to 18 months. Behind bars, she discovered the Bible and wrote her life story, From a Mafia Widow to Child of God. " From the McDonald's fraud article. Sounds Like Susan Atkin's book

Doug Smith said...

"Child of Hamburgler, Child of God!"

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

That's babs hoyt's child's book.

Dan S said...

Or maybe babs writes a children's book