Thursday, July 2, 2015

Motive: The Case For Helter Skelter

                                                                                                                                                                            "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."

                                                                                     -Mark Twain 

"I remember one time, which really impressed me that Tex really had gone for the whole idea of helter-skelter, when him and Ella and Mary went down to the city to do something and they came back and they both, they were all three of them shaking like leaves, you know, panting. I met them coming up the road and they were like they had been running from something. I said, "What's going on?" They said, "Boy, it's really coming down," Tex said. He said, "It's really insane down there and it's coming down right now. I mean it's happening today." I thought -- I just had never been impressed -- that is when I first became impressed that Tex was really -- really went for the idea"

                                                   -Paul Watkins 1971 testimony people versus Charles Watson 

 "Helter-skelter was the motive for the murders. Manson borrowed that term from a Beatles song on the White Album. In England, helter-skelter is a playground ride. To Manson, helter-skelter meant a war between whites and blacks that the Beatles were in favor of. When the album first came out, in December of '68, he got a copy, and he came racing back to the ranch all excited and said, "The Beatles are telling it like it is! The s___ is coming down!" It was this war that he felt he could ignite by killing white people and blaming black militants, this war called helter-skelter."

                                                           -Vincent Bugliosi

So, Today I make the case for Helter Skelter. It is my purpose and goal to convince the reader that after hearing similar arguments regarding all possible alternative motives, Helter Skelter is the motive with most actual evidence to support it. Then, I will leave it up to the readers to hear the other arguments and decide for themselves which motive makes the most sense based on real evidence. I ask you only to keep an open mind and remember- I am making an argument as to which motive can be backed with the most real evidence. I am not going to try to compete with rumors, legends, second hand stories, or unnamed sources. Having said that- here is my case for Helter Skelter:

I am not a lawyer. So for me, the fairest way to decide which motive is backed by the most evidence is to make sure I understand exactly what the definition of evidence is. As a common person with no real knowledge of the law- I resorted to Google. That should be simple and fair enough to use as a starting point. Obviously there are a few types of evidence. But, for our purposes: "In the Law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."  I guess I can start there.  If someone wants to come up with a better way- I am all ears. Otherwise, using this as the launch point- I believe I can show that the Helter Skelter motive is supported by specific, verifiable examples of these three types of evidence. Then I will wait for anyone who supports another motive to do the same....

 Testimony-  In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.

Can anyone really argue there is not quite a bit of testimony to support Helter Skelter as a motive in the minds of the family, and specifically, the actual killers? Most of us have heard LULU's recently released interview, and I can reprint quotes from different people who were around at the time all day long but, for the stubborn ones among us, here are a few reminders:

Gregg Jakobson 1971 trial testimony: 

Q: From the time that Mr. Watson first met Mr. Manson, did it occur to you that Mr. Watson both accepted and agreed with Manson's philosophy?
A: Yes.
Q: Any doubt in your mind about that?
A: None.
Q: Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Manson regarding helter-skelter?
A: Sure, yes.
Q: Oh how many occasions would you say that you discussed helter-skelter with Mr. Manson?
A: Well, it is hard to say. It would come up on a number of times.

 From Tex Watson's site in his own words in a Q/A:

Q:What were you thinking and feeling right when the murders were taking place?

 A:The girls and I didn't enjoy murdering our victims. It was insanely difficult for us all, but our slavish hearts were committed. We wanted this outbreak of violence to be over with. We felt we had to do it. We wanted to get it done and leave. It was horrific, and no way were we going to go to a second or third house, even though Manson had ordered it.There were no thoughts of concern for the victims. There was a total disregard for life. I was concerned with destroying everyone and not getting discovered. In some ways, punishment escaped my mind since Helter Skelter was coming down and society, as we knew it, was coming to an end.

 Tex's ( Will You Die For Me):

If anyone had asked me in March of 1969 why I was going back to Manson, I would have said I had no choice. Every day I stayed away from him I felt like I was running, running away from the place I was supposed to be, running away from changes that were necessary for me. Charlie was my destiny. Even when I talked to them on the phone, the Family women sounded different. All they could talk about was Helter Skelter. I knew the title from the Beatles' White Album, but I wasn't sure what they all meant when they kept insisting that “Helter Skelter is coming down fast, and we're getting ready for it. Everying had changed, they told me as they babbled on about a club they were starting and about buying dune buggies and about the White Album which explained everything, laid everything out-and that I'd understand if I'd just come out and talk to Charlie.

 "There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn't have the energy or the smarts to do — ignite Helter Skelter and bring in Charlie's kingdom."

 LULU at a Parole hearing:
 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And did you -- did you agree with the ideology of the group? You mentioned a moment ago something about the Helter Skelter and that sort of thing.

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. I did agree with it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And what was that that you agreed with?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: That the blacks had been suppressed and that it was their turn to be in charge and that the whites had treated the blacks in a bad way, and that there would be a revolution and the blacks would then be in control. That the whites that survived it would live in a hole in the center of the earth and reemerge after 150 years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: So it was your desire to let the blacks get into charge of the world or this country?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: This country was -- I was only thinking of this country.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And was your group, the Manson Family, were they going to facilitate this revolution, this uprising?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And how were they to do that?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: By committing murders of white people and making it look like it had been done by blacks.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: And you felt or you agreed anyway that by committing murders of white people that that was going to somehow empower black people?

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: It was to spark a revolution 

Linda Kasabian on direct at original trial:
 "The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said 'Now is the time for Helter Skelter,' were you still at the ranch that night?" 
"Was this the evening of August the eighth, 1969?"  
"I believe so."  
"What took place that evening, Linda, at the ranch?"  
"I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Spahn's house, and he told me that-"  

Bugs questioning Brooks Posten at Tex's trial:

 Q: Directing your attention to the song, "Helter-Skelter," you do recognize these lyrics?
A: Yes.
Q: And I notice that there are some lyrics in the song, "Look Out Helter-Skelter, Helter-Skelter, she's coming down fast."
Would that be a common phrase in Manson's family?
A: Yes.
Q: And members of the family were saying this all the time?
A: Yes
Q: What about Tex Watson, did you ever hear him say that, that helter-skelter was coming down fast?
A: Yeah. 

 Paul Watkins:

Direct examination by Vincent Bugliosi:
"During your association with Charles Manson, did he frequently discuss Helter Skelter with you?"


"He used the word 'Helter Skelter' constantly?"

"I wouldn't go so far as to say constantly. He did not say, 'Helter Skelter, Helter Skelter, Helter Skelter.' But he did quite a bit, yes, it seemed to be the main topic."  

I think it is fair to say that there is adequate testimony available to support that people in and around the family felt that Charlie had strong belief in Helter Skelter, and I also think it is fair to say there is TESTIMONY to support that a few of them believed they went over there on those nights for just that reason. At least above is some TESTIMONY to support that. Two of the killers actually said it and the one who drove them didn't deny it either. That gives me some cause to believe that at least it was a factor to these individuals.  

Documentary Evidence- is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of Documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence.

