tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post4196360108189453806..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Is Linda Kasabian’s Account of the Second Night Credible?Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-12609239313325653362020-09-17T21:06:42.953-04:002020-09-17T21:06:42.953-04:00We always believed they were looking for our house...We always believed they were looking for our house when they were in the Sylmar area ; something we were told by my family not to talk about. Not sure who in the Family id ask. Normally people dont ask people those questions. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347565709909357184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-19224046321740430392020-05-03T04:01:35.267-04:002020-05-03T04:01:35.267-04:00You were there, were you not, George ?You were there, were you not, George ?dianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10174349925836575938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-20927510289505445162017-03-20T13:03:33.382-04:002017-03-20T13:03:33.382-04:00Well, whatever language it is, you sound a little,...Well, whatever language it is, you sound a little, futile.....Mike.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65471428846891641022017-03-18T19:59:31.739-04:002017-03-18T19:59:31.739-04:00Grim said...
'the art of conversation'.
...Grim said...<br /><br /><b>'the art of conversation'</b>. <br /><br />Let me know if you ever try that.<br /><br /><b>'You sound a little, futile, Mike...</b><br /><br />That's not English, and I'm not 'Mike'.MHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765688604319832245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-53507004125935278512017-03-17T18:47:24.531-04:002017-03-17T18:47:24.531-04:00MHN said...
And what happens when every detail ha... MHN said...<br /><br /><b>And what happens when every detail has been pinned down and tabulated to death? What will be written or changed or believed when every aspect of a long-dried murder case has been dissected to everyone's complete satisfaction? What if there comes a day when the route and its reasons, and everything else, every i has been dotted and every t crossed, and when even that turgid old grinder Grim can find no reason to prattle every post to dreary death with his family anecdotes, because everything is settled and agreed upon?</b><br /><br />Why, we move on and retire undefeated of course.<br /><br /><b> and all this talk.... all this talk, what will it have amounted to? </b><br /><br />A little enjoyment brought about through the art of conversation, debate, arguing and swapping of thoughts and ideas and having them tested.<br />You sound a little, futile, Mike.....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-30088285502874353982017-03-16T18:10:07.834-04:002017-03-16T18:10:07.834-04:00And what happens when every detail has been pinned...And what happens when every detail has been pinned down and tabulated to death? What will be written or changed or believed when every aspect of a long-dried murder case has been dissected to everyone's complete satisfaction? What if there comes a day when the route and its reasons, and everything else, every i has been dotted and every t crossed, and when even that turgid old grinder Grim can find no reason to prattle every post to dreary death with his family anecdotes, because everything is settled and agreed upon?<br /><br />What then? Manson will be even more dead than he is now, his crimes and his creed a minor historical footnote, and all this talk.... all this talk, what will it have amounted to? <br /><br />Life is very short. Despite the protestations of the credulous there will be no Jewish woodworker offering hugs to his western fanboys after death. We will be dead. Gone. Off. Over.<br /><br />Mr Stimson I love this blog. I even read it sometimes. I also love maps. I loved your post. <br /><br />But why?MHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765688604319832245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-60892368375736536532017-03-15T13:18:19.317-04:002017-03-15T13:18:19.317-04:00There is an interesting exchange between Bugliosi ...There is an interesting exchange between Bugliosi and the Judge in chambers about Clem that Cielo put up somewhere. He says he didn't charge Clem 'because he is crazy' and other reasons but never goes into what those were. I have said before there is no way in hell VB wanted someone he thought was 'clearly insane' in that courtroom. <br /><br />I agree, Grim, I think Fleischman and Goldman (I saw something I can't corroborate that it was Goldman) did a large dose of 'deprograming' on her ASAP. I saw a reference (but hearsay and questionable reliability so far) that Goldman even sat her down and explained how you die in the gas chamber. It is also highly probable to me anyway that her attorneys 'helped LK remember' she always wanted to testify once she did want to. <br /><br />I've never taken the time to put it together but one key could be knowing when the defense filed for discovery and when the DA set up the 'tubs' versus when the deal was made with LK. Why? <br /><br />Before the discovery request everyone has press clippings, their own client and what they can pull out of a cop in the hallway- remember Caruso's (?) statement in the Atkins interview 'they have a knife. They questioned my other client about a knife.' That is pre-'tubs'. He's going off another client interview but knows from that it is a buck knife. <br /><br />Everyone is posturing and inflating their case while denigrating the other guy's case. Once the 'tubs' appear the defense now knows what the DA actually has and can watch it expand over time. We know Bugliosi put all the crime scene photos in the tubs- this comes up in chambers and the judge wants to know the press can't get to them (if I recall). Those pix would worry Fleischman-they are bad. If they had anything from say Flynn putting her in the car he'd be very worried. If all this went down before the tubs it is highly likely Stovitz and Bugliosi were over stating their case. Hence why VB gets pissed when Stovitz discusses manslaughter with Fleischman (he claims its the 'I'd have no one to try' issue- I think it was this.).Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68522525761335266102017-03-14T19:48:14.255-04:002017-03-14T19:48:14.255-04:00Pretty compelling stuff.
