tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post46371927515639591..comments2024-03-18T15:40:57.986-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Approaching 3301 Waverly DriveMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-3053451508365305392016-10-04T05:07:07.697-04:002016-10-04T05:07:07.697-04:00Grim, I think there's at least one or two sent...<br />Grim, I think there's at least one or two sentences that you haven't picked apart and critiqued in this thread. Please go back and check to see what you've missed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-57257026423799477582016-10-03T14:02:59.022-04:002016-10-03T14:02:59.022-04:00Robert Hendrickson said...
that is why a Prosecut... Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br /><b>that is why a Prosecutor needs a Jury full of "believers" rather than those who rely upon their KNOWing</b><br /><br />Is not the very nature of being on a jury a demonstration of not being able to <i>know</i> ? If one knew, they'd be biased. The lawyers on both sides of the fence have as their one aim to persuade.<br />I'm genuinely curious as to what you would say/imply about jurors and that specific jury if they had found Charlie and his cohorts not guilty.<br /><br /> St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>I feel like only Tex was able to do that. The rest of them were more bark than bite. Sadie had so many chances to kill and never did. even Gary took a gun away from her</b><br /><br />On the other hand, a real consideration is this; could Watson have done any of this on his own ? Even though Susan and Leslie baulked when it came to the heavy weather of actually killing, both nights of murder {and Shorty's too, when one thinks about it} show a feeding off one another that may have never been possible if any of them had been alone. There are loads of people who demonstrate big balls when in a group that wouldn't go that way on their lonesome.<br /><br /> Dreath said...<br /><br /><b>I am aware- I should have said 'innocence crap"- the license was the first think that popped into my head</b><br /><br />You bring up a good point fraught with debate potential even though it's been flogged to death for years when it comes to Linda. In Robert's book, Bugliosi is adamant that she was guilty and would have gone for a second degree murder charge where she was concerned. People may not be aware of that when they keep coming out and saying that he painted her as the angel. Even in the trial he made a few statements that showed that he was under no illusions about her. But he was necessarily grateful for what she did. And why shouldn't he be ?<br /><br /> Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br /><b>Because of ALL the wild & crazy players in this CASE combined with ALL the bizarre circumstances involved, the "real" TRUTH intertwined with the Tate / Labianca Murders may one day surprise us ALL</b><br /><br />Not half as much as it will surprise those who have looked everywhere but where the evidence has pointed for half a century and so have concocted their own.<br />I get your point about how further digging can bring one to a very different conclusion. I believe that to be true.......sometimes.<br />It's odd isn't it, that every one of the killers has, at some point, had to accept that where the evidence pointed was indeed what happened all along. And the one who went the other way {Susan Atkins} actually was the one who put meat on the bones initially, where the evidence was concerned, unprompted, at a time when she didn't expect her confidants in jail to tell anyone.<br /><br /> <br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-44294738410413992452016-10-02T16:47:32.465-04:002016-10-02T16:47:32.465-04:00Mr. Humphrat said...
