On July 29, 1970 a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Bartek Frykowski, a minor (age 12). The lawsuit sought one million dollars in general damages and one million dollars in punitive damages for the 'wrongful death' (murder) of Bartek's father, Wojciech Frykowski. The defendants were Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Charles ‘Tex’ Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian.
His attorney, Nathaniel J. Friedman, filed the complaint on behalf of young Bartek and simultaneously appointed Hanna Prominska to serve as guardian ad litem (guardian for purposes of the litigation) for Bartek. Friedman served Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Kasabian while they were in various jails in Los Angeles and Texas.
After the lawsuit was filed and served, Manson, Atkins, Watson, Krenwinkel and Kasabian all filed answers to the complaint. Watson and Krenwinkel represented themselves. Kanarek appeared for Manson and Shinn represented Atkins. Fleishman answered on behalf of Kasabian.
On August 27, 1970 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Friedman attached to his motion portions of the trial testimony of Kasabian and asserted there was no issue of material fact for a jury to decide as to whether the defendants were legally responsible for Frykowski’s death. After several delays that motion was granted by the court on February 9, 1971. The only issue that remained for trial was the amount of damages: how much money Bartek would receive.
In the end, only Manson and Atkins appeared at trial on July 29, 1971. No personal appearance occurred. Manson and Atkins were represented at the trial by two attorneys, Mary and Hugh Fielder. Watson, Krenwinkel and Kasabian were defaulted for failing to appear at trial.
Manson and Atkins waived a jury trial and the court decided the matter of damages after taking the testimony of several witnesses. A judgment for $500,000 was entered against all of the defendants making them ‘jointly and severally’ liable for the debt. In other words, any one of them could be required to pay the entire amount.
By 2003 that judgment had grown, with interest, to in excess of 2.7 million dollars.
The Defense Never Did Seem to Get It Right
On August 24, 1970 Kanarek filed an answer to the complaint for Manson. On August 28, 1970 Daye Shinn filed an answer to the complaint for both Manson and Atkins. You would think these two guys, seeing each other daily, could get something this simple, right, but apparently, not.
In the end this error didn’t matter but, of course, instead of simply accepting responsibility for the error when it came up at a later stage of the proceedings, Kanarek blamed Friedman.
Kanarek Will Be Kanarek
Kanarek disputed every claim in the complaint and reiterated his opposition in his response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
He denied Bartek was Frykowski’s ‘sole heir’ suggesting Frykowski may have been married at the time of his death.
He denied the claim was worth anything suggesting that Frykowski never supported his child. This may have been accurate, although claiming Frykowski’s death had no value was not a very good optic.
He even denied that Manson was a citizen of the state of California.
He also raised a classic Kanarek: he argued that California had no legal reciprocity with Poland because it was a communist country. Since Bartek was a citizen of that communist country, and thus a communist, Bartek could recover nothing.
None of this worked in the end.
No Defense, Again
Once Friedman filed the motion for summary judgment and relied upon Kasabian’s trial testimony to establish the facts showing the defendants were liable it was incumbent upon the defendants to submit counter affidavits. In other words, in order to avoid summary judgment on the issue of liability they had to submit an affidavit refuting Kasabian’s testimony. They didn’t. 
Kasabian, of course, was caught in a legal, Catch-22. She couldn’t very well refute her own testimony without admitting she lied in the criminal trial. That, of course, would put her immunity deal in serious jeopardy. Fleischman was left with only one course of action: argue that the law didn’t support a finding of liability. He came up short. The judge sided with Friedman on that issue. Watson didn’t respond to the motion. It is likely this was because by August, 1970 his attorneys were aware he was going to admit responsibility in his trial and claim diminished capacity as a defense.
Krenwinkel asked for more time and in the end submitted no opposition to the motion.
But the response of Manson and Atkins is a bit baffling. Shinn joined in Kanarek’s response and Kanarek made several legal arguments (those above) without any supporting affidavit.
Kanarek also argued that Manson couldn’t respond more fully because it would ‘prematurely’ reveal Manson’s defense in the criminal case and because Manson was too busy defending himself in that case.
To me this doesn’t make sense. First, while Kanarek’s response was filed on November 15, 1970, by the time the motion was finally heard by the court the defense, in the criminal trial, had ‘rested’ without putting on a defense. This was something noted by Friedman when they got there. Kanarek, after November 15th, could have amended his response and submitted an affidavit from Manson. But even as of November 15th how hard would it have been to submit an affidavit(s) by Manson and Atkins refuting Kasabian’s testimony? Weren't they claiming they were 'not guilty'?
All Manson had to say to create an issue of fact was:
All Manson had to say to create an issue of fact was:
I never said ‘now is the time for Helter Skelter’.
I never said ‘go with Tex and do whatever he says’.
I never said ‘leave something witchy’.
I had nothing to do with the murders at Cielo Drive. He wasn't at Cielo that night and this civil case wasn't about Helter Skelter it was about the murder of one person. All he had to say was that he had nothing to do with that night.
Isn’t that what Manson claimed ever since?
That simple document would have created an issue of fact and would not have impacted the defense Manson never raised. It is essentially what the ‘girls’ attempted to do, indirectly, in the penalty phase. But Kanarek did nothing.
One reason may be that Friedman was prepared to depose the defendants. On September 10, 1970 before the motion was heard by the court Friedman noticed Kasabian’s deposition. Unfortunately for us, he subsequently withdrew the notice without taking her deposition.
The Trial
The trial occurred on July 29, 1971. The sole issue was how much money Bartek would receive for the death of his father.
Friedman’s witness list appears at the right. An interpreter, fluent in Polish, was brought in for the trial.