I agree with it to a larg...Pretty compelling stuff.<br />I agree with it to a large extent. I don't know whether she wanted to testify right from the start but from the day after the Grand Jury Fleischmann was angling for an immunity deal. Even though Bugliosi conceded that the case against her was anemic at best for Cielo and non existent for LaBianca. As for being there, well, he knew Clem was there but there was no charge for him. They knew Tex was present for Shorty's murder. No charge.<br />That all said, I absolutely agree with you that I'm looking at this from a now rather than then perspective. If one compares it with Charlie {and for that matter, Pat and Leslie} who did try to style it out and got crushed, you can see the kind of thinking Linda had at the time. Because when a hot situation is live, unless one is experienced in fighting LE, it doesn't appear the way it will when you look back on it 20 years down the line.<br />Linda obviously didn't know this at the time but Bugliosi wasn't at all confident of netting a result against her and he did say he would only have gone for 2nd degree against her had she not joined the prosecution.<br />While I don't know if she wanted to testify right from the start, I do think that the desire to tell all came fairly early on in her remand.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-35970717326103885762017-03-14T11:15:24.502-04:002017-03-14T11:15:24.502-04:00Grim,
I think your comment on the new post parti...Grim, <br /><br />I think your comment on the new post partially answers this: we have the benefit of hindsight. <br /><br />Are you saying because it is hard to convict Kasabian the fact she testified is evidence she always wanted to testify voluntarily? I think that leaves out a few steps. <br /><br />If Kasabian testifies with no deal she goes to prison. Perhaps she gets some sympathy from the jury and only gets second degree murder but she is doing 7-25 years and given how parole has gone for these people she might still be there. And she certainly didn't do that so her sense of morality had limits. What stopped her from ignoring Fleischamn's advice? Nothing. <br /><br />Now what happens if she remains silent and Atkins recants. VB now knows what happened. He would set out to prove it- Juan Flynn is a start. <br /><br />Fleischman's comment- pregnant, broke and being there- is actually quite revealing from my lawyer-view. I read it to say she has no cash to mount a serious defense (hire investigators, a shrink or forensics experts) and if you lose you are not going to watch that kid grow up. But most importantly it is the 'you were there' part- I think Fleischman's analysis was 'can Bugliosi put my client at either crime scene?' He is looking at that issue in late '69 early '70 not from 2017. <br /><br />If VB can, my client goes to prison- felony murder puts her there for life. It all boils down to that. I am betting whether VB can place my client at either crime scene by the time he gets to trial. I, as Fleischman know she was there so I sort of have to assume he eventually can. VB too knows she was there- remember VB didn't have to convict Kasabian in the real trial so we don't know what he might have put together. So I'm betting on whether he can place her at the scene when I know she was at the scene. And my wager is 7 years to life. And Fleischman is telling you (as Kasabian) precisely that. What do you do?<br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8981667690111029812017-03-13T17:51:56.450-04:002017-03-13T17:51:56.450-04:00Dreath said...