they'd been reading the ...Mr. Humphrat said...<br /><br /><b>they'd been reading the paper about the Tate murders</b><br /><br />Only about an hour or less before. Maybe my sisters and I weren't so daft to think all those escaped murderers would turn up at our house....<br /><br /> Bobby said...<br /><br /><b>But the conversation about police brutality is a lie and dishonest. You’re more likely as African-Americans to be damn near struck by lightning than to be killed by the police, and no one can have that conversation</b><br /><br />I'm not so sure that's true. Likelihood and chance are not things that are subject to the whims and sometime heartlessness of humanity. An overworked officer that has had a lot of hassle with young Black guys that finds themselves in a split second situation where they think a certain measure of danger is there doesn't have the benefit of the class situation a maths teacher teaching a class of 13 year olds probability will have.<br />That said, I wouldn't want to be struck by lightning either !<br /><br /><b>And we’re killing ourselves in our own communities, and no one can have that conversation</b><br /><br />It's hard to deny that in many cities there is a problem between the Black communities and certain sections of the police force. There has been for a very long time and every now and again, it rears it's head in a way that grabs public attention, like now, with the advent of phone cameras. <br />I do think that there are many conversations that it seems like Black people in the western world just are not having. But I find myself increasingly involved in conversations such as police action, Black on Black killings, Black relationships, racial mixing etc. Fact is, at least here in the UK, there are passionate voices {and some irresponsible ones} on all sides of the equations. <br />Bit by bit, I notice the same thing happening within various Asian communities too. Many settling communities are having to come to terms with what it means to be what you are, wherever you are and how one adapts, changes or tolerates.<br /><br /> St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>Maybe instead of figuring out how to make a Manson movie about Charlie, A Manson movie about Tex would be more interesting.....</b><br /><br />It probably would be now because of 47 years of Manson overkill allied to no one {in my opinion} coming close to playing Charlie with anything even approaching convincing. <br /><br /><b>Not as Flashy as Charlie by a long shot, but much more frightening and his story is just as interesting in some ways</b><br /><br />His story is but <i>he</i> isn't.<br /><br /><b>Tex was growing up in Americana. How Tex wound up in that group is a much stranger road in my opinion....</b> <br /><br />I think Charles Watson, other than committing murder, was really not drastically different to tons of people of his age in that time. OK, murder is drastically different as an end product, but his path was replicated by thousands of others and could be seen as "symptoms of a deeper illness" as Lucy Van Pelt from the Snoopy books would put it.<br />There's a film called "The Wicked Lady" about a rich young woman that hooks up with a highwayman and goes around robbing people {in the original she murders her butler when he finds out about her}. It's a well worn path, that of the comfortable bod that has "nothing to complain about" that nonetheless goes rogue. Thinking about it, it's one of only 2 films I've ever seen where the remake is actually as good as the original.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76657687796954990112016-10-02T15:52:15.234-04:002016-10-02T15:52:15.234-04:00Thank you, St. C. Thank you, St. C. George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-23439114592629152182016-10-02T15:21:51.397-04:002016-10-02T15:21:51.397-04:00I will say that George self publishing Goodbye H/S...I will say that George self publishing Goodbye H/S is very impressive to me. Over the course of this week I read it again and it's a really good book. George is a good writer. People should read it and consider his well presented ideas. Others may come to different conclusions than me...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-31327232977452317892016-10-02T12:38:20.640-04:002016-10-02T12:38:20.640-04:00grimtraveller said...
George Stimson said...
&qu... grimtraveller said...<br /><br />George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>"That would probably take about five minutes, tops, just enough time for Manson to do what he said he did</b><br /><br />grimtraveller said...<br /><br /><b>no one was there with a stopwatch......these were people for whom time had little meaning. Having abandoned the notion of time and clocks and watches, I somehow doubt they could honestly gauge length of time other than "not long," "quickly," "ages," etc.</b><br /><br />In her parole hearing this year, LVH stated that she reckoned Charlie was gone from the car for <i>15</i> minutes.<br />For the killers, it was never relevant or important, hence the discrepancies over time and who went up when. The action that took place in the overall context ~ that's what was important to them.<br /><br /> Dreath said...<br /><br /><b>RH, you know I am never sure whether these are rhetorical questions designed to cause me/us to think or not</b><br /><br />Join the club !