Friedman submitted one exhibit at trial. It was a letter from Roman Polanski addressed ‘to whom it may concern’ dated December 18, 1967 (below, right). The letter confirms that Polanski was attempting to help his friend break into the movie business. It is also inadmissible in a courtroom.
Without Polanski being present there is no way to authenticate the document (prove it is real) and without Polanski it is also, hearsay. The amount of damages in the case turned on two factors. The financial benefit Bartek lost due to Frykowski’s death together with the monetary value of losing his relationship with his father. The letter appears to be the only evidence of Frykowski’s ‘financial benefit’ to Bartek. The witnesses don’t appear to really be in a position to testify to that issue. Nor does it appear that there was sufficient evidence of a relationship between Bartek and his father. Frykowski wasn’t going to return to Poland and from what I know he had very little contact with Bartek. I’m not sure how this adds up to $500,000. Punitive damages were not awarded.
Collection Efforts
On August 25, 1971 Friedman served an order for a judgment debtor’s exam on Leon Isaacson, Vice President of Beverley Hills Bancorp (New American Library, Inc.). The goal, here, was to intercept Atkins’ royalties for The Killing of Sharon Tate by Lawrence Schiller. He was too late. As the debtor’s response indicates, they had already paid all the royalties they were going to pay, about $17,000.
Friedman also attempted to sit Kasabian down for what is known as a judgment debtor’s exam on August 18, 1971 but was unable to serve her as she had already left California.
He subsequently obtained an order for a judgment debtor’s exam of Atkins on May 22, 1973. I am not sure what event triggered this effort. The file does not reveal what happened on that occasion but no partial satisfaction of judgment was entered in the court file in that time frame so nothing was collected as a result of the effort. But Friedman wasn’t done with Ms. Atkins.
On September 14, 1981 Friedman filed with the court for a writ of execution against Atkins. This time the target was her wedding ring. It appears from the file that on October 5, 1981 a ‘Lee Cox’ went to the California Institute for Woman, met with her and saw her wearing the ring but she refused to give it to him. Although my knowledge about executing on judgments is not great I have to wonder why Mr. Lee didn’t enlist the help of the guards to secure the ring since he had a valid writ.
The Geffen Records Satisfaction
On January 6, 1994 Friedman served a writ of execution on Geffen Records. This resulted in the payment of $72,608.26 on February 24, 1994. These were royalties owed Manson for the band, Guns and Roses’ recording of Manson’s song Look at Your Game, Girl, which appeared as a hidden track on the GnR album, The Spaghetti Incident?
A UPI story at the time states two interesting facts. First, it appears that Geffen Records contacted Friedman and asked him to serve a writ on them for Manson's royalties, estimated at $62,000 per million albums sold. The article also suggests that Geffen Records attempted to remove the song from the album.
"Record executive David Geffen and other top representatives of the label have said they agree in principle with the objections by Tate and other opponents to the song.
A UPI story at the time states two interesting facts. First, it appears that Geffen Records contacted Friedman and asked him to serve a writ on them for Manson's royalties, estimated at $62,000 per million albums sold. The article also suggests that Geffen Records attempted to remove the song from the album.
"Record executive David Geffen and other top representatives of the label have said they agree in principle with the objections by Tate and other opponents to the song.
(UPI Archives, Geffen to Pay Manson's Song Royalties to Victim's Family, December 8, 1993.)
The Atkins Satisfaction
For unexplained reasons on August 20, 2000 Atkins paid $1,000 towards the judgment. There is no indication where Atkins acquired the money, nor is there any explanation why she paid it. The file discloses no collection efforts by Friedman at that time, suggesting it may have been voluntary. One possible explanation for the payment may be: parole hearings. It certainly would look better to pay something rather than nothing at all while funneling any profits from your books to a charity of your choice.
The Manson Satisfaction
On January 8, 2003 someone who owed Manson money paid $54,237 towards the judgment. Unlike the Geffen Records payment, this satisfaction does not identify a third-party debtor of Charles Manson.
There is no writ of execution, order for judgment debtor exam or other court document in the court file that would indicate the source of this payment. It could have resulted from a writ of garnishment (those are not filed with the court). But the question is then, who was served? Who was holding 54k for Manson in 2003? That answer is in the lawsuit United States of America vs. Bartek Frykowski and Nathaniel Friedman, below.
The ‘Confidential’ Satisfaction
After a bit of searching, my legal assistant, whom I will call ‘Linda’ discovered the answer in another Manson-related lawsuit involving Bartek. On May 1, 1995 Friedman, on behalf of Bartek Frykowski, filed a separate lawsuit against Grove Press Inc. and Grove Atlantic Inc. seeking damages of $100,000 claiming Grove and Manson had engaged in a 'fraudulent conveyance'. Friedman alleged in the complaint that Grove knew about the judgment, obtaining the information from Nuel Emmons, author of Manson In His Own Words. He claimed that Grove then arranged with Manson for Manon's royalties to be paid to Grove, knowing Bartek would otherwise receive them. In other words, Grove and Manson conspired to defraud Bartek by making an end run around his judgment. If this is true compare Grove's actions to those of Geffen Records.
The matter was dismissed by the court on October 2, 1995 one week after the satisfaction, above, was filed with the court. As a result we will never know if Friedman's claim was true.
Grove is the ‘confidential’ debtor and the 'confidential' status was likely part of a settlement agreement.
United States of America vs. Bartek Frykowski and Nathaniel Friedman
By far the strangest discovery by Linda, however, was a lawsuit filed by the United States of America (US) against Friedman and Bartek in March 2003. The suit claimed that the government had overpaid Friedman and Bartek Frykowski by the sum of $46,709.92.
Friedman lost a motion for summary judgment filed by the United States and was ordered to repay $17,716.21, which he did. The claim against Bartek was dismissed because he was never served.