Now, if you are saying they would ... Dreath said...<br /><br /><b>Now, if you are saying they would have had a hard time convicting her had she remained silent and had Atkins followed through and not testified- that I agree with</b><br /><br />That's exactly what I'm saying.<br /><br /><b>This would have told Fleischman she might testify at trial to avoid even life in prison and that would have been sufficient, in my opinion, to convict Kasabian of something</b><br /><br />Well this is the point that obviously confuses me then. <i>If</i>, according to the Atkins deal with the DA's office, nothing she said at the Grand Jury could be used against her accomplices and <i>if</i> nothing she said about Linda's involvement could be independently corroborated and Kasabian remained silent, how could she be convicted of something ? Her position strikes me as being on a par with that of Clem. Nothing corroborated his involvement with the LaBianca crime, hence he wasn't even charged. It seems to be a similar picture with Tex re: Shorty. That Grogan and Davis have both subsequently placed him there and active {even down to one parole board actually referring to him as a crime partner} hasn't led to him being arrested and charged. Their words can't be used and nothing else proves/suggests he was there.<br />Or have I got that totally wrong ?<br />I'm genuinely curious about this because it occurs to me that if Kasabian was as dishonest as her detractors make her out to be {as regards this particular matter, not in general !}, once Atkins recanted, she could have lied and simply said she wasn't there or said nothing at all.<br />But she didn't. She told all. I can't see that she had anything to gain by doing so. Or to put it another way, she had more to lose by being granted immunity {her life, her family's lives, being beholden to possibly years of endless trials etc} than by keeping <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=schtum+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=fs&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=6hPHWIa8BqmZgAah_K-wBA" rel="nofollow">schtum.</a>grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-66510990245152419292017-03-13T11:27:31.612-04:002017-03-13T11:27:31.612-04:00Grim,
If Kasabian testified to the events of tho...Grim, <br /><br />If Kasabian testified to the events of those two nights without immunity or a deal of any kind she would have convicted herself. She would have laid out all of the elements necessary for a conspiracy conviction, precisely as she did against Manson. Now, if you are saying they would have had a hard time convicting her had she remained silent and had Atkins followed through and not testified- that I agree with. <br /><br />I don't know if Fleischman is lying about helping Atkins to pull out of the deal. I doubt he is/was when he said that, however, because the risk to reward balance weighs against a lie. I do suspect that he and Goldman knew at some point after Atkins pulled the deal that they had the DA right where they wanted him and obtained the deal they did for precisely the reasons you state. <br /><br />It is also clear that whether Atkins would testify at trial was not known for sure until she did back out. Per HS her deal allowed for a lesser charge if she did: <br /><br />"The extent to which the District Attorney’s Office will assist Defense Counsel in an attempt to seek less than a first degree murder, life sentence, will depend upon the extent to which Susan Atkins continues to cooperate."<br /><br />Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (pp. 206-207). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. <br /><br />This would have told Fleischman she might testify at trial to avoid even life in prison and that would have been sufficient, in my opinion, to convict Kasabian of something. As Fleischman said: You are broke, pregnant and you were there. <br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-26216372062818836662017-03-12T19:05:04.602-04:002017-03-12T19:05:04.602-04:00simon davis said...
Re LK, I've just never th... simon davis said...<br /><br /><b>Re LK, I've just never thought much about what VB had on her</b><br /><br />A couple of days after the Grand Jury when Fleischmann was trying to get a deal for Kasabian and he said that she'd gone against his advice to fight extradition, Bugliosi said to Stovitz that her testimony to them was valueless as long as they had Susan.<br /><i>As long as they had Susan</i>.<br />In the section of his book starting "January 1970" Bugliosi reproduces a segment of a confidential memorandum that he sent to Evelle Younger in which he states that without Atkins testimony on Tate the evidence against Manson & Kasabian was 'anemic' and for LaBianca, 'non existent' and concludes that without Sadie they had no case. But a month earlier a deal had been made with Atkins that basically meant that whatever she said to the Grand Jury could not be used against any of her co~defendants.<br />There was essentially zero on Kasabian and nothing that could be corroborated, even though she'd been an active participant in getting rid of weapons and clothes.<br /><br />Another reason why I'm skeptical of Gary Fleischmann's story of telling Linda to do a number on Susan to get her to recant is that in the memorandum outlining Atkins' deal, it's stated that Susan doesn't want to testify in the physical presence of Charlie or the other Co~defendants for fear. And Richard Caballero was reported as saying a few times that he did not think she would testify against Charlie and would return to the fold. So fairly early on into Kasabian's entry into the picture, she really held all the aces ~ aces she didn't actually need. The prosecution needed her far more than she needed them. Easy to say with 48 years hindsight I know, but she was in a win~win situation. They had nothing of any note on her {nowadays there may have been her DNA on the bloody clothing}. So it certainly adds a different spin to her immunity. At this moment in time, I'd argue that she didn't need immunity as she would have beaten the rap. So it begs the question ¬> <i>why did she then testify ?</i><br />Could it be that when she said that she felt the truth had to be told, despite her suspect behaviour between mid August and December in not telling the Police {though she told at least 5 other people in one way or another} that she was actually telling the truth ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-19775812082177783212017-02-28T18:50:37.622-05:002017-02-28T18:50:37.622-05:00simon davis said...