This one is a little tougher, but still something that offers me a couple of examples to demonstrate Helter Skelter as a potential motive. Now you will hear rumors and legends about films, and photos that could prove another motive. You will hear lots of second hand stories, rumors, and unnamed sources who say they have seen them. But have YOU SEEN any actual photos, films, or other video which can be attributed to another motive? Well, I have seen a few which could support Helter Skelter:

Now I know some would say that Sue Bartell has explained away the ranch door. Maybe. But, that still doesn't explain the refrigerator? And just cause country Sue said so, doesn't make it so. I would  submit that these are few examples of documentary evidence by definition, and so again I ask, does anyone have two or three examples of Documentary Evidence for another motive? I further submit that Mr. Hendrickson's Documentary would count here as well-as a couple of people close to the family speak on camera about the influence Helter Skelter had on Charlie. Does anyone have Photos, films, video, contracts, or anything firm in this category of evidence to support another motive? Ask yourselves some questions... Did the killers write " revenge", or "Death to Roman" on the walls? Where was any actual proof of drugs or money being involved? Where would the above evidence fit in with any other motive? For example - was writing Helter Skelter on the Labianca's refrigerator going to get Bobby out of jail? Think about this for a second. They wrote words like Helter Skelter, Rise, and Pigs. They carved the word War into Leno's body. These are words, and expressions, which can be attributed to the Helter Skelter Philosophy. Not words which indicated they were pissed about being burned by drugs, or seeking revenge, or getting someone out of jail. In reality, personally, more than I am impressed with the evidence for Helter Skelter, I am underwhelmed by evidence pointing in any other direction. When Tex says, by his own admission, that he told them he "Was the Devil, and was there to do the Devil's work"- that sounds much more like him following the instructions Testimony says Charlie was giving, than it does him being there for revenge, or as retaliation for a drug burn, or any other reason he would have on his own for being there. But don't take it from me:

Tex Watson in " Will you die for Me":
Charlie pointed out the repetition of the word “rise,” first whispered strangely, then screamed until almost unrecognizable. This was the Beatles' way of calling blackie to rise up and begin Helter Skelter, He said, and it was no coincidence that RISE was printed in blood on the walls the night of the second murders, along with HELTER SKELTER, just as PIG had been scrawled on the door of the house on Cielo Drive in Sharon Tate's blood. He showed us how the same weird chord that ended the song “Piggies” appeared later in Revolution 9,” followed by the sound of machine-gun fire and the screams of the 

Then he laid out how he wanted the murders themselves done. He apparently didn't know who was living in the house or how many people we might find, but whoever and however many it was we were to kill them all, mutilate them (”Pull out their eyes and hang them on the mirrors!”), and write messages on the walls in their blood. Then he started listing what he wanted written — things like HELTER SKELTER and RISE.

Linda Kasabian on direct at original trial:

"We got about to the middle of the driveway, you know, and Charlie called us and told us to stop, and he came to the car to my side of the window, stuck his head in, and told us to leave a sign. He said, 'You girls know what I mean, something witchy,' and that was it." 

Of course, the Physical evidence in this case is morbid but not lacking. The actual walls and doors the painting of the expressions were on. The tuning fork, and knives. The frayed paper used to do the writing. The actual number of stab wounds wouldn't be physical proof of motive, but words pertaining to motive carved into one of the victims bodies might I would guess. I think in good taste I will keep this part brief.... But again I must ask- where is more Physical evidence of another motive?

Closing Argument:

It is hard for me to understand why some people would insist Bugs made up or "invented" Helter Skelter as a motive. There are just too many examples of people close to, or in, the immediate circle of Manson who attribute the same significance of its importance to Charlie. I only posted a few examples here of Testimony from those who talked about this. I assume everyone understands the amount of testimony to this that is available. Also, a few of those who actually participated in the crimes have said over the years that Helter Skelter was a reality at the ranch, and at least a partial reason for the murders.

Hmmmm.... Lets say Charlie tells Tex to go ignite Helter Skelter :

( Tex " Will you Die for Me")

When word of the arrest got to the Family, Charlie disappeared for a couple of days up to Big Sur, something very unusual for him. When he got back, he called us all together. It was the afternoon of August 8, 1969, and his message was simple. “Now is the time for Helter Skelter.”

"After Charlie's announcement in the afternoon, the ranch became very quiet, with an undercurrent of eletric excitement, even dread. With everything that had been happening over the past weeks there was no question that we would be the ones to bring down the Apocalypse, not some black militants fromWatts.  The only question was which of us and how."

“What I want...I want you to go to that house where Melcher used to live [we knew that by now Terry had moved down to a beach house in Malibu]. I want you to take a couple of the girls I'll send with you and go down there . . . and totally destroy everyone in that house, as gruesome as you can. Make it a real nice murder, just as bad as you've ever seen. And get all their money.”

 Then Charlie tells the Girls to do what Tex says.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I participated because Mr. Manson came into a trailer where I was taking care of the children and he told me to come out to come to the ranch. When I came up to the front of the ranch there was a car and Mr. Watson was there and Miss Atkins was there and Miss Kasabian was there and Mr. Manson told me to go with Mr. Watson and do whatever he said.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANGELE: As a result you went to the rear of San Vincente Drive, and climbed over the wall.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. Mr. Watson --( she gets indiscernible here but clearly was about to say what Tex was telling her to do- hide in bushes which she goes into next)

 From Susan Atkins Grand Jury testimony:

A: I never recall getting any actual instructions from Charlie other than getting a change of clothing and a knife and was told to do exactly what Tex told me to do. 

Q: So Charlie told you on August 8, 1969, to get a fresh change of clothing, get a knife, and do whatever Tex told you to do?

A: Yes. 

And as far as LULU on nite number 2:

INMATE VAN HOUTEN: Yes. Early at my going to the ranch, Pat was the one that kept an eye on me. And she was kind of like, I guess placed like a big sister to me. And I was devoted to her. And I knew that she had crossed the line on her commitment to beginning the race war. And it was important to me that I cross that line too. So I wanted to go. I wanted to show my commitment to this belief system.

 So, they went out and actually did it at places they were semi- familiar with for one reason or another. Is that scenario really be so hard to imagine?

 I submit to you that the people who killed the victims those two nights did so in the name of Helter Skelter, and the people who died were murdered because of people who were wired to the idea of Helter Skelter.

I submit that Charles Manson lit the match and fed the flame that ignited the fire. Many people who were intimately involved with the family gave testimony of the passion Charlie had for the philosophy, and the fact he was constantly on pushing it on others. There is testimony, documentary, and physical evidence which all support this motive that Bugs was able to tie together for a group of people who agreed with him unanimously. I ask if anyone can show as much actual testimony, or hard evidence for another motive, as Bugs was able to show for this one? Drug burn, revenge killing, intended to get Roman, whatever your choice- do you have the testimony or physical evidence to match up with what Bugs had to offer for this motive?

Personally, I dont think Charlie had any secret reasons, or that he lied to them to get them to do his bidding. I don't think Charlie would have had to make up a reason to get Tex and Katie to do murder for him, and if he did have to make one up- I think it would have been much easier to use revenge or money. I think what may have really happened is that some of them bought into Charlie's every word. And there should be no doubt he spoke quite often about those two words.

This was a case and a group of people where "no sense make sense". I think some people today refuse to be willing to accept that, and want to force this motive into a box they can understand. I think if the motive was drugs, money,or revenge- then Bugs would have had an easier time convincing people of that, and he still would have reaped the same benefits from his involvement. I do not think Bugs was a stupid man. I think he would have went wherever the evidence took him. I think he investigated this case personally, diligently and that he worked it very hard. I dont think he was able get evidence to support any of those other motives. Maybe, just maybe, that is because there was no other motive.

Bugs wouldn't have needed to make anything up to tie Charlie in with the others either. I know that argument is out there. Whatever the motive Bugs was going to use to paint Charlie as the mastermind and string puller- it wouldn't have mattered. Charlie gave him exactly what he needed in front of the court, jurors, and the world. Charlie was an easy vote for guilty by the way he acted, and by the show he and the others put on in the courtroom, in front of a bunch of scared and shocked people who needed a monster to slay to make themselves feel better and safer. Charlie was his own worst enemy at that trial, and despite what his supporters will tell you- he has nobody to blame but himself for that. Whatever sensational story you think Bugs was telling those people- please remember that Charlie and company did just as sensational of a job acting it out for him in the public eye. They acted as crazy and as obedient to Charlie as Bugs was making them out to be and, frankly and disgustedly, they seemed to enjoy it at the time.

Let me finish with this thought:

Let us remember, again, that this motive was presented to a jury of people. Many of us think that these jurors must have been idiots who fell for Bug's ridiculous stories, or outright lies.

Maybe- Maybe not.