Friedman lost a motion for summary judgment filed by the United States and was ordered to repay $17,716.21, which he did. The claim against Bartek was dismissed because he was never served.
The court’s docket record from the decision on the motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2004, after finding against Friedman, says this:
_____
“However, the court DENIES the governments [sic] request to off-set funds received to date and accruing funds due to Mr. Frykowski until it recovers the full amount of the overpayment.”
_____
The US was asking the court to allow it to off-set funds accruing and owed to Bartek against the remaining balance of the overpayment alleged by the US to be 46k+. The request was denied for the same reason Bartek was dismissed from the case: he hadn’t been served. He was in Poland. The US never followed up but it appears that it did ‘block’ future payments to Bartek.
The lawsuit resulted from a clerical glitch in the US Marshall's office (USMS). On January 6, 1994 the US Marshall for the Central District of California served a writ of execution on Warner Music Group Services on behalf of Bartek seeking Manson's royalties from 'T-shirts and songs'.
On July 27, 1995 the USMS served a writ on Bartelsmann Music Group for 7 million in damages owed to MCI by Charly Records from a trademark infringement case.
On August 28, 1998 the USMS served a third writ on behalf of JEC International on Warner Services Group to intercept royalties owed Chaka Khan resulting from a judgment in favor of JEC for 250k for her breach of a contract.
It appears from the complaint that Warner Services Group paid the $47,000 to the USMS in two checks. One was due MCI and and the other was due JEC on the non-Manson collection efforts. Someone at the USMS sent the money to Friedman. The Manson Satisfaction, above, likely results from these two checks plus an additional sum collected on behalf of Bartek from Warner Services Group and accurately paid to Friedman.
On July 27, 1995 the USMS served a writ on Bartelsmann Music Group for 7 million in damages owed to MCI by Charly Records from a trademark infringement case.
On August 28, 1998 the USMS served a third writ on behalf of JEC International on Warner Services Group to intercept royalties owed Chaka Khan resulting from a judgment in favor of JEC for 250k for her breach of a contract.
It appears from the complaint that Warner Services Group paid the $47,000 to the USMS in two checks. One was due MCI and and the other was due JEC on the non-Manson collection efforts. Someone at the USMS sent the money to Friedman. The Manson Satisfaction, above, likely results from these two checks plus an additional sum collected on behalf of Bartek from Warner Services Group and accurately paid to Friedman.
Following the motion for summary judgment Friedman engaged in some strenuous efforts to compel the US to disburse what is referred to in the court docket as the ‘blocked’ funds. The Estate of Bartek Frykowski sought to prevent the disbursement of the funds held by the US. Freidmen’s basis for seeking to compel the release of these funds was his lien: he was owed one third of any payments.
The court eventually resolved the issue on July 15, 2005 against Friedman and in favor of the Estate of Bartek. The court declined to order disbursement of the 'held' funds. The court’s docket record from that hearing also reflects this:
“Court further orders that Defendant Friedman provide copies of all documents in his possession pertaining to the case of Frykowski vs. Manson et al within 10 days of this order.”
On April 28, 2005 Alexander Volchegursky had substituted as attorney, replacing Nathanial Friedman. The substitution indicates that Volchegursky was now representing the Estate of Bartek Frykowski.
So, what did Friedman have in his file that Volchegursky wanted? I believe it is likely evidence of malpractice. That would also explain Volchegursky's efforts to prevent payment of Friedman.
A judgment is ‘good’ for ten years. Before the expiration of the ten-year period one can renew a judgment for another ten years. Freidman did this in 1981 and 1991. The Manson court file contains no further renewals of the judgment. This means that Bartek’s Estate’s judgment (by 2003 in excess of $2 million) ceased to exist in 2001. Absent some rule I am unaware of that might preserve the judgment, that would be malpractice, especially in light of the claims floating around that Manson's estate is worth a small fortune. (Danielle and Andy Mayoras. The Charles Manson Estate Battle: What Are They Fighting For? Forbes. January 16, 2018.)
Did the Wrongful Death Case Have any Impact?
Bartek or his estate at least received 2/3’s of all the sums paid or about $102,000.
The file also suggests that Charles Manson’s estate is not burdened by the judgment. The judgment appears to have expired in 2001. That means it no longer exists and cannot be collected. Unless there is something out there I don’t know or didn’t find, a claim cannot be filed against the Manson’s estate with any hope of collecting anything. That does, however, raise an ethical question for the heirs about what should happen to Manson's estate. A question I believe the combatants will ignore.
Of course, we don’t know what agreements Friedman may have entered into with entities such as Geffen Records or Grove Press. Geffen Records actually asked Friedman to issue the writ against them when GnR recorded Look at Your Game, Girl. It could be that those entities agreed to pay any future royalties to Bartek without future collection proceedings.
By one account The Spaghetti Incident? has sold 6.1 million copies world wide (https://chartmasters.org/2018/03/cspc-guns-n-roses-popularity-analysis). If this information and Geffen Records' estimate in 1993 are accurate that would have put Manson's royalties at $375,000.
Of course, we don’t know what agreements Friedman may have entered into with entities such as Geffen Records or Grove Press. Geffen Records actually asked Friedman to issue the writ against them when GnR recorded Look at Your Game, Girl. It could be that those entities agreed to pay any future royalties to Bartek without future collection proceedings.
By one account The Spaghetti Incident? has sold 6.1 million copies world wide (https://chartmasters.org/2018/03/cspc-guns-n-roses-popularity-analysis). If this information and Geffen Records' estimate in 1993 are accurate that would have put Manson's royalties at $375,000.