I think VB softened over the ...simon davis said...<br /><br /><b>I think VB softened over the years. Didn't he actually advocate her parole when she was terminally ill?</b><br /><br />His exact words in an August 2009 interview published the month before Atkins died were "The visceral response would be, 'Well, she showed no mercy so she gets no mercy.' But there are several things which militate against that easy conclusion. She's already paid substantially for her crime, close to 40 years behind bars. She has terminal cancer. The mercy she was asking for is so minuscule. She's about to die. It's not like we're going to see her down at Disneyland."<br /><br />I thought it interesting that he thought that she'd paid substantially for her crime. I wonder if he ever considered that his book proved she never actually killed anyone. <br />I don't think he would have been so accommodating towards Susan if she wasn't terminally ill, based on what he said a few years earlier about Leslie: <br />"In defense of her, I can say this, that she seems to be a model prisoner and everyone seems to say that she is very remorseful for these murders.<br />But there is one observation I'd like to make about the issues of rehabilitation, Larry. If someone participates, as Ms Van Houten did, in murders as incredibly brutal and vicious and unspeakable and nightmarish as these murders were, it seems to me, Larry ~ I could be wrong, but it seems to me ~ that there must be something, what, we don't know, but something inside of them, something in the deepest recesses of their soul, their guts, that enabled them to do what they did, something that most of us fortunately do not have because, I just want to continue this thought, something that enabled them to do it. You and I would never do something like this.<br />Now we might not be able to isolate or identify that element, but I think it must be there, and therefore, to release a type of person like this on a vulnerable society, may be taking a risk that we shouldn't take."<br /><br /> Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>one thing it just don't fit that Linda bought into this helter skelter stuff in 2 weeks at the ranch</b><br /><br />It does seem unlikely doesn't it ? Yet she thought he was Christ in as short a time. I think perhaps that it shows her state of mind in July of '69, the mounting result of her lifestyle, being opened up by acid to consider the unusual, rejection by her husband and acceptance by her new found friends and trying hard to fit into their lives, to see what they saw and do what they did. The sex sessions, the going out to creepy crawl, the garbage runs, the dinner lectures ~ all these point to an environment where someone that already was on a quest "looking for God" could find themselves overwhelmed, especially as they tried to give themselves to this new thing. It's actually not vastly different to a religious conversion. It may be a while before the person undergoing the changes starts getting back to totally thinking with their own mind, even if they may be finding things that disturb them, somewhat.<br />Linda did say that she didn't buy everything that came out of Charlie's mouth and because she was there only a short time, those things she did buy {plus the fact that she had fallen in love with him} are all the more remarkable.<br /><br /><b>I think her presence at the murders leaves a lot of questions</b><br /><br />You're right about that. Most people that comment on the case have theories about why she was chosen and most of them are plausible. It may well turn out that the reason was a psychedelic combination of all or many of the theories, not that we'll ever know. Even she didn't know.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-55391632897917428672017-02-27T01:01:53.803-05:002017-02-27T01:01:53.803-05:00Grim, book will definitely be published, by 1 July...Grim, book will definitely be published, by 1 July at latest I hope, cheers mateAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02747781312879930847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-44635526202266993202017-02-26T23:01:34.772-05:002017-02-26T23:01:34.772-05:00Oh I think if not mistaken both charlie an bobby h...Oh I think if not mistaken both charlie an bobby have said that Tate an that gang in there words got what the deserved for burning people on dope an making child porn.I am not saying that but it has been said by more than one of them that dope was involvedBob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-66731060214210805362017-02-26T22:40:50.562-05:002017-02-26T22:40:50.562-05:00I left out one