tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post1566919263929078581..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Harold True has passedMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-38889345427971727182017-06-12T11:56:34.378-04:002017-06-12T11:56:34.378-04:00Dave1971 said...
Wow, Manson grabbed Pats hai... Dave1971 said...<br /><br /> <b>Wow, Manson grabbed Pats hair after she laughed at him!!! He must be a mass murderer!.....You HS devotees will take every little move Manson ever made and use it as motivation for murder</b><br /><br />Be sensible Dave1971. Anyone can see the point I was making as I included a former colleague/sort of friend and feelings I myself have experienced. I'm illustrating that <i>anything</i> can set a person off and that if Manson was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, there's a whole range of things that could have triggered the sequence.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-67319391698489224642017-06-10T21:12:39.661-04:002017-06-10T21:12:39.661-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dave1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/03875850144566517844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-59011370390727489402017-01-27T10:11:48.349-05:002017-01-27T10:11:48.349-05:00I agree with you Grim 100%I agree with you Grim 100%Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-10315693709565485692017-01-26T19:10:45.932-05:002017-01-26T19:10:45.932-05:00Either way, the house next door doesn't appear...Either way, the house next door doesn't appear to have been the initial target. If one takes Charlie's words he says he went up to see Harold which we know isn't true. He had been in the LaBianca house in the days when it was empty {from what he told Vanity Fair in 2011} and saw the light on and a dog. That seems to be what aroused his attention. <br />If he had been going to slaughter the 3 housemates, he would have done so in the knowledge that the house was isolated enough to not attract attention ~ <i>because he thought the LaBianca house was empty</i>. Given that the former True house was empty but someone was in the house next door, isolation at 2am still applied.....<br />There is also the matter of having told his accomplices that he was going to show them "how to do it" and thus far, he hadn't...grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-2392645326246312122017-01-24T11:56:59.138-05:002017-01-24T11:56:59.138-05:00Good stuff Grim. The Kasabian statement has always...Good stuff Grim. The Kasabian statement has always told me Manson knew exactly where he was going at the end of that night. <br /><br />If you believe the 'revenge' theory Manson seems to have been sending a lot of messages to those who 'insulted' him. Under this he chose Cielo to send a message to Melcher knowing he wasn't there.<br /><br />So was he sending a message to True (knowing he wasn't there) by targeting that house and found no one home so he went next door or was he sending a message to the roommates who were the source of the perceived insult and chose the house next door?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-40919160283610252162017-01-23T19:12:50.983-05:002017-01-23T19:12:50.983-05:00ziggyosterberg said...
The assumption is always ...ziggyosterberg said...<br /><br /><br /><b>The assumption is always made that since Charlie knew that Harold didn't live there anymore, he also knew that the roomates didn't live there anymore. But why would he know that?</b><br /><br />Exactly. Harold was the contact with the house, not the three housemates {Ernie Baltzell, Allen Swerdloff [?] and the other one}. It was with the knowledge that True was leaving the house that Charlie asked him if he could move in in his place and it was True that said it wasn't for him to say; ask the three housemates. Some 20 years after the events of '69, True said "Charlie Manson, where did he go to do the killings ? He went to the 2 places he knew in LA, and 2 places only; He went to my house and he went to [David] Melcher's house because we told him he couldn't live in our house and Terry Melcher told him he couldn't make shit with a [voice ?] of a record album....."<br />Once Harold was gone from the house, why would Charlie have hung around somewhere he wasn't wanted ?<br />The other thing that tends to be overlooked is something that Linda Kasabian said ~ and maybe that's why it's overlooked. But she said after a long time driving and acting randomly, suddenly Charlie became very specific in where he wanted to go and the directions he gave her.<br />Hmmm.....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68787782444099772832017-01-02T02:34:15.300-05:002017-01-02T02:34:15.300-05:00grimtraveller said...