We also learned that Linda Kasabian probably abandoned her book deal with Joan Didion because of this lawsuit. According to Kasabian she was to receive 25% of the profits for her story. Didion was to be the author and according to Didion portions of Didion’s book The White Album were drawn from her initial interviews of Kasabian.
It seems likely that once Kasabian realized that she was not going to actually ever see any part of the cash that she abandoned the project. I do have to wonder why Friedman never attempted to intercept any payments Kasabian received from her various TV appearances over the years. Maybe, she wasn’t paid or maybe the aging Friedman lost interest in the case. Or maybe they found a way to pay her without it appearing on the radar. To me that possibility is rather disconcerting. Did Kasabian say "Yup. I'll appear in that wig if you find a way to get me the cash without having to pay the judgment against me?" Did Bugliosi participate in such a scheme, a scheme known as a fraudulent conveyance? We likely will never know.
To me the lawsuit also tells us that at least one lawyer, Daye Shinn, was attempting to protect Atkins’ future royalties, which, of course would have paid his fees. Perhaps Kanarek mounted his defense for the same reason.
The lawsuit also likely explains why Atkins’ books and Watson’s book did not result in actual payments to either of them to the best of my knowledge. Their effort to avoid paying the judgment by directing the profits to charities of their choice instead of to Bartek should tell you something about each of them, their jail-inspired Christian values and their acceptance of responsibility for the crimes.
But that, together with the abandonment of the Kasabian project, I think, tells us something else about those three and especially Kasabian.
The lawsuit also likely explains why Atkins’ books and Watson’s book did not result in actual payments to either of them to the best of my knowledge. Their effort to avoid paying the judgment by directing the profits to charities of their choice instead of to Bartek should tell you something about each of them, their jail-inspired Christian values and their acceptance of responsibility for the crimes.
But that, together with the abandonment of the Kasabian project, I think, tells us something else about those three and especially Kasabian.
Lest we forget, before she testified Linda Kasabian had a book deal of her own.
Q (Fitzgerald): Are you to receive some money from the sale of this book, Mrs. Kasabian?
A: Yes.
Q: How much are you to receive?
A: I have no idea.
Q: have you been promised a certain amount of money in connection with the sale of your book?
A: Yes.
Q: How much have you been promised?
A: 25 percent of whatever comes in.
*****
Q (Shinn): Is someone writing a book on your behalf?
A: Yes.
Q: You stated her name was what?
A: Joan Didion.
(Testimony of Linda Kasabian at Tate-LaBianca. Cielodrive.com)
_____
Joan Didion was involved with Linda Kasabian before she ever took the witness stand. Didion purchased her trial dress for her at I Magnin. I Magnin is the same place Abigail Folger shopped almost one year to the day before Didion bought Kasabian’s dress from the same Beverley Hills store. Bugliosi also participated in the fashion decision. He rejected Kasabian’s first choice, “a long, white, homespun shift”.
_____
“Long is for evening he [Bugliosi] advised Linda. Long was for evening and white was for weddings.”
(Joan Didion. The White Album. Simon and Schuster. Page 45. 1979)
_____
Apparently, while the defense couldn’t get near Kasabian an author seeking interviews for a book deal, could.
_____
“On July 27, 1970, I went to the Magnin-Hi Shop on the third floor of I. Magnin in Beverly Hills and picked out, at Linda Kasabian’s request, the dress in which she began her testimony about the murders at Sharon Tate Polanski’s house on Cielo Drive. “Size 9 Petite” her instructions read. “Mini but not extremely mini. In velvet if possible. Emerald green or gold. Or: A Mexican peasant style dress, smocked or embroidered.”
(Joan Didion. The White Album. Simon and Schuster. Page 45. 1979)
_____
Over the years more than one person has castigated Bugliosi for being in the process of writing a book during the trial, even suggesting he made up the Helter Skelter motive for his book or that his book deal, at least, influenced his trial presentation. If you can make that argument then shouldn’t you also make the argument that a book deal may have played a factor in the state’s star witnesses’ performance at Tate-LaBianca? Maybe immunity plus a book deal helped Kasabian present her emotional testimony at that trial. It certainly was gone seven years later.
According to Linda Deutsch there was a marked difference between Kasabian’s demeanor and testimony at Leslie Van Houten’s 1977 trial compared to the Tate-LaBianca trial.
_____
“The witness offered none of the dramatic touches which marked her first testimony in the 1970 Tate-LaBianca trial. During that case, she sobbed frequently as she recalled the two nights of murder in which she drove the getaway car.
*****
Then her voice fading to a sleepy monotone, Mrs. Kasabian answered ‘yup’ and ‘nope’ to a series of questions about the two nights of death.”
_____
When she was eventually found in Florida, she was arrested (as a material witness) and extradited to California where she appeared before the court and agreed to return for the trial (likely, after being reminded about the terms of her immunity deal).
Was that all because by 1977 she was just tired of it? At the time, Stephen Kay claimed she was afraid of Family revenge. One has to ask in 1977 who was around to seek that revenge? Or was it because the promise of cash from a book deal evaporated on July 29, 1971 when a judgment was entered against her for $500,000? A judgment, I would add, she has made absolutely no effort to pay, despite those TV appearances and her supposed feelings of responsibility.
I think it was the latter.
I think it was the latter.
We have been told that Linda Kasabian was the one true flower child according to some. She has also been called the ‘innocent hippie’. She claimed that she was 'ordained' to tell the truth. She stated that she felt so compelled to speak the truth that she would have testified without immunity.
_____
“From the start Fleischman, dedicated to the welfare of his client, had wanted nothing less than complete immunity for Linda Kasabian. Not until after I had talked to Linda myself did I learn that she had been willing to talk to us immunity or not, and that only Fleischman had kept her from doing so. I also learned that she had decided to return to California voluntarily, against the advice of Fleischman, who had wanted her to fight extradition.”