I submit that those jurors were told of a Brainwashing guru who convinced a bunch of kids to do his bidding so as to start a race war called Helter Skelter. Then those jurors saw a bunch of kids do exactly what Charlie did/said and act exactly how Charlie acted. They saw girls carving X's into their heads and laughing and singing at a trial where they were accused of murdering people- including a 9 month pregnant woman among them. They chanted, and screamed at the judge, and the people in the court room. In short- they totally acted the part of crazy, brainwashed zombies. Next, the jurors heard person after person testify about Charlie's obsession with Helter Skelter, and then they saw physical evidence including the words painted in blood at one of the murder scenes, and on a door at the ranch where he lived. Now some may call me crazy, but maybe those jurors saw the evidence presented, and it matched the story they were being told. Maybe the most bizarre tale they had ever heard was being acted out right in front of there eyes. Maybe- just maybe- those jurors heard the evidence, weighed the facts presented to them, and did their jobs based on everything that was available to them at the time. I mean think about it- they weren't being told anything that was weirder than what they were seeing right in front of their own eyes. Personally, while I am not sure that they got it 100% correct as far as the why, and although I think its possible there are multiple why's, until I see more evidence of another motive than what Bugs was able to present in regards to the Helter Skelter motive- I am willing to give both he and the jurors the benefit of the doubt.

Until someone can show more evidence of something else, or disprove some of the testimony about this motive- I personally cannot dismiss it simply because it sounds silly to other people. It sounds silly to me as well when you think about it without context, but I can read and hear, and I have done too much of both to pretend it wasn't a term that Charlie and the family used, and that some of them believed in. There is enough evidence there, for me, to support that.

Look, I feel ya. Helter Skelter may seem like the strangest most far out tale you ever heard. But, I submit these were some of the strangest most far out people you will ever encounter. All I am saying is- Helter Skelter as the real motive?  It just might be possible.

 "If I'm looking for a motive, I'd look for something which doesn't fit your habitual standard … something much more far out,"

Who knows? Maybe the selfish little bastard was right...

At the end of the day you have to ask yourselves the same question I have been asking myself:

Bugs had the story and trial of a lifetime at his fingertips due to no fault of his own. The nature of the people involved on both sides, as well as the behavior of the accused, in addition to the way the crimes were carried out, were going to make this a story for the ages regardless of why the crimes happened. This book was going to be written one way or the other. Bugs may have been a terrible human being, but he was a dogged investigator and prosecutor. And after his investigation- he came up with no sufficient evidence of any other motive, nor did anyone else. For the 40 years since then, investigators have looked into this case many times. With the rise of the internet- great researchers have studied it. Wealthy people with huge resources have gotten involved with it. Friends and family have used connections to pry into it. Entire web-sites are devoted to it. People intimately involved on both sides are writing about it in books and blogs. TV shows and movies are dedicated to it. Yet nobody, in all this time, has been able to show you anything concrete which points to another motive...


-Your Favorite Saint ;)


Anonymous said...

"consider the source"

As far as I'm concerned, Helter Skelter has been disproved. Was it something they talked about and in the everyday lingo of The Family? obviously. Metaphorical fantasy? Cover? Play acting? Perhaps. But it was not the motive for the murders.

Let's look at the Crowe shooting. According to Dianne Lake, Gypsy told her that Charlie had shot a "black leader" to "start the revolution". Brooks Poston also said "Charlie shot a black leader in LA". According to Paul Watkins, the self-proclaimed "right hand man" of Charles Manson, Charlie shot Crowe simply because he was "fucking little white girls". Yes, that is the account of the supposed "right hand man" who Bugliosi used as a star witness.

We KNOW for a fact that Crowe was shot over what was just a mundane drug dispute. Yet we have multiple fantastic accounts of what happened and why. We know it had nothing to do with Helter Skelter, so common sense would tell us the Tate-LaBianca murders didn't either, nor did the Hinman murder have anything to do with needing money to "finance" Helter Skelter or a supposed 20k inheritance (that would be Charlie Melton).

What the killers themselves say especially means zilch. Richard Carbello, who I believe was working in conspiracy with his buddy Vincent Bugliosi, pretty much set the stage for the defense strategy, which is that she was insane and under the "hypnotic spell of Charles Manson". A "far out" motive was needed to prove how crazy she was. Diminished Capacity is the legal term. Marvin Part then tried with Leslie Van Houten. Maxwell Keith later did the same for both her and Watson. He even used the same tape she recorded with Part.

Which, BTW...she under no circumstances be used as ultimate proof of Helter Skelter. On that tape, Leslie was still not crazy enough to open her hole about Shea. She also says she wasn't afraid of getting arrested for the murder, since you know, what she did was "right". But when Leslie was taken in for questioning, she denied any involvement in LaBianca (or she didn't bring it up), but she did say she thought somebody in her group "might" have been involved with Tate! Leslie, if you haven't figured it out...has always been a con.

I suspect Bugliosi and Carbello worked together early on. Bugliosi probably had the legal intelligence to know that if Carbello went with the defense he tried to go for with Atkins, the rest would do the same and it would have made his case against Manson stronger.

Guida Diehl said...

Absolutely appalling. We already had a POLL deciding what the Real Motive was, yet SOME PEOPLE clearly don't respect the opinions of others & instead feel the need to continuously rehash old arguments, probably just to sate their own EGOS. Matt & co clearly don't respect the opinions of their readers so I encourage everyone to join me in boycotting all future polls. I'm starting to think the whole vote was some kind of cynical ploy to keep people reading, rather than to really SETTLE this issue once and for all. Disgusting.

Shame on St. Circumstance and shame on this blog!

Guida Diehl said...

Also Matt is a big ole racist and George needs to get a haircut. Hippy.

Anonymous said...

@Vermouth Brilliantine

Why would anyone boycott all future mansonblog polls because YOU ask them to? How can you settle an issue once and for all when the FBI still has this case open? Just because there was a poll does not mean that the issue was decided. It was a collation of people's opinions.

I can't see what is shameful about St Circumstance. He put in a lot of work into his post and makes his case in great detail. Over a number of years, he has contributed pieces to this blog and, and I think you will find that people welcome them. It should be perfectly acceptable for those who supported the other motives to write a piece for this site (and before you say it, I am not interested in doing so!). You will notice that Matt allows others, including book authors, to contribute to the blog irrespective of their viewpoint.

I cannot see how Matt is a racist - that is a serious charge. He may have made a careless remark recently, but I think you will find most people do at some time or other. If he were a racist, he wouldn't have, for example, Grimtraveller on the site. I don't know whether your remark about George is in jest, but when I read anything on here from George, my attention is drawn to the high standard of his written expression rather than his haircut. It is not cool to make remarks about others' appearance.

"...shame on this blog!" Why come back if you are so obviously dissatisfied with the experience here? There are other blogs available discussing TLB.

Matt said...

Vermouth that was the best Vera imitation to date. The only one but still clearly the best!

MHN said...

I agree: George is a hippy and Matt needs to get a racist haircut.

MHN said...

Oops. I'm not supposed to be here anymore. You didn't see me, right?

Anonymous said...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...
Oops. I'm not supposed to be here anymore. You didn't see me, right?


LMAO!!! It has just cheered me up no end to see you continuing to contribute here.

(if anyone is wondering what I am referring to, take a look at the shameful episode at the end of the comments section on the previous post "They knew what they were doing....")

Guida Diehl said...

equinox, it was a joke. Not a very funny one, but... it was a joke! I had my fingers crossed behind my back the entire time! (which doesn't make typing easier btw, maybe that's why it wasn't funny!)

Guida Diehl said...

Oh and BTW, I am all set tonight to kick back with a can of Pepsi and a big heaping plate of stir-fry and read St's post. Been looking forwards to it all day. Can't think of a better way to spend my evening (can you tell I don't get laid a lot?)

Guida Diehl said...

And btw btw, if anybody from Pepsi-Co is interested in sponsoring me I'd be more than happy to continue name-dropping your brands on comments sections all over the Internet. My prices are VERY reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Vermouth Brilliantine said...
equinox, it was a joke. Not a very funny one, but... it was a joke! I had my fingers crossed behind my back the entire time! (which doesn't make typing easier btw, maybe that's why it wasn't funny!)


Glad to hear it was a joke!!! Look forward to hearing more from you, and wish you great wealth from your forthcoming sponsorship deal. You will soon be able to buy some of Bobby B's paintings;);)

Guida Diehl said...