That is a bombshell becaus...<br />grimtraveller said... <br /><br /><b>That is a bombshell because it begs the question, why did Charlie go up to Harold's former house knowing he no longer lived there ?<br />This can never be proven and every time I've brought it up, it's never even rated being filed under "irrelevant discussion" {although someone did ask me privately once where Harold's words could be found}, but I suspect that those 3 housemates were on the menu at that point. All the other random attempts hadn't worked out that night, why not go with what you know ? Fortunately for them they were either out or no longer lived there themselves ~ neither of which Charlie would have known.</b> <br /><br />That's actually a pretty brilliant theory that I've not read or heard anywhere. The assumption is always made that since Charlie knew that Harold didn't live there anymore, he also knew that the roomates didn't live there anymore. But why would he know that? And if he didn't, it makes sense that they would be the reason why he ended up at Waverly.<br /><br />Another possibility with the True house is that Manson associated it, in his mind, with Kaufman and Stromberg. True, Kaufman and Stromberg all being intertwined.<br />I assume that, since True picked Manson up from prison, Kaufman must have arranged it. And Kaufman also put Manson in contact with Stromberg. True also lived with Kaufman for a while after Manson was arrested. And for some reason, Kaufman made that odd claim that Manson was looking for him (and True) at Cielo the night that the Labianca's were killed.<br /><br />There might be some credence to the theory that Manson was seeking revenge on people in the music business. It's strange that Manson has said that Leno was killed for a black book with the names of the people who control the music business. Not a believable story, but it hints that, in a metaphorical sense, to Charlie, it was music related.<br /><br />And the ironic footnote to this : Phil Kaufman releases the LIE album. <br /><br />So maybe part of Manson's plan did work out?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-75275154908908882042016-12-31T05:12:48.323-05:002016-12-31T05:12:48.323-05:00Thanks for the info Grim..sounds like Venables is ...Thanks for the info Grim..sounds like Venables is the bad seed.. but there are plenty of them around walking free... like the next US president..and most CEO's...but i digress ..Penny lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10401896105440499937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29898406174753179782016-12-30T15:33:52.747-05:002016-12-30T15:33:52.747-05:00Dreath said...
I especially found his efforts to ... Dreath said...<br /><br /><b>I especially found his efforts to defer to his book for details 'interesting'</b><br /><br />Under the circumstances, it was Hari Kiri. I winced when he was asked about the money he fliched from Lotsapoppa and whom had taken it and he said TJ. As soon as I saw that, I thought, "this was where the game was up." It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another altogether to lie. DDA Lebowitz suckers him in just like Darth Maul does to Qui~Gon Jinn in "The Phantom Menace" and pops him on the head before delivering the fatal blow. But he also said things like he never believed Charlie was Christ or that he had always taken responsibility for the crimes, even though his books and his trial testimony show that neither statement is true.<br /><br /><b>It could mean his memory is going. It could also mean he's forgotten what he said in 1978</b><br /><br />That one is just human. Even with half a century of having to go over the same old ground, there'll be lots one doesn't remember. I've felt this for ages, much of the detail in his books do not stem from his actual memory ~ but that of Vince Bugliosi and various other interviews or books he'd read pertaining to the case. <br /><br /><br /><b>42 of the 107 death row inmates in what is called the 'class of ’72' had been released on parole by 2003. 12 of those released committed new felonies</b><br /><br />One would think that might auger well for some of the Family killers but factors that influence release <i>are the human ones</i>, it would seem.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73388272621970219802016-12-30T14:52:57.324-05:002016-12-30T14:52:57.324-05:00penny lane said...