<br /><br /><b>Well, I also think we all want to know the motive of any of these acts. Bugliosi thought the jury needed one. Call it the human desire to know 'why' something happens so we can 'fix' it</b><br /><br />I broadly agree with that although I'm unsure whether it's always to know whether we can fix it. That was certainly the case for the prison authorities though. While it's easy to say that all the killers turned their backs on HS and CM because they needed to play the game to appear reformed for parole considerations {and I'm not so naive to dismiss such a notion may have played a small if significant role}, there is the highly significant aspect of LE being confronted with a monolith that they felt needed to be broken, dismantled and reworked into something more befitting a "civilized" society. The motive was and is important. It occurs to me that if the copycat, drug burn, Leno mafia/black book hit, Linda revenge for rape or any of the alternatives had been presented, we'd hardly be discussing this case 47 years later, regardless of the outcome. They're not controversial or deep or in need of working out or understanding. By comparison, they're boring.<br /><br /> Robert C said...<br /><br /><b>Back in the olde daze it was not uncommon for people to leave their doors unlocked and even open in the evenings</b><br /><br />I know places that do that <i>now !</i> In fact, during the summer on the estate I live on, some people still do that. Perhaps it was because my parents were from Nigeria and didn't want "English" people looking into or walking into our house, but we always had curtains so you didn't have a clear sight into the place and the front and back doors were always locked. It was drummed into us, right from the 60s. I remember once, my Dad was away for the night and my Mum, being a nightnurse, was at work and my sister and I watched an episode of "Hawaii 5-0" that they had announced earlier on TV should be watched with caution because of it's content. It turned out to be a damp squib and we were so disappointed. But when we walked into the kitchen {it was just after midnight} the back door was wide open ! That scared the petunias out of us. We were always fastidious about locking up, it was trouble if we didn't so that really threw us. There often seemed to be escaped murderers on the run and we were so daft, we always seemed to think they'd turn up at our place demanding food and shelter.....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-73465005126727918452016-10-02T09:09:14.500-04:002016-10-02T09:09:14.500-04:00Grim said: "So it's unwise to accuse Kasa...Grim said: "So it's unwise to accuse Kasabian of lying ~based on the part you use."<br /><br />The notion that someone sits on a witness stand and makes up a story from whole cloth is a fiction created by Hollywood. It is far too hard for anyone to hold that story together in the face of cross examination, the details, potential contrary evidence and witnesses and one's own memory from day to day or week to week- Kasabian was on the witness stand for days. <br /><br />Hence, the 'Bugliosi told me what to say' story is extraordinarily unlikely. He'd know this. <br /><br />It is far more likely a witness motivated to lie (versus forgetting the truth) will use the following techniques: <br /><br />1. Deny: claim something simply didn't happen. It is easy to remember. You can place Manson's statement above in this category: "It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me." One might have asked him why he was cruising LA with the killers from the previous night, knocking on church doors, jumping out of cars or maybe even where he was going when they stopped- maybe to take a leak.<br /><br />2. Alter the truth: something actually did happen just not where, when, how or why it actually happened. The event is real, the witness doesn't need to remember the lie....and can always try to escape the lie by saying 'they forgot" or "I guess I was wrong". You can place the Atkins-Kasabian 'meeting' outside Cielo in this category. IMO as 'stated' it does not make sense.<br /><br />3. Avoid: either don't directly answer the question asked or blame someone/something for how or what happened else. Like this: <br /><br />Ruby Pearl visited him at the jail. “I only came here for one reason, Charlie,” she told him. “I want to know where Shorty was buried.” Manson, unwilling to meet her gaze, looked down at the floor and remarked, “Ask the Black Panthers.” “Charlie, you know the Black Panthers have never been up to the ranch,” she responded, turning her back on him and walking out.<br /><br />No, Charlie never lies. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-4391630963506057782016-10-01T23:52:28.712-04:002016-10-01T23:52:28.712-04:00St Circumstance said...