thing it just don't fit that Li...I left out one thing it just don't fit that Linda bought into this helter skelter stuff in 2 weeks at the ranch.I think her presence at the murders leaves a lot of questions. Why her? The rest ok I can see being that far gone.Bob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-91152338567845938232017-02-26T22:33:19.076-05:002017-02-26T22:33:19.076-05:00I said in my very 1st post I had a feeling but I c...I said in my very 1st post I had a feeling but I could be wrong.I think they have said it starting with Hinman charlie said he sold bad dope at his trail.the girls i beleave have said it to trusted people.Not positive.you don't suppose Linda an Leslie's lawyers took there lead from Atkins statement thinking it was a way out?any good lawyer would've jumped on that train.I don't find it believable that they all thought they were going to live in a hole in the ground an multiply to 144,000.I mean cmon.maybe so I guess the acid was good.I do agree bobby is were he belongs my point was any variation from the facts at trail is frowned on.I think decarlo had alot to do with Hinman.I'm not saying I know its just basic logic. I understand your point of view.maybe there were multiple motives.DA bought testimony with immunity.but just the same the right people are locked up so I guess it doesn't matterBob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-15109238317964349482017-02-26T19:02:42.630-05:002017-02-26T19:02:42.630-05:00Bob otev said...
They've all said many things... Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>They've all said many things so I don't really put a lot of stock in any of them</b><br /><br />But you believe in a drug robbery that none of them have said ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-11762108489137617992017-02-26T18:25:14.658-05:002017-02-26T18:25:14.658-05:00OK you got it all figured out nothing left to lear...OK you got it all figured out nothing left to learn for you.its an opinion. A valid one I think. They've all said many things so I don't really put a lot of stock in any of them .one I'm sure isn't the case is copycat because had that worked all signs would have pointed back at Spahn's.so that's outBob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-81752108407674296612017-02-26T17:23:34.840-05:002017-02-26T17:23:34.840-05:00Bob otev said...
Sebring an voyteck were allegedl... Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>Sebring an voyteck were allegedly dealers</b><br /><br />Allegedly.<br /><br /><b>sebrings friends admitted cleaning his place in a hurry</b><br /><br />Which proves ?<br /><br /><b>charlie has always said the DA invented helter skelter</b><br /><br />Despite the fact that at least 8 people had spoken of it in cash or kind before Bugliosi was even on the case and despite what Atkins and Van Houten said in December '69 and despite his own words in that June '70 {interview March} Rolling Stone edition regarding the Bible and the Beatles and other things said by Clem about Black people ?<br />Fake news evidently had early origins.<br />In any case, what would you expect Charlie to say ? He can't say anything that shows him as being responsible for the murders. In the mind of the criminal fraternity, <i>absolutely nothing was gained from these killings except for $70, a bag of coins and a dress that was burned within 12 hours of utilizing it</i>. And you're sentenced to death for that ? Far better to cast yourself as the defiant victim of an establishment stitch up. HS causes Charlie to look like a hopeless criminal failure and I think he was painfully aware of that. The people he says he looked up to criminally were rebels, folk heroes of the American outlaw tradition. HS doesn't net you a place in that chart and nor for that matter does a drug robbery in which not only were no drugs taken, drugs were actually left behind.<br /><br /><b>they seemed to struggle to make the move to barker</b><br /><br />Did they ? They didn't go until into September. The murders were early August.<br /><br /><b>an it did cost a lot to feed 20-30 people</b><br /><br />And one of the features of the final time at Barker was how hungry people were at times.<br /><br /><b>I was referring to something written by a former warden of the girls that said they always said true motive was drug robberies</b><br /><br />I wouldn't pin my life on the actuality of a person that was warden to the women having the definitive motive for the murders.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-70060848806558586302017-02-26T16:56:30.449-05:002017-02-26T16:56:30.449-05:00Bob otev said...