*****
“We did grant Linda one special privilege, which might have been called a “bonus.” On the three occasions we took her out of Sybil Brand, we let her call her mother in New Hampshire and talk to her two children. Her attorney paid for the calls. Though Angel was only a month old and much too young to understand, just speaking to them obviously meant a great deal to Linda.
Yet she never asked to do this. She never asked for anything. She told me not once but several times that although she was pleased to be getting immunity, because it meant that eventually she could be with her children, it didn’t matter that much if she didn’t get it. There was a sort of sad fatalism about her. She said she knew she had to tell the truth about what had happened, and that she had known she would be the one to tell the story ever since the murders occurred. Unlike the other defendants, she seemed burdened with guilt, though, again unlike them, she hadn’t physically harmed anyone. She was a strange girl, marked by her time with Manson, yet not molded by him in the same way the others were.”
(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 314). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition)
_____
Linda Kasabian also testified that she felt responsible for the murders at Cielo Drive.
_____
Q: (Kanarek): I see, and is your state of mind such that you were not responsible for any one passing away the night before?
A: Yes, I feel responsible.
Q: You feel responsible for the killings?
A: Yes.
Q: Correct. The night before?
A: Yes.
(Testimony of Linda Kasabian at Tate-LaBianca. Cielodrive.com)
_____
Taken together the inference is that Kasabian’s feelings of responsibility for the deaths of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent and, of course the subject of this post, Wojciech Frykowski, drove her to tell the truth about what happened that night.
If Kasabian really wanted to tell the truth and accept responsibility for her part in the murders why make no effort to pay the judgment? Why defend the lawsuit filed by a child whose father you watched being slaughtered, literally ten feet away from where you stood?
“Responsibility” I guess, ends at 25% of the profits.
Pax Vobiscum
Dreath
Too bad he couldnt get Linda and "Lady Dangers" meth sales proceeds
ReplyDeleteBy the way regarding Kanareks claim of not being a citizen of California i never realized there was such a thing as statehood citizenry, i thought you were just a citizen of what country you were born in
ReplyDeleteDidn't young Bartok end up getting murdered himself many years later?
ReplyDeleteIm pretty sure he collected most if not all of whatever Mansons share would have been of whatever song Guns n Roses did on Charlie, i hadnt heard anything about him dying though
DeleteWow ok, just a quick internet search of Bartek shows that he was, get this, stabbed to death in Warsaw in June of 1999, he had a daughter named Maja born in 1977 who became an actress snd apparently was on the Polish version of Big Brother, man im telling you ive never seen a father and son who resembled each other more than Voytek and Bartek, when i saw his adult pics i thought it was Voytek
ReplyDeleteYes, Bartek and his dad looked like twins. And they were both stabbed to death. It's almost unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteKind of sickening the way everyone was thinking of ways to monetize this.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of ghoul
1 : a legendary evil being that robs graves and feeds on corpses.
Seems about right.
There was a quick mention of Chaka Khan and no explanation that I could see. DId she record a manson song?
ReplyDeleteAnd who are the two ladies sitting on the stairs?
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteThe young women to the left is a very young Joan Didion.
Chaka Khan: no, she did not. To clarify, she was sued for breach of contract by her record company (JEC International) and lost. The US Marshall received checks on the three different lawsuits/collection efforts from Warner Services Group and someone assumed they were all Manson royalties and paid them to Friedman. The US sued to get the overpayment back.
Got it. Thank you David. I was a little confused on Chaka Khan. There was a documentary of Joan Didion that was on netflix about a year ago called The Center Will Not Hold. It was directed and I believe written by her nephew Griffin Dunne. Really good. At one point she talks about making dinner for Linda Kasabian. I didn't recognize her on the stars.
ReplyDeleteThanks David! An amazing article and effort. Thank you for posting this!
ReplyDeleteReference Linda being a little less than enthused at the 1977 trial- my take is that she spent a little more than a month with the Fam. That month would define her life- if she allowed it. By the time 1977 rolls around, she’s reinvented herself and got lord knows what type of psychological damage. As a person who didn’t CAUSE the wrongful death, I can understand why she would fight to not pay. Doesn’t mean it’s right, just that I can appreciate why she’d try and avoid it.
Dreath
ReplyDeleteAnother wonderful, herculean effort. Why did you mar it by moralizing when you adopted a "just the facts" attitude?
Post Trial Kasabian was quickly established as a vile, evil criminal who should have been prosecuted day one. While I believe ALL of her testimony is accurate I think she spun it her way every step she took.
Linda Kasabian was never convicted on the crime of murdering Voytek why would she NOT fight the suit?
I knew Ed Rosneblatt and watched this all go down- they treated Patti with respect imo every step of the way. Axel blindsided them they had no idea till she showed up.
Here is a question for you Dreath- I helped Tobyann's son find the waivers for Hendrickson's documentary in the piles of garbage at his house. I wonder if they were all paid? Although iir none of the people with the judgement were interviewed
Col Scott said: "Another wonderful, herculean effort. Why did you mar it by moralizing when you adopted a "just the facts" attitude?"
ReplyDeleteSometimes I just can't help myself and acknowledge I probably should have reconsidered that. Likely my personal feelings about Kasabian slipping through.
And said: "I knew Ed Rosneblatt and watched this all go down- they treated Patti with respect imo every step of the way. Axel blindsided them they had no idea till she showed up."
I was, obviously not there but I came away with that very clear impression.
And said: "Here is a question for you Dreath...."
Either it is the typo or I'm dense but I don't understand the question.