Haha. Pretty sure that as soon as the $$$ for the paintings changes hands I will go on some kind of Pedophile Alert List, but it'd totally be worth it just so I can guide people round my boudoir going: "And THIS fine work of art was painted by a murderer! Pretty controversial, eh? Bet you think I'm super badass now, right?"

Now that I've stopped feeling offended by everything in the world I gotta say: that was pretty fucking impressive, St. Can tell you put a huge amount of work into that. Great choice to use quotations from interviews and testimonies to back up your various arguments too- very refreshing to see all that stuff in one place rather than have to hunt around to find it yourself.

I have a definite leaning towards the Helter Skelter theory, coupled with a realistic acknowledgement that other more mundane actions might have been guiding specific people or competing with HS in various individuals' psyches. I'll also admit I'm a little prejudiced in supporting HS partly because I want it to be true (I can't be the only one who feels this way? A drug deal/copycat motive would surely be a LETDOWN to all us gratuitous thrill-seekers out there, right?). I do genuinely think though that regardless of motive Charlie's philosophy, though not necessarily the Race War aspect, influenced these people into killing- you can't chalk that of blind-eyed fanaticism up to purely mercenary concerns over money & MDA. Seeing all the confessions Family members have made about the place of HS in terms of motivations, and how they all seem to match up and corroborate each other, definitely supports this. As I said, all those quotes in one place is impressive.

That is kinda problematical still, though. When it comes to HS we're really down to taking Family members (and the Bug) at face value- which means saying we totally believe pieces of shit like Tex & crew when they say: "Sure, it was all about a blackie Revolution, yup yup." Little Paul's testimony backs them up, and he's often taken as a more sympathetic witness, but even in his case can we put our faith in what he says without reservations? Like the rest of the Family he was constantly doped up to the gills during that time, and it's not like he was a totally impartial observer- he had his beefs with Charlie, and I'm willing to bet a lot of his post-Family views were heavily influenced by Paul Crocker. The fact he was so happy to switch one bullshit guru for another, without question, kinda puts a few question marks over his credibility for me. Really when it comes to HS as a motive we're forced to take a bunch of burnout murderers at face value, although we do have a couple of DOORS to back up their argument!! (yay?) Then again, when it comes to any other motive a lot of it comes down to confessions & opinions spouted by other people- are they really any more solid? The fact we're still debating this 40something years after it happened should answer that..

I really doubt we will ever truly know What Happened. Not unless those Tex tapes are released and they do have juicy goss in them, or Sandy & Squeaky fully break with the Son of Man and write a scurrilous book exposing him. I'm not holding my breath though.

So yeah, I'm convinced but not convinced, which is a pretty Manson-esque stance to take on things now I think about it.

Guida Diehl said...

A couple other things. I do know ONE thing for sure tho, check this out: "The girls and I didn't enjoy murdering our victims. It was insanely difficult for us all, but our slavish hearts were committed. We wanted this outbreak of violence to be over with...There were no thoughts of concern for the victims. There was a total disregard for life. I was concerned with destroying everyone and not getting discovered."
That is a quote from Tex in St's post. In ONE SHORT ANSWER he says he both was, like, stricken with remorse over the tragedy of the murders, man, but he also did not care about the victims, he just wanted to DESTROY them. Guy can't even keep his supposed remorse straight in one little speech- scum.

St. also brings up Manson's courtroom theatrics, saying they doomed him to a Guilty verdict. I'm curious about this. Hasn't he said he already KNEW (or suspected) he was going to be found Guilty, especially with the Nixon thing- so he acted that way for shits & gigs? Personally I think it was a combination of both resignation to Guilt and general imbecility. I wonder if though he knew he was dooming all the others with him- did they totally act of their own volition (head-shaving, X'ing, chanting, etc.), was he complicit in ordering "More theatrics!" Did he care?

Anonymous said...

@Vermouth Brilliantine

Hi Vermouth,

I don't think he cared. Charlie, to me, is a total sociopath who is only interested in his own survival. Give the guy some credit, he has survived the US penitentiary system for a long time!! Not easy. I seem to recall Pat saying in the Diane Sawyer interview that all the theatrics were on Charlie's instructions.

To me, it was rank stupidity on Nixon's part to proclaim CM guilty during the trial. It was inexcusable given Nixon's legal career. On that basis, there should have been a mistrial.

Guida Diehl said...

Good point, Manson isn't really an imbecile, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing him (or even know who he was probably) if that was the case. It's just so easy to look at the trial and think 'WTF was he doing??' Maybe the prospect of being shoved in a gas chamber wasn't a big deal to him (he'd just Come To Now after all, dig?). Maybe he still thought he could wriggle out of it, which kind of happened- although not through his own works. I'm still convinced a good chunk of his mystique was chipped off by him not being executed. 80-year-old geriatric Manson struggling to keep up his charismatic patter really isn't as impressive as a glorious bearded martyr crucified by the Romans.

Dunno about Nixon tho, think he also might have known what he was doing. Denouncing the Killer Hippy Guru Corrupting Your Kids! would've been a great vote-grabber from Middle America. I'm willing to bet the trail & sentencing totally vindicated him in the eyes of a lot of people- those hippies really were scum, Manson really was evil, America's gone to pot ( Still wonder how HE wriggled out of a mistrial blowing up in his face, though.

Anonymous said...

@Vermouth Brilliantine

"...Dunno about Nixon tho, think he also might have known what he was doing. Denouncing the Killer Hippy Guru Corrupting Your Kids! would've been a great vote-grabber from Middle America."

Yes, I see exactly where you are coming from in terms of it being a 'vote-grabber'. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective because I am a law student and am 'programmed' to view things from a legal angle.

Yes, Nixon would be appealing to Middle America for his own benefit. There must have been plenty of scrambling behind the scenes to stop a mistrial. We only found out later in the day just how duplicitous Nixon was.

Robert Hendrickson said...

FIRST: Great job ST., but whether the KILLERS "believed" in Charlie Manson's idea of "Helter Skelter," ONLY means THEY believed in a theory that would ultimately put a BLACK man in power to change America for the BETTER. (RE-read LULU and Commissioner Ferguson CAREFULLY)

Well, DAAAH - that ONLY means that half of ALL Americans believed in a certain VERSION of "Helter Skelter" I think it's called the Oprah / Obama syndrome (version).

Then it's kind'a like: Did the "authors" of the Bible "brainwash" future generations into KILLING / WARS - etc? Or was all that WAR shit - JC's actual idea ?

Unfortunately, TRUE life does NOT alow us to have it BOTH ways everytime.

PS: Michael don't be such a BLOG "hog" YOU know how WE feel about "Pigs."

MHN said...

Robert rest assured, my comment count will be coming down almost as fast as Helter Skelter.

Anonymous said...

St., I enjoyed reading your post. I knew a woman from S. California who claimed she partied at the ranch when she was all of 14 or 15 years of age. Being a free-spirited person all her life, she was very turned off and a bit nervous by what she saw there. I don't remember a lot of details about the conversation - it was a long time ago - but she led me to believe that she felt the women who lived at ranch would do anything Charlie told them to do. I sincerely believe the murderers among this group had completely bought the HS story, hook, line and sinker. But I'm unsure of Manson's REAL motive. He manipulated the family into doing his bidding through the HS bullshit, but I think his reasons were more complex. I feel it may have been just the kick he got out of the role of domination. It made him feel good to have people willing to murder simply because he told them to do it.

Mr. Humphrat said...

"Honey I shrunk the Hlousek"

Matt said...

MHN is by the way a fantastic artist. If you haven't seen his work yet you owe it to yourself to have a look.

MHN said...

Come on now, I'm no Bobby Beausoleil. Thank you Matt.

Matt said...

True, Michael. It takes a special talent to convey a red hand print on a child's butt in pastels.

Anonymous said...

Matt said...
"True, Michael. It takes a special talent to convey a red hand print on a child's butt in pastels."

Yes Matt, and an even bigger talent to get a 115 violation a couple of weeks before you are due at the parole hearing you've been waiting on for five years. LOL. The transcript for his upcoming parole hearing is going to be one of the highlights of my summer. Maybe BB tried to spank the guy in the next cell!!!