what they got to lose is I think... Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>what they got to lose is I think they thought being brainwashed made them less responsible</b><br /><br />The women went out of their way to show that they were not brainwashed during that trial. Arguably, they showed the opposite but they went <i>full tilt boogie</i> to demonstrate that they were thinking for themselves. In subsequent years, there was some wavering over this but all three accepted responsibility for their actions. It's actually the various parole boards and commentators that have a hard time getting their minds around the paradox of being influenced and dominated into actions one would not otherwise have committed while being completely responsible for their part in those actions. They can't blame Charlie and they can't dismiss his part in the ruination of their lives either.<br />That's paradox. <br /><br /><b>Now there trapped into the story look what happens to bobby when he tries to change his story</b><br /><br />And yet they have all gone against aspects of the official story. <br />As for Bobby, he has no one to blame but himself. Even when spinning the drug deal story, he throws in details that are demonstrably untrue.<br /><br /><b>the only reason helter skelter is remotely possible is because they had a schizophrenic leader on acid. if not it would be totally unbelievable</b> <br /><br />To some extent, I agree with parts of that. However, in the context of the 60s it was not and is not unbelievable. A look into the various strands of the counterculture and in particular, the kinds of visions that were brought forth once people had been exposed to psychedelic drugs demonstrates that. Blimey, John Lennon thought he was Christ come again. And outside of drugs, just take a gander at what people believe in various religions and I'm talking about the mainstream ones, not even the esoteric ones.<br />In that time, people believed things that a more straight society had not really entertained for centuries. Keith Richards of the Stones said "the most amazing thing that I can remember on acid is watching birds fly ~ birds that kept flying in front of my face that weren’t actually there. I could almost see every wing movement. It was slowed down to the point where I could even say ‘I could do that !’ That’s why I understand the odd person jumping out of a window, because the whole notion of how it’s done is suddenly clear.” Grace Slick adds "flying off the edge of a cliff or trying to embrace a moving vehicle is not an uncommon desire for psychedelic drug participants ~ not that people become suicidal, it’s just that in such a state anything seems possible.”<br />Words to wonder by.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83715960158361017422017-02-26T16:45:22.138-05:002017-02-26T16:45:22.138-05:00I haven't read shreck Sebring an voyteck were ...I haven't read shreck Sebring an voyteck were allegedly dealers.sebrings friends admitted cleaning his place in a hurry.charlie has always said the DA invented helter skelter.those were susan Atkins words they used an she was obviously disturbed.they seemed to struggle to make the move to barker an it did cost a lot to feed 20-30 people truck loads of fuel etc.but all the sudden after months of trying they made it happen.I was referring to something written by a former warden of the girls that said they always said true motive was drug robberies. Someone here must be familiar with this source?Bob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-10768816900425433832017-02-26T16:19:59.899-05:002017-02-26T16:19:59.899-05:00The Watson drug robbery theory has even less going...<b>The Watson drug robbery theory has even less going for it than the copycat although in fairness, it was an early police direction</b><br /><br />An actual drug robbery, not Watson's role in it !<br /><br /> Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>also I read the girls tell there friends in prison it was drug robberies</b><br /><br />During the penalty phase the women said that Linda had been burned for $1000 on some MDA. I wouldn't mind betting they had never even heard of MDA until it came up in notes that their lawyers were privy to as defence lawyers. So they constructed a tale of murder for revenge, led by Linda Kasabian because she'd been conned on this drug deal. But even this didn't lay any leadership role on Tex. In it he was just a doped up zombie that went crazy and shot Steve Parent.<br />As the fog surrounding their minds cleared and they started coming clean on what happened, as they could remember it, they admitted that the entire penalty phase testimony was bullshit and not at all true. Susan later revised part of that to include the copycat which is another chapter altogether, but dismisses the drug thing. In Robert's book that I mentioned earlier, the 3 women trying to defend Charlie {Squeaky, Sandy, Brenda} try to push the drug robbery angle but their words and explanations are so contradictory that it's actually a little embarrassing at this juncture. One can only say in mitigation, "they were young and they loved...."<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-63662901064917971182017-02-26T16:19:16.401-05:002017-02-26T16:19:16.401-05:00Well just from different books such as handing wat...Well just from different books such as handing watkins 300$ for supplies not knowing if he'd come back.the auto dealer that said he always had a gangsta roll of cash.they seemed to be plenty high all the time.all accounts I've seen have that summer as constant thefts.no cash to go to desert for months then they got there.truckloads of gas tires food etc.what they got to lose is I think they thought being brainwashed made them less responsible. Now there trapped into the story look what happens to bobby when he tries to change his story.the only reason helter skelter is remotely possible is because the had a schizophrenic leader on acid if not it would be totally unbelievable. I'm not sayingvim right but it is far more plausibleBob otevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189065271760126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-27259485683752260912017-02-26T16:05:11.301-05:002017-02-26T16:05:11.301-05:00simon davis said...