I wonder if they were all paid? no typo
ReplyDeleteThat underhanded crap move by Axl was a contributing factor in the eventual dissolution of GnR. The whole process of recording the song in the 1st place - and, Rose's hissy fit to include the track - riled his bandmates as much as Geffen.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Geffen for doing the right thing.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeletePost Trial Kasabian was quickly established as a vile, evil criminal who should have been prosecuted day one
For a good 3 years prior to coming to Spahn, Linda was on a lawless trajectory that her time in the Family merely added to and didn't end. It's a huge irony that most of the other jailed Family members kind of got their lives together, with help and a good dose of reality, but she just carried on on that road that she'd been heading along before July 4th '69. Let's face it, on the night of the Cielo killings, if one accepts that she didn't know murder was in the wind, one is still left with the fact that she thought she was going to break into someone's house with knives and knowing Tex had a gun and while one can accept she was shit scared the next night after what had happened at Cielo, she never gave any indication whatsoever that she had any consternation about initially going out that first night. So saying she was a vile criminal is a bit like saying there was a Saturday last week.
Whether she should have been prosecuted from day one is kind of a moot point ~ she was indicted for murder and conspiracy. It was really the fact that she hadn't killed anyone and that Susan threw away her own goodies that saved her bacon. Bugliosi says he would have gone for 2nd degree murder had Linda not agreed to join the prosecution but I think the case against her was suffering from an atrophy that no doctor could strengthen and I couldn't see Gary Fleischmann doing what the other 4 did and putting on no defence. The man was a born performer.
While I believe ALL of her testimony is accurate I think she spun it her way every step she took
So, from the first part of that sentence, it's safe to conclude that you don't think the murders were her idea, that she was a willing participant or that she actually killed anyone by her own hand.
With that in mind, what's not to spin ? How could she not spin it her way ? Short of saying stuff like "I wanted to experience ending lives" or "I didn't see Steve get shot" or "Actually, I didn't really see Tex stabbing Wojiciech or Katie chasing Abigail" how else could she not spin it to her advantage ? There are things like her saying she wanted to stop it or not going to other houses for help etc, but even these don't present her as someone that wanted to murder. I spent last month reading her entire testimony and she was grilled like no salmon ever was and was pulled to pieces. She did bleed, she wasn't perfect, she was shown to be a ne'er do well, but at the end of the day, all that was irrelevant when it came to how those 2 nights went down.
For the most part, there wasn't anybody 'nice' that could testify sufficiently for what the state needed. The pool was pretty scummy, whoever you took, because that was the world the Family moved in.
Truth of the matter is that the cards were stacked her way and not one of her opponents had the impossibility of the necessary firepower to trump her royal flush.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteLinda Kasabian was never convicted on the crime of murdering Voytek why would she NOT fight the suit?
You know, as I continued to read the post and it shifted from a very interesting side bar about Bartek, the 5 way suit and how some of the money was diverted his way, to basically a lightly veiled to heavy bomber attack on Linda Kasabian with a few barbs thrown in against Watson and Atkins for good measure, I had to get back to basics and I'm glad that someone else made the point about Linda paying on the suit. Regardless of every single item that came out about Linda, whether it be the book deal crashing or her saying she felt responsible or the items in the papers about minor prosecutions subsequently, the simple fact remains that she was not responsible for the death of Wojiciech Frykowski and it was not because of her that he was murdererd so why should she have paid ? I'm curious as to why she was even named in the suit in the first place.
Pax Vobiscum said..
ReplyDeleteI do have to wonder why Friedman never attempted to intercept any payments Kasabian received from her various TV appearances over the years
Did she do that many prior to 2001 ?
Maybe the TV people paid cash. I'd not be surprised to find she didn't use banks back then.
If you can make that argument then shouldn’t you also make the argument that a book deal may have played a factor in the state’s star witnesses’ performance at Tate-LaBianca? Maybe immunity plus a book deal helped Kasabian present her emotional testimony at that trial. It certainly was gone seven years later
You could make that argument but it's easily countered. For one thing, she was 7 years older and more wrecked. Another marriage had crumbled, she had 3 young kids and liked drugs.
She did not even know that the LaBiancas had been killed until October '69 and Leslie's trial only concerned that. The emotional impact of Cielo is what carried resonance for her and that's why she was crying back in '69/70. She left the ranch not because of the second night, but the first. It's there that she concluded Charlie wasn't Jesus, it's there she saw Steve blasted dead and Wojiciech being stabbed. It was in being shown death shots of Cielo victims {in particular, Sharon Tate} on the stand that she cried. Her emotional response to both murder nights, even before the trial, is very different. In Bugliosi & Gentry's book, Vincent. T points out that it was when they took her to Cielo that she kept shivering and "often" in pointing something out, would begin crying, to the extent that Bugliosi said that he couldn't help contrasting her with Atkins. Yet, when they went out to trace the LaBianca stuff, not a peep about tears. Even on the stand, her persona in describing the 2 nights is different. Tears and horror re: Cielo, wistful when talking about Charlie walking hand in hand with her on the beach the following night, her remembering how good he made her feel. Furthermore, it's worth comparing her testimony in the Watson trial with the first one. When I first read it a couple of years ago, the first thing that jumped out at me like a panther on a cold day in London was how much more clipped she was. No more trying to explain things that would give a Kanarek or a Hughes a chance to twist her words and meanings. It was mostly "I can't remember" or "yes" or "no" or very short answers that didn't lend themselves to alternative interpretations.
So yeah, she was different from TLB within a year of that trial; by 1977 she would have been like many other human beings ~ used to the situation and not so emotionally caught up in it. When 9/11 happened, on the actual day, I cried, twice in fact. In the first few months following, there were a load of documentaries I saw and during one of them, I cried. But I don't now and I wasn't by the autumn of 2002. It's not unusual or suspicious to become somewhat detatched or have a different perspective about or have come to terms with something that once really affected you.