The actual people who did... St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>The actual people who did the crimes all tell the same story and it involves Charlie giving the orders- not anyone else cooking up a scheme on their own. nor Linda and Tex master-minding anything</b><br /><br />I agree with that. The standard reason given involves them having to stick to the official version because of parole but 47 years later, they're still in jail. Not only that, some of them have shown for at least 38 years that they have <i>not</i> stuck with the official story. Susan didn't {re stabbing Tate}, Pat doesn't {re carving WAR on Leno, discussing murders, telling Leslie to wipe prints and "about 15 or 16 things" that came up in her first parole hearing}, Bobby doesn't {re circumstances surrounding Hinman's death}, Tex doesn't {just read his trial testimony !}. <br /><br />George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>Grim, I still like the way you think. Lunch some time for sure!</b><br /><br />It's a date !<br /><br /> Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br /><b>most people are MORE interested in WHAT was "inside" Manson's head than what was inside the subject houses</b><br /><br />But of course. The man is fascinating. His life story is a movie guaranteed to pack'em in, if you get my drift. He was bright, articulate, funny, perceptive, insightful and actually had a good point when he spoke of being society's reflection. American society didn't want to hear that ! But almost all of his moves were replicated elsewhere in some shape or form and indeed had been around before Charlie. Whether it be in terms of religion, racism, family background influencing current being, stealing, dodgy morals, revolution, people abuse, sex, music etc, American culture[s] had shown it's dark side long before Charles Manson.<br /><br /> Manson Mythos said...<br /><br /><b>there is one glaring lie that should make her entire testimony get put into question. That is Charlie entered the home himself and called Tex out of the car. He didn't tie anyone up, yet she says she heard him say that. Even Van Houten finally has come clean in her last hearing that Tex and Charlie walked in together</b><br /><br />But LVH doesn't specify at which point. It's no secret that Tex went in with Charlie at some point. But even Charlie says that he went over to the LaBianca house when he saw the light. He never mentions Tex going up to Harold's old house with him or Tex going with him to the dog or the house with the light. He only mentions Tex when he has actually opened the door and gone into the house. In his first book, Tex even says Charlie went up alone first before coming back to get him {which is exactly what Nuel Emmons book went on to say. It's a curious book, some of it is supportive to Charlie, some of it ~the descriptions of Cielo, for example~ seem rather derivative and fanciful}. So it's actually kind of unclear <i>exactly</i> the chronology. One can pin various people down on some statements and not on others. So it's unwise to accuse Kasabian of lying ~based on the part you use.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-81276099579688678222016-10-01T22:22:54.962-04:002016-10-01T22:22:54.962-04:00George Stimson said...
a fair and reasonable pers... George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>a fair and reasonable person might come to the conclusion that Charles Manson was telling the truth about what he did after he arrived at Waverly Drive on August 9-10, 1969</b><br /><br />A fair and reasonable person might well do so if they were relying solely on Charlie's words and Linda's fags.<br />On the other hand, they might have doubts if they knew Charlie knew Harold True hadn't lived next door to the LaBianca house for around 10 months. <br />They might have doubts if they knew, as Charlie told Vanity Fair in 2011, that he was actually familiar with the layout of the LaBianca house as he'd been inside it back in '68 in the days when it was empty {he says he used to go in there to have sex during visits to Harold}.<br />They might have doubts if they knew, as Harold told Aaron Stovitz, that Charlie had asked if he could move into the True house when Harold was leaving and that Harold had said Charlie should ask his housemates as he couldn't give an answer and that when Charlie asked, the housemates said 'no.'<br />They might think that it explained why after seemingly cruising about at random on August 9/10th, Charlie suddenly directed Linda to a specific house and they might wonder if he went up towards the former True house because he actually did have business there ~ with any or all of the 3 guys that rejected his request to live there. They might wonder if actually they were on the menu that night but fortunately weren't in or had themselves moved.<br />I've wondered for a while whether or not the LaBianca house was pure chance ~ a dog alerted him, a light was on and most importantly, it was in the early hours and the house {with no one at the former True house to hear any possible resistance or screams} was isolated. From those photos, it looks almost as isolated as Cielo.<br />I don't really like quoting Bugliosi in relation to opinions about Manson because where he was coming from was necessarily biased, but one thing he said even noticing this back in '70 may or may not be significant, but it rings in my head. He said "an innocent man protests his freedom. Instead Manson played word games."<br />Crime and jail's gain has been society's loss where Charlie is concerned. I think he could have done socially wonderful things had he remained on the straight and narrow after '67.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-71613680123825468602016-10-01T21:45:20.147-04:002016-10-01T21:45:20.147-04:00George Stimson said...