I've read a lot about the ... penny lane said...<br /><br /><b>I've read a lot about the James Bulger case, awful, do you have any idea of what happened to the one that went bad after his release ?</b><br /><br />Sort of but details are somewhat hazy because of the new identities both boys were given and apart from a few official government statements, much info is sort of cobbled together from the kind of sources that I wouldn't rely on. I'd listen at a distance but not rely.<br />The one that was unofficially thought of as the ringleader {"Child A," Robert Thompson} appears to have gotten on with his life. There was an interesting Daily Mail article about 7 years back where one of the social workers that had worked with him during his incarceration said that he had seen him working as a steward at a big sporting event up North. He said he was really shocked {to see him}. I kind of thought it wasn't such a bad thing because it meant that he was getting on with life after some pretty heavy years. The social worker in the article gave the impression that Thompson was never a problem once incarcerated.<br />The other one, {Child "B," Jon Venables} seems to have slowly unraveled. Apparently, he's had to have new identities on more than one occasion because he has confided to someone who he really is. He was recalled to jail at one point and a government official said that it wasn't in the public interest to know why.....newspaper reports said it was because of a sex attack. In 2010 he was done for possessing and distributing child porn. This time around the official channels did allow it to be reported and gave the reason why and basically, he went down. He came out in 2013. There's quite a bit on line about him but you pay your money and take your chance with some of those sources.<br />Some of what St said about how people are early on would probably apply to him.<br /><br /> Dreath said...<br /><br /><b>I read it as the panel had him pegged pretty well and wanted to know why he murdered and never really got a straight answer</b><br /><br />That was what I was getting at ~ there isn't really a straight answer. There's a series of elements that make up the answer. And they cannot seem to grasp that. <br />Back in 1970 Aaron Stovitz seemed to be moving along the same lines ~ forget all this esoteric shit, give the jury something solid. We have prints, we have perps, we don't need a motive, that burden isn't on us. But his mate Vince could see, straight as he was in comparison to the Family, that there was more to this than could be easily explained in a throwaway sentence. If his eventual book was simply about something as straightforward as a gang that goes out and commits murder, it would have had a limited interest.<br /><br /><b>the real answer that- to me, IMO- is inescapable with Watson is: in August, 1969 he wanted to murder them and in August, 1969 he believed the 'pigs' deserved/needed to die. I also believe that for LVH and likely the rest this is the 'honest' answer</b><br /><br />I don't dispute the second part of the equation. The former, I do. I was very much struck by Kasabian's statement in the Watson trial that they knew HS would involve killing ~ but not that they'd be the ones doing it. <br />Funny thing is though, it seems that Tex <i>not</i> wanting to commit murder {prior to the night of the 8th} now has the effect of landing him in the shit because it emphasizes that there are questions that he can't answer that the parole board say they want answers the to.<br />That's <i>irony</i>grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-15323881404245970152016-12-30T05:55:58.407-05:002016-12-30T05:55:58.407-05:00Will do Will do Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-1267481436436430722016-12-30T00:57:52.442-05:002016-12-30T00:57:52.442-05:00Thank you for the data, Dreath...much appreciated ...Thank you for the data, Dreath...much appreciated Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857339832418981386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-61978947148388992512016-12-29T22:14:53.690-05:002016-12-29T22:14:53.690-05:00Penny Lane,
Thanks! 20 years is about right for ...Penny Lane, <br /><br />Thanks! 20 years is about right for parole on life in prison with parole. That's one of LVH's arguments. <br /><br />Grim, <br /><br />I generally agree with you but not this: "And the panelists couldn't get their heads around a series of factors that contributed {not caused} towards that moment at which he committed murder."<br /><br />I read it as the panel had him pegged pretty well and wanted to know why he murdered and never really got a straight answer- yes, Manson controlled and manipulated them, speed and LSD did contribute to the murders but the real answer that- to me, IMO- is inescapable with Watson is: in August, 1969 he wanted to murder them and in August, 1969 he believed the 'pigs' deserved/needed to die. I also believe that for LVH and likely the rest this is the 'honest' answer.