Robert Hendrickson said...

Hey Michael: I have an idea - let's start a "blog-hog" club.

You can be President and I'll be the Treasurer. MATT can do ALL the work and we'll split the profit 50/ 50.

We can easily charge a penny a word. Those that don't want to PAY - can't PLAY. IF they only want to say: "Yeah or Nay - or confess they're Gay - Matt can say: "NO way, Jose."

Suze said...

Mr. H, you just came very close to me sending you a dry cleaning bill. LOL

Don't anyone be mad at Trilby. Maybe she was just having a bad day. She's always been sweet and funny in the past. Hi Trilby!!!

MHN said...

RH - I want some of whatever you're on today!

Suze - absolutely :)

Mr. Humphrat said...

Oh yeah I saw his great art online too Matt. very nice indeed.

Matt said...

BTW, if anyone wants to submit a post defending any motive theory feel free to send it to Deb or myself.

Anonymous said...

IF....IF starting any kind of war was part of the motive, it was to ignite one between cops and the Black Panthers. Which, from what I understand...was pretty much already raging on. Hoover considered the Panthers to be Public Enemy #1 at this time. Who in August of '69 were the biggest threats to life at Spahn Ranch and Charles Manson? The cops, who had their eye on Spahn Ranch and who could have come calling for Charlie at any minute if Beausoleil implemented him in the Hinman murder and the Black Panthers, who he thought could descend upon the ranch at any given moment to seek revenge for the shooting of Bernard Crowe.

If cops linked Hinman to Tate-LaBianca and suspected the Black Panthers of being behind them, Beausoleil would be let free and hell, they might even excuse him for shooting Crowe and the Panthers and the cops alike would be too busy busting each others heads in to bother with Spahn Ranch.

This of course might be over thinking it though.

Anything Paul Watkins, like most of the fringe players should be taken with a grain of salt. He's the same guy who sold stories of Black Magic to the press.

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

Hi Saint
Nice try and good to see you coming more and more out of your shell.

The problem is
Anything Watkins says is not reliable since he wanted to become Charlie
Anything the killer said at parole is not reliable they want out
Anything BUG says is not reliable since he was crazy

So that doesn't leave very much. Sorry. Take a balloon and thanks.

Unknown said...

Lol. Thank you for going so easy on me

Robert Hendrickson said...

SORRY Col: I made a misstake on yesterday's post:

It is "Manson's LOST Girls" Movie by Asylum Enterainment for Lifetime.

They contacted me awhile back, but wanted to do a documentary.

Michael: I guess I'm on some kind of a mental HIGH. "Acquarius" was picked up for a 2nd season and now another MANSON movie (trending in top ten right now.

It may soon be a good time for the "real deal."

ColScott said...


It's a Lifetime Movie
No sex
No drugs
No rock and roll
No interest

Matt said...

ColScott said...

It's a Lifetime Movie
No sex
No drugs
No rock and roll
No interest

Word up!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks for the post Saint. I agree with your analysis.
Watkins rules. Col. drools.

Unknown said...

Breaking:( at least to me)

The movie follows the story of Linda Kasabian after she arrives at the Spahn Ranch hippie commune

Charles Manson’s circle of women are getting their own Lifetime movie.

The cable network has given a thumbs up to Manson’s Lost Girls, a flick about the circle of teenage girls who fell for Charles Manson. Casting is already completed on the movie that will star Jeff Ward (The Mentalist) as Manson. The women include MacKenzie Mauzy (Into the Woods) as Linda Kasabian, Eden Brolin (I Dream Too Much) as Susan Atkins and Greer Grammer (Awkward) as Leslie Van Houten. Christian Madsen (Divergent) will play Manson family member Tex Watson.

Here is Lifetime’s official logline about the flick: “Lost Girls follows the story of Linda Kasabian as she first meets ‘the family’ at the seemingly idyllic Spahn Ranch hippie commune, where she and her baby daughter are embraced with open arms. Seduced by the group’s free-love lifestyle, Linda revels in a profound sense of sisterhood and acceptance. She is especially taken with Manson, who soon draws her into criminal activities, including late-night creepy crawlsbreaking into and stealing from lavish homes. Linda begins to see the evil in Manson, but the others remain fiercely loyal. Once she becomes an accomplice in what Manson calls Helter Skelter, a drug-fueled murder spree that included the brutal death of actress Sharon Tate and her unborn child, Linda breaks away and turns herself in as a witness for the prosecution. Her testimony helps lead to the conviction of Manson and his followers for the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders.”

There is no air date for the film.

Unknown said...

sorry to hijack my own post lol now you can talk about both :)

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

I have always thought the so-called "Helter Skelter" motive was the reason behind why Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, & Susan Atkins went to the Tate & LaBianca homes, terrorized and murdered innocent people. Manson's motive was different, but his instructions were to go to those homes and destroy whoever and whatever was in them. I have never doubted for one moment that it was any other reason. Manson didn't believe that bullshit, but some of the people he indoctrinated on a daily basis sure believed it. Leslie Van Houten is still, till this day saying that the reason for the crimes was because of what they believed in, which was stupid Helter Skelter! Also, Bugliosi did what he had to do to get a conviction. Yes, people hate Bugliosi, because they think he unfairly targeted a fall guy for these crimes, but people need to realize that these crimes wouldn't of ever happened if Manson hadn't been involved. Manson is/was a supreme mooch and had no regard or respect for other people's lives, money or possessions. He took, pilfered, stole and used people. That is just his nature. Bugliosi's nature was an ambitious, arrogant, aggressive prick, but that's what makes a successful, usually wealthy individual. Donald Trump, Martha Stewart, The Col, Madonna....these people aren't nice. They are cocks, yet, successful, wealthy cocks. The same went for Bugliosi. Just sayin.....(Col, just kidding btw) :-)

ColScott said...


Watkins rules? He told Bug what he wanted to hear. He told Charlie what he wanted to hear. He used to suck on Charlie's dong long time by his own admission. I feel bad that he died. I respect the daughter of his that I met. But what does he rule? Does it ever get boring being so so dumb?

Annie- but the problem is "win at any cost" is not okay. He did not unfairly target Charlie. Charlie was NOT a good guy. What he did in his zeal to GET Charlie was lie, perjure himself and pervert justice. This makes him NO BETTER than Charlie/

Anonymous said...

"indoctrinated" is such a funny word to use in relation to such a half-baked, laughable idea as Helter Skelter. Leslie is still that was the motive, because she's still following the advice of the long dead Maxwell Keith and probably subsequent attorneys. Without the Helter Skelter motive, they have nothing to use to as an example of how manipulated by Manson and out of their mind they were, thus no excuse for their actions. Leslie Van Houten would get books written about her by old friends and heart broken ex-lovers, one which described her in the sympathetic way as an "intelligent and beautiful young girl into a madman’s puppet, enslaved in a world of drugs and sex under the control of Charles Manson". Krenwinkle would have feminist propaganda documentaries made about her that paint as as a victim and Watson wouldn't have gotten the support of the Born Again community.

People who believe Helter Skelter was the motive are the only ones being manipulated, conned and brainwashed and not by Charles Manson, but by the reality Bugliosi created in the court room for his own ambitions and the killers themselves.

My advice? Stop reading books and watching documentaries. Research the trial and how all this transpired in order and you'll see it was a farce.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I aint dum. To post this I have to identify all the pics with bread in em.

Mr. Humphrat said...

But seriously I don't agree Col. with your opinions on Watkins and most other things. You have done lots of research but a lot of your opinions come down to interpretations I don't agree with. You say Watkins wanted to be Charlie-I'm guessing you base this on his book when he wrote about coming back to the family and thinking he was Charlie's right hand man and thinking the girls were pushing him and Squeaky together. Based on reading his book and seeing him in the Manson documentary I have a good feeling about him-not perfect, but he seems to cop to his flaws and being torn between the family and staying clear of them. In the Manson movie he speaks very convincingly and I conclude sincerely about Manson's evil nature which he came to see. So how did what he told Bugliosi differ from what he felt for real? And yeah, he was still drawn to Charlie and the family-is that why you say he told Charlie what he wanted to hear? If you haven't seen this sort of thing in people in your own life I'd be surprised. I certainly have. I've seen people who treat their leader as if they are infallible and they would do anything for them. Since you don't have time to explain your views to people, we will just have to take it for granted that we couldn't possibly imagine how you know what you know. Or we could just assume that, like the rest of us, you rely on your biases where the agreed upon facts leave off.