Kasabian indirectly corrob...George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>Kasabian indirectly corroborates Manson’s version of what he did at the two Waverly Drive properties (i.e., check out Harold True’s house and then briefly enter and exit the LaBianca house before coming back to the car) when she was asked, “How long after he left the car did he return to the car?”<br />Kasabian answered, “I remember we all lit up cigarettes, and we smoked about three-quarters of a Pall Mall cigarette, however long that takes.” <br />That would probably take about five minutes, tops, just enough time for Manson to do what he said he did</b><br /><br />Perhaps it's just me and the way my head works, but I often find myself looking with a certain amount of skepticism at the importance placed on how long particular actions took......when no one was there with a stopwatch or thinking that they would ever have to recall in crystal clear detail the exact chronology of events and their timelines.<br />Vincent Bugliosi was so determined to nail the perps that sometimes, little details assumed an importance far beyond their actual significance. We've debated much around the Cielo timelines but the truth is that even without any of the reports of sounds heard, you'd have more or less the same case. Those reports don't exactly dovetail and corroborate each other, much less the crimes. <br />And the "Pall Mall measurement" kind of falls into a similar category for me. First of all, how many people study how much of a cigarette 5 or 6 people smoke {Linda says they <i>all</i> lit up}, in the dark, in a cramped car with people sitting on others' laps and some falling in and out of sleep, on a night when you've been cruising the city looking for people to kill ? That's odd in itself. Secondly, Bugliosi's question is something of a pettifogger; these were people for whom time had little meaning. Having abandoned the notion of time and clocks and watches, I somehow doubt they could honestly gauge length of time other than "not long," "quickly," "ages," etc.<br />That there are slight discrepancies in who went up to the LaBianca house and who followed when, well, is that really a surprise ? My wife remembers very little about the night she had a baby for the first time. I remember much more than she does....and there are great gaps in my memory. I remember the basics and when the story is being relayed, most of the details left out don't actually alter the overall picture. The show happened, the waters burst, we drove over bumpy roads to the hospital, the baby got distressed, I noticed the monitor was irregular, the midwife and doctor didn't until I asked if that was meant to be that way, an emergency caesarean had to be performed, he got yanked out by the doc, he cried, he got cleaned up, I talked to him, he had his vitamin K injection, he howled ! There was a lot more that happened, I remember most of it actually, but not the chronology. The point is, it doesn't alter the basic happenings of the night. And so it was for both the Cielo and LaBianca events. A range of things happened, some of which is very clear to the perps, some of which is understandably hazy. I say understandably, given that none of them expected to have to relay the events one day, not even Charlie. In fact, in George's book, he says he can't remember much as he was "pretty loaded" that night. When you're not expecting to be fighting for your freedom because of your actions one day, then the little details aren't important at the time.<br />The big ones, however......grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-79307429920981202872016-10-01T18:24:24.251-04:002016-10-01T18:24:24.251-04:00Grim, I still like the way you think. Lunch some ...Grim, I <i>still</i> like the way you think. Lunch some time for sure!George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-22326229021795592522016-10-01T15:21:42.937-04:002016-10-01T15:21:42.937-04:00George Stimson said...
Charlie on the phone said.... George Stimson said...<br /><br />Charlie on the phone said......<br /><br /><b>Tex was — he come in behind me. And me and guy got into a conversation, ‘Wah-wah-wah, roo-roo-roo,’ and I said, ‘Well, you know, I gotta go.’ <br /><br />And then Tex moved in and started talking to him. And I walked on out.<br /><br />It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me</b><br /><br />Did Tex ask Charlie or Linda or whoever was driving to drive to that specific house ? When Charlie says Tex "moved in and started talking to him. And I walked on out" are people honestly expected to believe that Charlie didn't even ask Tex if he was coming ? Or if he was staying ? I know Charlie had a rep for being unpredictable but come on, this is stretching credulity. If you want people to actually <i>believe</i> {yes Robert, <i>believe</i>} what you say, one is going to have to do better than that ! "It didn’t have a fucking thing to do with me".....really ? If there was any evidence that as a group they were in the habit of going into the pad of someone they never knew, just letting themselves in and having a chat and then one of them sticking around while the others left, even that would be stretching it ! But this is beyond left field. <br />The question has been asked down the years whether it would have made a difference if Charlie represented himself in court rather than Irving Kanarek. I've said many a time and still stand by this, that I think it was an error revoking pro per. Judge Keene should have given Charlie a stiff warning to stop the dancing with motions too ridiculous to contemplate <i>at that time</i> and get on with defending his life within the system that existed, however imperfect it might appear or even be found to be. I've also long felt that even if Charlie had defended himself, the outcome would have been identical. He was already dicing with danger with the notion, which became his trial statement "had you not arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do...." I think he would have been found exactly as he was because it would appear that for him truth is relative, not absolute. He seemed to draw in those that stuck with him through relative truth, truth that could shift and fell into line with what different people felt at different times. Very 60s.