<br /><br />I agree it was very interesting I especially found his efforts to defer to his book for details 'interesting'. It could mean his memory is going. It could also mean he's forgotten what he said in 1978 and the truth, or what is in his memory, differs. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-35597620492804013572016-12-29T21:58:26.781-05:002016-12-29T21:58:26.781-05:00Well, folks, whether the age of the defendant '...Well, folks, whether the age of the defendant 'should' be a consideration either in sentencing or in connection with parole it 'is' a consideration in both areas. It is a 'mitigating factor'. <br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68762707053348334212016-12-29T21:57:41.837-05:002016-12-29T21:57:41.837-05:00Dreath,
Gertrude Baniszewski was convicted of firs...Dreath,<br />Gertrude Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree murder. She was spared the death penalty and was sentenced to life imprisonment, served 20 years. Paula Baniszewski, (daughter) , was convicted of second-degree murder. She was also sentenced to life imprisonment , but serviced only a few years …It was the daughters conviction I found most disturbing…I Just struggle with the inconsistency. <br /> <br />I do agree with Saint to a degree , Stabby and Krenny should spend their lives in prison , the others however should have been released in my humble opinion… Their crimes where no worse than many that have served much less time , it’s the Manson connection that keeps them locked up , and that’s just not cricket! <br /> <br />Grim,<br />I have read a lot about the James Bulger case , awful, do you have any idea of what happened to the one that went bad after his release ?Penny lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10401896105440499937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-90344175852039430242016-12-29T21:32:59.194-05:002016-12-29T21:32:59.194-05:00Penny Lane,
Do you know what that adult was conv...Penny Lane, <br /><br />Do you know what that adult was convicted of? (1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder) And was the sentence like 15-life and they did 20 or '20 years'. Just curious. <br /><br />Thanks. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-84730692501685049672016-12-29T20:45:26.255-05:002016-12-29T20:45:26.255-05:00St Circumstance said...
When you do a crime like ... St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>When you do a crime like the one Kreny did- does it matter what age you are when you do it?? Should that matter ever as far as a consideration??</b><br /><br />This is such a hard one, but on balance, I'd have to say yes. We had a case here in England back in 1993, the James Bulger case, where a couple of 10 year olds murdered a child. It's a horrible case to read about, the details of what these kids did are hard to forget once you've read them. I think that each case has to be taken on its own haunches but speaking generally, age sometimes needs to be taken into account. <br />But not on its own.<br />And that's the thing, you've got all these factors working in conjunction with each other. That's one of the things that boxed Tex in during his latest hearing. The transcript is fantastic. It's one of the most intense I've come across yet. And the panelists couldn't get their heads around a series of factors that <i>contributed</i> {not caused} towards that moment at which he committed murder. So that really did for him.<br />Oh, that and the fact that the man lied on a few occasions when demonstrable, factual stuff {much of it from his own mouth or pen, incidentally} was on hand to be used by those opposing his release !grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-1202841515479575222016-12-29T20:44:32.525-05:002016-12-29T20:44:32.525-05:00Thanks Dreath..yes some where young , so young in ...Thanks Dreath..yes some where young , so young in fact that one of them managed a second murder after his 2 years jail..But the adult offender only got 20 years ..!Penny lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10401896105440499937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-60777454036059172942016-12-29T20:40:16.681-05:002016-12-29T20:40:16.681-05:00Hey Saint...whilst kicking back with a monster joi...Hey Saint...whilst kicking back with a monster joint over the new year break..read up on Katherine Knight...It was a Australian crime and its a doozy...kinda makes the manson stuff look tame...kinda..😉Penny lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10401896105440499937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-21656552312658448582016-12-29T20:32:29.339-05:002016-12-29T20:32:29.339-05:00Lynn,
There is some data from 2003.