Guida Diehl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guida Diehl said...

Mr. Humprat: "I aint dum. To post this I have to identify all the pics with bread in em."

And ain't THAT getting old. Can't we personalise that stupid 'Prove You're Not a Robot: Pick the Odd One(s) Out!' game. Make it Mansonised:
-The question: 'Which of these individuals was NOT a follower of notorious hippy death-cult mastermind Charles Milles Maddox Manson?'
-The pictures: Bugs Bunny, Woody Woodpecker, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Elmer Fudd, George Stimson, Foghorn Leghorn, Gene Gene the Dancin' Machine, Captain Kangaroo, Tex.
I'd probably still have trouble with it. Sometimes it's so hard to tell what is and is not a cake..

(Btw, did anyone else get excited when Ann mentioned the Col's wealthy, successful cock??)

Anonymous said...

Vermouth Brilliantine said:

"...(Btw, did anyone else get excited when Ann mentioned the Col's wealthy, successful cock??)"

Vermouth, LOL. I am thinking (hoping!!) that the word 'cock' has a different meaning in the US than in Australia or the UK;);).

Laughing out loud at your post. BTW I am glad to see that someone other than myself has a problem identifying the pictures that come up when posting.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I can certainly appreciate someone's strong belief in a "witness" like Paul Watkins, BUT the FACT is HIS story is tragic - almost beyond measure. AND not unlike his good friend Brooks Poston HE was "black-mailed" into testfying against Charles Manson, otherwise HE and Brooks were facing Ft Leavenworth PRISON for "avoiding" the military draft.

Trust ME, I know, it was NOT his desire to testfy against the Family. He was heart-broken to hear from Bugliosi that the Family was even involved in the Tate / LaBianca massacre. I have Bugliosi on audio tape admitting that neither Paul, Brooks, or Greg Jackbson ever thought that the Family was involved in the murders until Bugliosi advised them.

I also have Mr. "B" on tape saying "nobody KNOWS why they picked the LaBianca's."

The TRUTH is NOT as cut and dried, or honorable as one would hope, but the fact that many here understand that is very encouraging.

My generation was "taught" that John F. Kennedy was some kind of hero, BUT the "evidence" was completely convoluted. If HE would have supported the Cubans, as promised, at the "Bay of Pigs," instead of backing-out at the last minute, Castro would have been overthrown and Cuba would NEVER have been isolated, nor would there have ever been a Cuban Missle Crisis OR a Vietnam, as we came to know it.

IF HE had sent in the Marines upon learning of Missles being set-up in Cuba, EVERYTHING would have been different and better for Cubans and Americans.

The point being, WE all "think" we know, but we really ONLY know what the "establishment" wants us to know. And that was Charles Manson's philosopy - think about the "other" TRUTH, cause IT will make you FREE.

MHN said...

Food can be Family-topical. Prove you're not a robot: which of these foods came from a dumpster?

AstroCreep said...

It's interesting that you post this as a case FOR Helter Skelter given that the facts are, a number of people are in jail, convicted by a jury of their peers based on Helter Skelter being the main motive. That's fact. I'm guessing most people on this blog believe otherwise?

The prosecutor didn't start his case against the family/killers with the answer. He started with a theory based on evidence presented to him and the HE pulled every single bit of evidence (such as the door with HS written on it) in as supporting documentation to his theory. As the evidence grew, so did his case against the killers.

In the case of the door, it could have been something that was written innocently but it WAS used against the killers because it supported the prosecutors theory.

As well, disputing motive is just one part of the equation. If you dispute the motive then you have to dispute all of the supporting evidence. Motive may be slightly off but the evidence is the evidence. It exists. What theory of motive does the evidence support outside of HS?

I don't know all of the theories (aside from HS) that people subscribe to but I find it hard to believe that after all these years, we don't have more information to suggest HS is a complete fabrication. Like the OJ case, why hasn't the real killer been identified if not OJ? It's because like this case, the real killers are in jail. You can't dispute that.

The prosecutor did his job and got a conviction. why didn't any of the killers provide evidence against his theory at the time of the trial? If my life was on the line and I could disprove the motive with evidence (such as OJ being framed by a racist cop) to create a shadow of a doubt, I surely would. Why didn't they?

Nice article St. Circumstance.

Matt said...

LOL, Michael. I hate that thing, especially when I'm hungry.

Unknown said...

Thank you Sir!

Unknown said...

Thank you!

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thank you RH. That's interesting about Paul and Brooks being threatened with jail over draft evasion, if that's the case. But that's not saying he lied under oath for Bugliosi. It seems to match what he really thought based on what I've seen.
RH in regard to Cuba in retrospect it seems like as soon as the Soviets showed interest in them maybe we should have just offered them a better deal than the reds and understood they just wanted security like anyone else.
Vermouth nice one! I ain't dum but some of those pics I can't tell what the heck they are they are taken from 100yds away. Pick the street signs-ok done. Nope you didn't get them all-what about those fuzzy abstract things?
Col. I really do respect all the research you've done.

Mr. Humphrat said...

You know I think Mr. Hlousek has been in hibernation long enough and for this festive holiday weekend I'm feeling in the mood for perhaps him and some of our more philosophical/educated types (English) to expound on some comparison of TLB to...oh I don't know...Arthurian Legends. What do you say? Surely Trilby wouldn't mind letting him out of his cage for the weekend. And feel free anyone (RH) to expand the conversation to JFK/Vietnam/Camelot.
Also, Matt, just as AstroCreep had that great blog this week I wonder has there every been an expert profiler give their input on whether Tex fits the profile of a serial killer?

Anonymous said...

Mr Humphrat said:

"...You know I think Mr. Hlousek has been in hibernation long enough..."

Agreed, Mr Humphrat, 100%. Also wishing all the US contributors here a great holiday weekend.

Unknown said...

Happy 4'th to all and thanks to everyone for commenting on my post either for or against...

Robert Hendrickson said...

I just realized that for someone to make such a case for HS on a blog like this, took a pair of DT sized BALLS.

AND Matt has invited ANYONE else to POST their "motive" theory !

CarolMR said...

Thank you so much for this post, Saint. And Happy 4th to you, too.

Unknown said...


Anonymous said...

When did this blackmailing of Brooks Poston take place? Because he gave an interview to Inyo County Sheriffs about Manson on October 3rd, 1969. Before Manson was even a suspect in Tate-LaBianca and it ended with:

"If it’s necessary to testify, as to the fact that he’s driven a dune buggy, that was, or is – that is hot. Or anything else about testifying to anything I’ve said – in a court, I’m willing to do that."

He also sounded extremely resentful towards Manson and spared no details.

I've always thought he testified in part to a vendetta against Manson for leaving him at Barker and just not turning out to be the Christ-like figure he thought he was.

Unknown said...

Thanks Sir lol

MHN said...

"just not turning out to be the Christ-like figure he thought he was."

Interesting. The name 'Iscariot' was (maybe wrongly) long thought to denote membership of a group of Judaic assassins intent on ending Roman (or 'Pig') occupation. It was further adduced that Judas felt let-down that Jesus was not the type of Messiah he had been waiting for, and therefore betrayed him to the authorities.

Which makes me wonder; if Brooks Poston turned against Manson for being the wrong type of Christ figure, ("He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" etc) then what, if anything, does that tell us about the messianic expectations of someone like Sandra Good after the event?

It's a leap from overturning the tables of the money-changers to stabbing pregnant women dead in their homes. It's a question I wish I had asked Dr Dave: outside of the specific Manson context, was there anything in the spiritual air at the time generally that made it easier for these children to be convinced to do what they did?