Lol did you honestly say Linda didnt know the Labiancas were killed until October? Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa oh God thanks for the comedy i needed that, im sure Linda thought Tex, Pat and Leslie talked about the grocery business with Leno over choco milk and oatmeal and raisin cookies
DeleteAnd discussed what fall fashions Rosemary would be carrying at the boutique lol
DeleteGrim said: "I'm curious as to why she was even named in the suit in the first place."
ReplyDeleteYou actually answered your question in your comment just above.
"Bugliosi says he would have gone for 2nd degree murder had Linda not agreed to join the prosecution...."
I did not set out the entire motion for summary judgment or Fleischmann's response. Fleischmann made your argument: that from her testimony she didn't 'strike a blow'. As Friedman noted in his reply: that is not the law.
"The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement to commit the unlawful act while the gist of the tort is the damage resulting to the plaintiff from an overt act or acts done pursuant to a common design [citations omitted]"
"In tort the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of his activity. [citations omitted]".
The basis of Kasabian's participation in the conspiracy (for tort purposes) was her testimony she had been been told it was a creepy-crawl mission and her explanation what that was. As Friedman argued: "The mere fact she didn't know murder was to be committed is absolutely irrelevant to the law [of torts] and to the facts herein."
A 'Tort' for those who don't know is a legal term for an act of harm against another.
Grim said: "You could make that argument but it's easily countered...."
ReplyDeleteI might accept your counter but for the following:
I don't believe Kasabian wanted to testify 'even without immunity'. To believe that, it seems to me, you have to believe 'part two' of that statement: she wanted to spend the rest of her life in prison perhaps ending in the gas chamber. Because without immunity that is where she would have been headed. She may have received 15-life and be sitting next to Van Houten, today.
This is where you and I have always differed.
I don't believe for an instant the killers didn't know what they were going out to do both nights. I think they have convinced themselves they didn't know and it certainly helped Bugliosi's case to high-light that fact as to Kasabian. But this creepy-crawl was clearly different and involved knives and a gun and rope.
The Road from Gallup to Albuquerque-Yana the Witch for me makes Kasabian's whole schtick ring hollow.
Deutsch's article suggests something very different about her testimony- strikingly so to Deutsch.
She did testify about the first night in 1977. That is Deutsch's point. The defense counsel were furious. I believe the reported quote in the press was something like "They are trying her for Sharon Tate's murder."
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that everyone in the car on the first night knew something violent was going to happen.
But just to be clear on the tort. Would creepy crawling without physical violence be considered an act of harm against another simply by invading another's space and causing fear? Or does there need to be physical harm to be considered an act of harm. If Kasabian truly believed this was just another creepy crawl and was surprised by the killing would she still be considered a participant in the conspiracy?
Interesting to note in that Van Deutsch clipping she said Linda testified that she gave Leslie the 5,000 bucks at her retrial, seems this mysterious 5k was in the hands of quite a few people lol
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteA tort can be any harm, not just physical harm. If I slander you I harmed your reputation. If I steal your car I committed conversion or trespass. So, yes, if they entered the home or just the grounds (trespass) and simply scared everyone they could be sued and all would be liable.
There is a different type of proof needed for a criminal conspiracy versus a wrongful death ( tortious) conspiracy.
Kasabian had to agree to enter into a conspiracy with the intent to commit murder to be guilty criminally. Hence the statement "I didn't know". Grim is correct in previous comments that Bugliosi would have a difficult time convicting her without a snitch.
However, if she entered into a conspiracy to creepy-crawl (break and enter/burglary) then if the felony is committed and if someone dies as a during the commission of the creepy crawl she is guilty of felony murder even if she harms no one. That is how Van Houten was ultimately convicted.
In a tort case if Kasabian entered into a conspiracy to creepy crawl then she is liable for any damages caused by any member of the conspiracy, here, the wrongful death of Frykowski even if murder was not the plan. While the judge doesn't say it directly in his opinion from the pleadings this is what he found 'as a matter of law': She entered into a conspiracy to creepy crawl. Frykowski was murdered during the creepy crawl. She is liable jointly severally with her co-conspirators for any damages.
I hope this helps.
How could Linda not be guilty criminally given your standards? She willingly either drove or went along willingly to Cielo, saw the knives, gun and rope, saw Watson climb the telephone pole abd cut the wires, seems to me the evidence outweighs her "i didnt know" statement
DeleteAlso Leslie stabbed Rosemary multiple times,thats a hell of alot more than just being a conspirator who was simply there but didnt touch anyone
DeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThat is very clear. Thank you.
David said...
ReplyDeleteShe did testify about the first night in 1977. That is Deutsch's point
Yes but the point still stands. One could almost look at it the other way ~ that if she was still crying on the stand 7 years later, there might be a justifiable suspicion of a command performance. She didn't cry when she testified at Tex's trial.
RudyWebersHose said...
Lol did you honestly say Linda didnt know the Labiancas were killed until October? Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa oh God thanks for the comedy
You're welcome.
Actually, I believe her. And I think in much the same way that Tex leaving Rosina to face Lotsapoppa and his friends tells you more about him in the summer of '69 than deep attempts at analysis as to whether he was a sociopath, that Linda made no attempt to check out what the others got up to once they'd driven away from Waverly or checked out any newspapers or TV news for the best part of two months tells you something about her own innate self centredness. One can sort of understand her not wanting to put Tanya at risk or get into a stressful situation during the first trimester of her pregnancy by going to the police. But to not even be curious enough to find out if her suspicions that there was another set of murders were correct brings into sharp focus something Paul Fitzgerald said during the trial. He put the point out that Linda, no matter what situation she found herself in that seemed to be going wrong, always landed on her feet, always brought it round to her advantage ~ always looked out for no.1.