<br />I think George's book is brilliant. I also think it sinks Charlie further in the mire than HS ever did.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65168381623163553342016-10-01T14:49:56.298-04:002016-10-01T14:49:56.298-04:00Actually Mr. Humpphrat, an ARROW from a COP like m...Actually Mr. Humpphrat, an ARROW from a COP like mentality is NOT ruled out.<br /><br />WHY was an "alone" man in the middle of nowhere shot and KILLED by another man.<br /><br />NOW, watch the current videos of COPS "killing" "alone" Black Men - NOT so funny.<br /><br />AND of course, you ALL can't imagine such a violent scene at the Tate and LaBianca houses simply to start an imaginary RACE war. SO, do some research and YOU will discover the COPS who are shooting Black Men are acting NOT unlike the Tate / LaBianca KILLERS. They BOTH have FEAR and SURVIVAL motivating THEM. <br /><br />It took me years to realize how very simple this CASE really is. COPS are being "programed" with FEAR of the Black Man and I suspect the mere mention of "Helter Skelter" validates THEIR fear.<br /><br />That's WHY it's usually a case of multiple GUN shots when a COP shoots an "alone" man. Just like the Manson Murders are a case with "multiple" stabbings. The KILLER has to make sure HIS FEAR is eradicated (DEAD) forever. The RAGE is to survive.<br /><br />BTW Dreath: an entire race DID get to SEE those writings - thanks to Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor.<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-15290829957855745202016-10-01T13:12:47.327-04:002016-10-01T13:12:47.327-04:00Grim, it would be interesting to compile a list of...Grim, it would be interesting to compile a list of Charlie's fanciful conversations. I don't get the feeling he expects anyone to believe the conversation happened so much as to say to the interviewer "backoff, that's my business" "I think you're full of it so I'm gonna reflect you back at yourself."<br /> Another conversation that really strikes me was his account to Tom Snyder of his conversation with Gary Hinman: Snyder asks what did it feel like to cut off Hinman's ear and Charlie says: "well I had done everything he said for about 20 years...and I got to thinking why don't this guy do something I tell him to do? And he said 'no' And I said 'well how comes I'm always doing what you tell me to do, but then you never do what I say to do?' And he said 'well blah, blah, blah.' So I said 'Now you do what I say.' And he said no. I said 'You do exactly what I say!' And he said no. 'I'm tellin' you, I'm not asking you. You do EXACTLY what I say!!' And he said 'WOW! Where'd you get that?!' I said 'I got it from my father in prison. He gave it to me. I had a little charm bracelet I used to carry it on, when I was about that big [points at floor]' <br />I doubt if anyone believes Hinman exitedly said 'Wow, where'd you get that?!' in the middle of a struggle to save his own life, and I doubt if Charlie expected anyone to believe it or any of the rest of the so called conversation. It's just that some people say Charlie doesn't lie, but I say he feels entitled to create fanciful tales when it suits him in order to avoid sticking to sober facts.<br /><br />Mr. Humphrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02574243483977353223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-38838241412010843522016-10-01T12:16:14.644-04:002016-10-01T12:16:14.644-04:00Mr H. I thought you were going to say the Ice Man ...Mr H. I thought you were going to say the Ice Man was the victim of overzealous policing LOL!Mr. Humphrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02574243483977353223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-69327079426720383662016-10-01T11:04:20.244-04:002016-10-01T11:04:20.244-04:00Grim, I like the way you think!
Grim, I like the way you think! <br />George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-86620550815963591362016-10-01T08:47:49.013-04:002016-10-01T08:47:49.013-04:00Here's a THOUGHT: Remember the 5000 year old ...Here's a THOUGHT: Remember the 5000 year old man they found in ice with his body fairly well preserved. Well, they have done just about EVERTHING possible to discover how and why he died.<br /><br />BUT it wasn't until more recently, after years, another radiologist looked at the x-rays and saw a small "arrowhead" lodged in his body.<br /><br />Of course, NOW they KNOW how he died, BUT for sometime they could ONLY "believe" how he died.<br /><br />A lawyer must convince a jury to "believe" and then HE can convince then to side with HIS theory.<br /><br />Because of ALL the wild & crazy players in this CASE combined with ALL the bizarre circumstances involved, the "real" TRUTH intertwined with the Tate / Labianca Murders may one day surprise us ALL.<br /><br />BTW: the TRUTH is merely the absence of ALL other possibilities.<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-54464813220311258742016-10-01T08:03:34.411-04:002016-10-01T08:03:34.411-04:00:):)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-17578881823861386752016-09-30T22:40:55.615-04:002016-09-30T22:40:55.615-04:00Thanks Saint. That means a lot and 'yes' t...Thanks Saint. That means a lot and 'yes' they are. All of them. You are my favorite....Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-82694839618422670672016-09-30T21:26:14.006-04:002016-09-30T21:26:14.006-04:00Dreath- again... Congrats!!