PS - Mr Humphrat, I hope there is no problem between Trilby and myself. I know I'm an annoying gobshite sometimes, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here so I hope she can overlook whatever I said that unintentionally riled her. It was never my intention, and if she'd like to email me personally to let me know what I did or said, I'd welcome that and I'm sure Matt could facilitate that. Maybe I know too little and say too much too often :(

Anonymous said...

Michael said "It's a leap from overturning the tables of the money-changers to stabbing pregnant women dead in their homes."

Absolutely, and these were not kids lacking intellect or in any way uneducated (gullible, naive, dysfunctional maybe, but not ignorant). If HS was the motive and they really thought Charlie was Christlike or indeed he was the second coming, then they knew that what was being asked of them was inherently non-christian behaviour. It just doesn't add up.

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" - that line never stops being funny! :)

MHN said...

Yes, and they were surely people who had been conditioned (as many still are today) to assume that traditional Christianity represented the establishment's distortion of Christ, whereas they, the cool kids, had a closer, truer, insight into the hidden true nature of Christ. That seems to be a young person's prerogative, and the Christ they invent is frequently a reflection of something they have within them, as Charlie would no doubt assert.

MHN said...

Sorry. I'm rambling again :(

Mr. Humphrat said...

good point D. LaCalandra...I've heard that those early interviews.

Anonymous said...

I think Brooks Poston and especially Juan Flynn just didn't like Charlie because he was a ball buster more than anything and I think Poston had some weird insecurities about sex that Manson would tease him about that no doubt stirred up some negative emotions in him. Manson was certainly a bit of a con man, but I don't think there was a maliciousness in it. I just think he utilized Dale Carnegie teachings as a means for survival in a world he was more or less lost in.

Juan Flynn I think was a gigantic liar. Brooks I believed perjured himself when he said that Charlie was explicitly discussing murders committed by blacks in which words like "pig" would be written in blood on the walls. He did talk about the "negro revolt" Helter Skelter and that he "says the negros are going revolt and kill all the white men", but this was after the murders when they all returned to Barker Ranch.

goomba said...

Totally off-topic. Right now I'm watching Fox News, Greta Investigates: the Manson Murders with Greta Van Sustern. It will be repeated later at 2 AM Eastern so set your DVRs. Fascinating, includes interviews with Bugs, Gregg Jakobsen, even Orca for Col. Scott. Helter Skelter-centric for sure. New photos and videos.

Matt said...

It was an ok way to kill an hour, Goomba but it was TLB 101. Nothing in that hour I disn't know 30 years ago. Sigh...

bucpaul2812 said...

"Charles Manson’s circle of women are getting their own Lifetime movie." I took a deep breath before getting to the official logline and I already had the feeling it was going to be a narrative along the lines of "innocent hippie girl meets evil Mansonites and follows her conscience to break away...yada yada". I feel it's going to be a fundamentally biased account but of course, once it hits these shores I'll inevitably be watching.

bucpaul2812 said...

Oh, before I forget, Happy 'Murica Day, y'all!

CarolMR said...

Goomba, I watched the Greta special on the Manson murders and liked it. I think it was a rerun. One thing she got wrong was about how Sharon and Roman met. Greta said it was during the making of EYE OF THE DEVIL. I think it was during THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS.

Robert Hendrickson said...

LaCalandra: Perhaps I was to harsh in using the word "blackmail." Brooks was actally given his Constitutional RIGHT to make a choise as to whether the authorities should pursue prosecution OR "thank" HIM for his testimony in connection with the Manson Case.

It was kind'a like ALL those who went along for the ride to the Tate and LaBianca house parties.
"There wasn't enough room in the car" for Cappy.

Even Jesus had a "choise." It is certain HE could have escaped being "crusified." He knew Judus had gone to the COPS, but instead of slipping out the back door, HE stayed and helped make an event out of "throwing money-changers" out of the temple. TODAY he would be PROSECUTED for a "hate-crime."

Back in the day and even "today" BUSINESS is discussed in temples and churches all accross the world..
BUT now it's called "networking."

Your favorite movie was likely "greenlighted" on Saturday AND the parties probably dropped and extra $100 into offering plate, while the rabi gave HIS blessing.

For all we know maybe Jesus wanted a cut of the "money-changers" dealings and when they responded with "Go get a job.KID" he got pissed and physically assulted them. Tht actually makes sense.

The REAL story of Brooks, Watkins and PAUL CROCKET would make a great back-story to the whole Manson saga. Paul Crocket actually de-programed Brooks and Watkins to leave Charlie to work for HIM.
Crocket was actually brilliant on the subject of "mind-control" just like Charlie.

It's called "transference." Crocket simply tranfered the possession of Brooks and Watkins from Charlie over to HIM

"Shrinks" do it all the time. They mentally transfer "hot chicks" from their abusive lovers over to them for some good lovin.

YES, Michael: Dr. Dave could reveal some good stuff on the subject, BUT breaking the code of silence ?

Mr. Humphrat said...

great comments RH! I've said it before, I think the Brooks/Watkins/Crocket story would make a more interesting movie at this point than TLB, of course including the Family coming up there and all their interactions. Of course anyone with enough money to make and get distribution for a really well done movie would probably screw it up as they always do by 1. getting super hot models to play average looking young women 2. Actors not getting to know their character's individual personality and back story but rather relying on the same cliches of how stoned out kids acted in the 60s.
3. Same cliched Charlie mannerisms instead of showing what was so intriguing about him. 4. not making this story in the first place, but feeling the need for the world to see a 20th reenactment of TLB in the same Hollywood style.

maudes harold said...

Robert Hendrickson said:

"The REAL story of Brooks, Watkins and PAUL CROCKET would make a great back-story to the whole Manson saga. Paul Crocket actually de-programed Brooks and Watkins to leave Charlie to work for HIM.
Crocket was actually brilliant on the subject of "mind-control" just like Charlie."

Mr. Hendrickson,

AMEN Brutha!

Some might say that he also might have led people to their deaths. Didn't he 'advocate' wholly unholy holistic and metaphysical treatments for cancer and serious diseases?

Anonymous said...

I heard an interview with Crockett and the odd thing is...he is the only person I've ever heard that sounded like Charles Manson other than Manson himself.

In his police interview recorded the same day as Poston's, he said that Manson said "Helter Skelter is coming down and the only Helter Skelter I see, is the Helter Skelter he's created in his own mind". But then in this interview from before he died, he says he never heard anything about Helter Skelter!

I'm sorry, but the whole Watkins, Poston and Crockett sub-story is comical. Crockett seemed obsessed with learning Manson's secrets and I'm not going to speculate too deeply on an open forum, but I suspect something a little weirder was going on there.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES, the Brooks, Watkins, Crocket, Manson story is very unique and bizarre in and of itself.

Perhaps Brooks - physically working in a gold mine, in 120 degree Death Valley heat, along side his "best buddy" Little Paul for Crocket - would be understandably more entertaining that watching HIM sit and watch the Manson Family participate in WILD orgies.

Ever wonder WHY Bugliosi would NOT let Paul Crocket testify in Court ?

LaCalandra / Hump ?????

Anonymous said...

"Ever wonder WHY Bugliosi would NOT let Paul Crocket testify in Court ?"

It would probably show that Brooks/Watkins were easy to manipulate and that would lessen the "Aura"/"Power" of Charlie if someone else were easily able to cast them under his spell. (Crockett)

Anonymous said...

Because he came off like a kook.

Anonymous said...

Because he couldn't be trusted to follow the script - he had nothing to gain by doing so.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Well, it's getting late and tomorrow there will be a NEW POST, so here's the QUESTION:

WHICH "version" of Helter Skelter is the ST talking about and WHICH "version" of HS are YOU considereing.

Paul Watkins specifically calls out the "Black MUSLIMS" in HIS "version" before the JURY. Bugliosi's "version" specifically calls out for a "White versus Black" race War. AND the KILLERS apparently thought it was some kind of REVOLUTION.

Sandy Good specifically mentions that "Islam is Rising" and the new STATE of Islam is obviously NOW taking over the Middle East where we can reasonably assume "Clem" is referring - when HE talks about the Battle of Armageddon.