I think VB softened over the ...simon davis said...<br /><br /><b>I think VB softened over the years. Didn't he actually advocate her parole when she was terminally ill?</b><br /><br />Not so much parole but he felt nothing was gained by keeping her inside in her condition and that compassion should be shown. Perhaps by then he was into his struggle with cancer.<br /><br /><b>The defendants themselves waxed lyrical about HS to anyone who would lend an ear - lawyers, ex-girlfriends, doctors, police officers, fellow inmates, journalists, other outsiders like Gregg Jakobson, Dennis Wilson, Al Springer. It was incredible, as if it was the only thing they knew how to talk about !</b><br /><br />Not only in that Rolling Stone article {which Shreck says gave Charlie 'guarded support'}, but in Robert's book "Death to pigs" which was compiled in and around much of the same period, the defenders of Charlie just can't shut up about it, if not in actual name, then in concept.<br /><br /><b>they were very willing to help</b><br /><br />Denise Fox at LADA was swift and to the point and said she'd sent me the trial transcript before I even knew she was going to !<br /><br /><b>That's if I get it published and if u buy it</b><br /><br />I'd buy it.<br />Just out of interest, when you say "if I get it published..." does that mean there is some doubt afoot ?<br />Either way, I'd love a copy of the manuscript. Autographed, of course.<br /><br /> Bob otev said...<br /><br /><b>I'm sure these murders were a robbery for drugs an $</b><br /><br />So was Nicholas Shreck.<br />However, you want to ask yourself a question. Given that all the killers and all those involved copped to the crimes, what would they possibly have to lose by saying it was a drug robbery ? And why subsequently drag Charlie into it seeing they knew they were guilty ? They've all spent 40+ years revising and telling us what happened. And yet not once has drugs come into it. Robbery was something that Susan copped to right from the start. She told the Grand Jury that Tex told her the reason they were going to Cielo was "to get all of their money and to kill whoever was there." So the robbery angle was never any great revelation.<br />Once convicted, a drug robbery doesn't sound so bad. It certainly takes the edge off killing a pregnant woman.<br />On Cielo night, neither Pat, Susan nor Linda went along knowing they were going to kill, much less in conscious furtherance of HS. And Tex never said a thing about drug robberies, even though he's subsequently admitted the other nasty things he did. The Watson drug robbery theory has even less going for it than the copycat although in fairness, it was an early police direction.<br /><br /><b>think about the fact that there seems to be no further scams or robberys after the murders </b><br /><br />When you say no further scams, do you mean from the Family ? The only two scams we're particularly aware of in that period are the Lotsapoppa burn and Charlie Melton $5000 theft, both within four days of each other and them at the start of July. So much is made of Watson's drug burns yet beyond the Crowe burn, never once is any other ever mooted. And I'm still waiting for proof to emerge that Watson knew Frykowski. If you know someone you're hardly likely to ask them who they are and what do they want ?<br />When you say there were no further robberies after the murders, who and what are you talking about ? No robberies where ?<br /><br /><b>plus no shortage of $ or drugs in the 2 months following the murders. they surely didn't live 2 months on 74$ supposedly taken from tates </b><br /><br />Where do you get that there was no shortage of $$$s ? And there was sometimes little in supply of drugs. There's never been anything said about them flying on MDA. <br />Joel Rostau denied delivering drugs to Cielo, upon which the entire drug robbery theory rests. He admitted that he was just bullshitting his woman. Had there been no murders, he'd probably have continued bullshitting her until he himself got the bullet.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.com