42 of the ...Lynn, <br /><br />There is some data from 2003. <br /><br />42 of the 107 death row inmates in what is called the 'class of ’72' had been released on parole by 2003. 12 of those released committed new felonies. That rate was far lower than the 65 percent, three-year recidivism rate for all parolees released from prison at the same time.<br /><br />By 2003 of the class of '72 24 died in prison. <br /><br />The LA Times looked at the class of ’76, consisting of 67 people on death row who got life sentences after the state’s second capital punishment law was again ruled unconstitutional in 1976. Six of those formerly condemned inmates were paroled, with only one reoffending.<br /><br />This link has more current data on 'lifers' (our group of killers would not technically be 'lifers' but the data is interesting). <br /><br />http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/164096/doc/slspublic/SCJC_report_Parole_Release_for_Lifers.pdfDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-25037012012285721222016-12-29T19:38:00.764-05:002016-12-29T19:38:00.764-05:00I couldn't find anything specif to death row i...I couldn't find anything specif to death row inmates whose sentenced has been changed to life in prison and how many have been paroled. Does anyone know? I did find this article which is a little alarming to me: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/mar/31/california-lifers-paroled-record-numbers/Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857339832418981386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83719566023504665472016-12-29T19:36:00.571-05:002016-12-29T19:36:00.571-05:00St Circumstance said...
I think the age of the of...St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>I think the age of the offender should matter when considering the sentence at the time. Using it later to judge a persons current suitability makes no sense to me at all</b><br /><br />It doesn't seem to make sense. And yet...........<br />I can sort of understand why it would come up. It's sort of saying that life is a continuum and that people can and do change and that <i>sometimes</i> there is a significance in someone's age when they did something. Someone at sixty whatever, looking back on their life and being able to see with so much more clarity at who and where they were back when they were 21. <br />It could also work both ways. A panel could say "well, if you were doing this kind of thing at 21....."<br /> <br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-9479785682430211012016-12-29T19:20:58.793-05:002016-12-29T19:20:58.793-05:00Gloopine said...
Agreed children manipulate. The ... Gloopine said...<br /><br /><b>Agreed children manipulate. The key word here is children</b><br /><br />The only reason I spoke about how we try to rid children of the trait is because children are little people and that's where it <i>starts</i>.<br />And while I do believe in the principle of sin, ie, all of us being warped from the start and just passing it on {genetically, socially}, I don't see the initial need to manipulate as being anything beyond straight survival. Baby hungry. Baby can't speak. Baby makes noise. Baby gets fed. Baby soon works out, being a progressive human being, that there are ways to get what it wants. It soon knows that by "making that noise" it'll get what it wants and if it needs to learn a little endurance, it will and it does.<br />OK, that's a bit simplistic but hopefully you get my drift. We try to socialize that <i>out</i> of kids as their understanding grows but we so often give confusing mixed messages. Why ? Because it's not only children that manipulate. Many children may not be able to articulate it but many soon work that out too. <br /><br /><b>The desire to manipulate at an adult level be it for sport or selfish gain is the hallmark of a criminal/psychopath</b><br /><br />Well, maybe I've found myself among criminals and psychopaths all my life.<br />While I can't say I've necessarily known people that manipulate others just for sport {they may have done on one or two occasions} almost everyone I've known as an adult has manipulated people at some level or has tried. We can be nice about it, we can be in denial about it or we can be Dark Sith Lord Sidious about it. We can pretend it's for the other person's good or growth or the good of our Nation in the winning of the war or our team in the winning of that trophy or championship or for the smooth running of the church or council but however one dresses it up, it's something that is common to the human experience. Women try to do it in relationships, men try to do it in relationships. Politicians try to do it, those running media outlets try to do it, filmmakers and writers try to do it and so on and so forth. <br />Criminals and psychopaths just take it to a different place.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-22030731300562093742016-12-29T18:50:01.219-05:002016-12-29T18:50:01.219-05:00But I agree in principal lol. Throw everything els...But I agree in principal lol. Throw everything else out the window. This was nuts :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-13375467193711918752016-12-29T18:49:09.672-05:002016-12-29T18:49:09.672-05:00A very fair and reasonable opinion and a great and...A very fair and reasonable opinion and a great and thoughtful comment in my opinion Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.com