IF you recall, the "ST" pulled this trick off once before. HIS "Helter Skelter" is obviously an ambiguous, but catch-all phrase to see IF anyone is paying strict attention to the details - as ANY thoughtful jurer would do when they are trusted with people's LIVES.

I dare say the JURY never asked the Judge for an explaination regarding just WHO the fuck the "Black Muslims are." ( I know, the prosecutor isn't required to even mention a motive and in reality we don't even need a Jury or a Judge - just a COP with a gun to settle such issues.) BUT Bugliosi's real judicial genious rested in HIS ability to weed-out open minds and decorate HIS garden with ALL moon-rocks, as Marsha Clark labels them.

PS: C.C., D.LaCal., and K.M. NO Jury Duty for YOU !

Anonymous said...

D. LaCalandra said...

"I've always thought he testified in part to a vendetta against Manson for leaving him at Barker and just not turning out to be the Christ-like figure he thought he was."

That's funny that you say that about Barker. I never thought that Brooks was capable of being angry about anything, because he just seems like such a weak, pathetic, type of person. A human doormat and a wallflower, to boot. But if I were him, I would have been pissed off. So maybe he was?

I think that Charlie left Brooks out in the desert for 7 months, because he forgot that Brooks ever existed. I think if you asked Charlie during those 7 months about Brooks, 99% of the time he would've said "Who the fuck is Brooks?".

The part on the recording of Brooks' Interview with the Inyo County Sheriff where he talks about how he "was supposed to be making love to Juanita", but instead, fixed his sleeping schedule so that he would be asleep when Juanita was awake, is unintentionally hilarious.

beauders said...

Robert, was Brooks gay or gay and didn't know it? I find it interesting that Brooks knew that other famous California "cult" leader Jim Jones.

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

Please post this corrected version:

In Chapter 10 of the Watkins autobiography, My Life with Charles Manson , Manson is quoted as follows: "The heavy dudes, though, are the [Black] Muslims. ...they'll be the ones who bring the shit down. Yeah, it's gonna come down hard... a full-on war."

Curiously, just about the time Charlie and the gang are brought to trail, a wave of deadly black-on-white violence started in the form of the "Zebra" murders. The MO of the assaults was of one or more well-dressed blacks with short haircuts attacking whites in a seemingly random fashion. It turned out the killers were a cult--the "Death Angels"--operating within the Nation of Islam(aka NOI, aka black muslims) mosque in San Francisco, involving about eight men. Though only five would go to prison.

Their philosophy was every bit as bizarre as that of Helter Skelter. To get to heaven they had to kill a certain number of whites--women and children counting for more than men--before they could earn their 'wings.' They also seemed to have been lead by a charismatic leader who came out from the main NOI headquarters mosque in Chicago.

Specifically, Zebra refers to a series of about 20 attacks that occurred in San Francisco from October 1973 to April 1974, leaving 15 killed and 8 wounded. What is not well known, however, is that the spree began much earlier, in the form of the Oakland-Berkeley Slashers. Two black men had been randomly shooting and attacking whites with machetes in Oakland and Berkeley in about 15 seperate attacks beginning September of 1970 and lasting for about a year, leaving many dead.

And police noticed other similar killings happening elsewhere.

From the book "Zebra: The True Account of 179 Days of Terror in San Francisco," by Clark Howard:

"...determined to calm the fear and put a stop to the killings, Joseph Alioto held a press conference to lay out what he believed he knew about Zebra. ... he laid out a huge collection of speculative intelligence, claiming that more than eighty killings across the state going back to 1971 could be linked to Zebra, and implying that those responsible for all the crimes might be tied to the Nation of Islam."

"This was October of 1973. The California attorney general’s office had already secretly compiled a list of forty-five of those killings which had taken place in the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Long Beach, Signal Hill, Santa Barbara, Palo Alto, Pacifica, San Diego, and Los Angeles; and in the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Contra Costa, Ventura, and Alameda. All the victims were white. All the know suspects in the killings had been associated with the Black Muslim movement. The killings were even then continuing throughout the state."

So how was it that Charlie was so eerily prescient, at least on that part of his Helter Skelter philosophy? Were the Zebra Killings really "Helter Skelter, The Sequel?" Was there a connection between the two groups, or was it all just coincidence?

starviego said...

Almost certainly Charlie would have come into contact with Black Muslims in his lengthy pre-1967 prison career. He may have even become familiar with their bizarre philosophy. As explained by "Zabra" author Clark Howard:

".... the, primary beliefs of the Black Muslims began to be taught with greater zeal. Those beliefs were that the black man was morally and culturally superior, and was destined, to rule the earth. The sect condemned Christianity as the chief stratagem of the continued enslavement of nonwhites, and preached that the white race was conceived of devils whose time to reign was coming to an end. It encouraged the reclamation of fallen blacks such as convicts, drug addicts, and so forth, through the study of their true history, through striving for economic independence, and by preparation for the Battle of Armageddon, which they believed would be the final struggle between good and evil, black and white."

"the black man was.... destined, to rule the earth"

Charlie said the blacks would emerge victorious in the race war.

"..the white race ... time to reign was coming to an end."

Charlie said the karma was turning, and that blacks would rise up.

" ...preparation for the Battle of Armageddon, which they believed would be the final struggle between... black and white."

Exactly as Charlie prophesized, while the Family hid out in those underground caverns in the desert somewhere.

The point is this: is it possible a good chunk of the "Helter Skelter" philosophy was lifted from the Black Muslims? That would be the ultimate irony.


starviego said...

Another commonality that has intrigued me is the use of the "X" symbol by both groups.

The members of the NOI often dropped their 'slave names' and substituted an X to stand for their original, forgotten African names, for example: Malcolm X, Clarence 13X, Joseph X Polite, Charles 37X Morris, etc.

And of course we know that Charlie and his followers burned an X into their foreheads during the trial, to show that they were "Xing"(removing) themselves out of society.

Just another coincidence? Maybe, but I have to wonder....


And for what it's worth, there is also this:
On May 8, 2010, Farrakhan publicly announced his embrace of Dianetics and has actively encouraged Nation of Islam members to undergo auditing from the Church of Scientology. Since the announcement in 2010, the Nation Of Islam has been hosting its own Dianetics courses and its own graduation ceremonies. At the third such ceremony, which was held on Saviours' Day 2013, it was announced that nearly 8500 members of the organization had undergone Dianetics auditing. The organization announced it had graduated 1,055 auditors and had delivered 82,424 hours of auditing. The graduation ceremony was certified by the Church of Scientology, and the Nation of Islam members received certification. The ceremony was attended by Shane Woodruff, vice-president of the Church of Scientology's Celebrity Centre International. He stated that "The unfolding story of the Nation of Islam and Dianetics is bold, It is determined and it is absolutely committed to restoring freedom and wiping hell from the face of this planet."

Of course, we know that Charlie himself was deeply involved in Scientology for a while before his prison release in '67.


G. Greene-Whyte said...

"Perhaps Brooks - physically working in a gold mine, in 120 degree Death Valley heat, along side his "best buddy" Little Paul for Crocket - would be understandably more entertaining that watching HIM sit and watch the Manson Family participate in WILD orgies."

Solid gold. RH's contribution to this blog was immense and incredibly entertaining. RIP. I did not see your death coming as I read my way through this blog in January 2018.

Kaitch said...

I just found your blog page after searching for "evidence for Helter Skelter". I saw a program called Charles Manson: The Final Words (braodcast on Really, a channel of UKTV; not sure about licensing elsewhere), and they appeared to be dismissing Helter Skelter almost entirely, seemingly on the basis of Manson denying Helter Skelter existed, and the fact the theory was brought by the Prosecution. At no point did they investigate the evidence for Helter Skelter, or even offer much rebuttal other than Manson. They did cover extensively the revenge/drugs/money alternate plot, even if they made the blatant mistake of ignoring that Manson et al knew Melcher had moved. Some of the arguments do seem quite reasonable, if not as well evidenced as Helter Skelter. I would ask, is it possible that Manson decided on Helter Skelter, and thought "Let's solve some other problems while we're at it?"? Or would you say that's stretching things?