You are going to be ...Dreath- again... Congrats!!<br /><br /> You are going to be an amazing addition to a really amazing group of people.<br /><br />:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-17688197708486206262016-09-30T21:01:25.030-04:002016-09-30T21:01:25.030-04:00Mr. Humphrat said...
I can't square Charlie&#... Mr. Humphrat said...<br /><br /><b>I can't square Charlie's account of his conversation with Mr. LaBianca with the notion that "Charlie doesn't lie"</b><br /><br />It does seem a rather fanciful conversation, doesn't it ? I can't work out if we're looking at this through late 20th & 21st century lenses, but even in the 60s and 70s, I can't imagine a friendly conversation ensuing if someone just walked into our house ! It also seems a little strange, seeing a light on in a house and letting yourself in. Even allowing for the fact that you've always known it to be empty, the fact that a dog was there and a light was on, even in a psychedelic situation, tells one that someone is in there.<br />But this statement of Charlie's ¬> <i>"And I went to see Harold" [True]</i> is the concrete part of his statement that he must be called out on. For he <i>knew</i> that Harold had left that house at least 10 months ago. In his book, even George states that the house Charlie headed to had been <i>previously occupied</i> by a friend named Harold True." So if the house had previously been occupied by Harold, why was Charlie going to visit him ?<br />Furthermore, when True was interviewed by Aaron Stovitz in January 1970, he said that Charlie knew he had left in the fall of '68. He'd even seen him on at least one occasion after he'd left. True always maintained that Charlie was no murderer in waiting and was in touch with him while he was awaiting trial so why would True lie in this matter, a matter that wasn't significant at the time ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-69153168452118982082016-09-30T19:34:20.890-04:002016-09-30T19:34:20.890-04:00Saint, I gotta agree.
They were writing messages...Saint, I gotta agree. <br /><br />They were writing messages on the walls to communicate to a whole race of people. A race who were never going to see the messages but even if they saw the messages they would have not had the slightest idea what they were talking about. "Helter Skelter? WTF does that mean? yes, the place is a mess." And ...... they actually believed their audience would understand the message. Yes....bizarre. <br /><br />Grim: I am aware- I should have said 'innocence crap"- the license was the first think that popped into my head.<br /><br /><br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06551377673977145628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-970241270146518732016-09-30T18:55:39.450-04:002016-09-30T18:55:39.450-04:00But take into account not only the vicious nature ...But take into account not only the vicious nature of the crimes themselves:<br /><br /><br />Think about the writing in blood on walls... <br /><br />Add that they did it twice on back to back nights...<br /><br />Include the fact that they stopped to make a snack the second night....<br /><br />Consider the behavior during and after the crimes by the perps...<br /><br />Does that not reduce the sample size of "similar" crimes you can use to make the case this was not bizarre? Look I have a tendency to wanna always be right lol I know that<br /><br />But these victims were sitting in a house behind a gate in a very wealthy area, and some zoned out zombie looking young people walked into their living room saying things things like " I am the devil and am here to do the devils work"- then they started to shoot and stab people to death who were running around screaming and begging for their lives. Then they painted strange phrases in their blood on walls and refrigerators, and after doing it a second night in a row- they made some snacks before leaving....<br /><br />if that doesn't meet your definition of bizarre- we just have to disagree ;)<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-49121656438323990412016-09-30T18:52:50.577-04:002016-09-30T18:52:50.577-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291550902325920904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-6838497953255322562016-09-30T18:05:03.225-04:002016-09-30T18:05:03.225-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.The boy wonderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11334622723520178155noreply@blogger.com