But not knowing there was an actual murder at the LaBiancas is not as stupid as you may suppose initially. Obviously she had an inclination, as she pointed out. But knowing for sure ? Her adventure at Ocean Front Walk didn't end in a murder but was identical to the Waverly set up and prior to it, 4 attempts had been made to kill, none of which came off. Kitty who was Bobby's flame didn't know for a long time that he was in jail on suspicion of murder. Not everyone knew straight away that Charlie had "killed" Lotsapoppa. Not everyone knew straight away about Cielo. It was a month later that Dianne Lake found out about the Cielo and Waverly deaths. Not everyone on the ranch knew about Shorty immediately. Even Squeaky and Sandy didn't know about Cielo for a while. Sandy claimed she was the last to find out. And so on and so forth. So with Linda skipping 2 days after Waverly, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that she didn't know about what actually occurred there.
She willingly either drove or went along willingly to Cielo, saw the knives, gun and rope, saw Watson climb the telephone pole abd cut the wires, seems to me the evidence outweighs her "i didnt know" statement
The willingness there to hang foreknowledge of the first nights events on Pat and Linda seems to ignore that they both had total foreknowledge the 2nd night; therefore arguing that they didn't know what was going to happen at Cielo is not some kind of an attempt to minimize guilt or say that they are somehow nicer peeps than Tex or infer some kind of inverse innoncence or hopefully draw sympathy. You yourself argued vociferously a month ago that all the things she saw Tex do prior to shooting SteveParent were consistent with what one might do if robbery was the motive.
Grim/ David
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Linda should have expected something more violent at Cielo as everyone knew about Gary either from Sadie and/or Bobby's arrest for murder.
Excellent post David as always.
A long time lurker
Jean if we are to believe Susans infamous "we're going to go kill some pigs" statement as the car pulled out of Spahn unless Linda became temporarily deaf she knew what was going down, only an idiot would believe otherwise
DeleteRudy was that August 8th or 9th she said that? I don't remember and I have a twig it was Clem not Susan
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was supposedly Susan the first night, even without her saying it only a moron would think she had no idea there would be violence at Cielo and even more riduculous that she didn't know anyone was murdered at the Labiancas until October lol gimme a fuckin break
ReplyDeleteIm just tired of this drug addicted meth dealing cunt Linda getting painted as innocent in all this, if conspiracy is good enough for someone who WASNT EVEN AT A SCENE WHERE ANYONE WAS KILLED (Manson) then its enough for someone who was actually there and AT THE VERY LEAST witnessed murder and DID NOTHING
ReplyDeleteI take that back, she admits to rifling Steve Parents wallet, thats good enough for the death penalty in the state I live in
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrim you ignorant slut-
ReplyDeleteTo focus on your coherent points, the fact that Linda walked is simply because BUG needed a "YOU ARE THERE" (ancient TV show) element to sell his HS nonsense. The case against her was not suffering from ANYTHING/ I am a disbarred drunken lawyer from Hawthorne but I could convict her in 24 hours. It's simple- after knowing that your friends slaughtered 5 people the night before you went to another random house the next day!. Second degree? Please. The tort, as Dreath would say, is Conspiracy to commit murder which carries the death penalty. This is how they got Charlie ffs. Linda is more guilty than his dumb ass. Fleischman had no defense to fucking put on man. Were you there when these people were butchered? Yes. Guilty as fucking charged.
My point (subtle I admit) isn't that she didn't deserve the judgement- this is how she rationalized it to herself. We know people like Linda, all of us, People who threw their life away and blame everyone else. (Hi Patty!) Linda didn't think she deserved the judgement so she skipped it.
As far as her spin, Grim, when she says stuff like "I said I heard people coming" I call shenanigans. Bitch stood lookout at Tate like a good little killer and did not think twice about what happened the next night. Should have fried.
What the fuck, man?
DeleteI mean really. Where the fuck do you get off?
DeleteJean Harlow,
ReplyDeleteThe comment was this:
"One night in early August 1969, Juan had been watching TV in the trailer when Sadie came in, dressed in black. “Where are you going?” Juan asked. “We’re going to get some fucking pigs,” Sadie replied. When she left, Juan looked out the window and saw her get into Johnny Swartz’ old yellow Ford. Charlie, Clem, Tex, Linda, and Leslie got in also.
According to Juan, the incident had occurred after dark, about 8 or 9 P.M., and, though he wasn’t able to pinpoint the date, he said it was about a week before the August 16 raid. The logical inference was that he was describing the night the LaBiancas were killed."
Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 429). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
Thanks. Knew I heard it somewhere before. Mind like like a sieve.
DeleteGrim said: "Actually, I believe her [etc.]....."
ReplyDeleteI know you are a staunch defender of Kasabian but you are putting too fine a point on it. I suppose if we are debating what 'knew' meant it is certainly arguable she didn't see official reports (TV, radio, newspapers)and thus didn't 'know for certain' murders had occurred.
But if you are actually suggesting she didn't 'know' people were murdered night #2, that's absurd.
Rudy. Manson was at the scene he tied up the LaBiancas. The conspiracy to commit murder covers both days.
ReplyDeleteColonel, if either Linda or Sadie didn't flip, Bugliosi would at best have been able to convict those that left their prints at the house.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHe wasnt at the scene when they were killed, my point was Lindas drug addicted scumbag ass was more liable than Manson
DeletePeter, agree and is why I continue to say that the family is responsible for solidifying their own fate. People here want to crucify Bugs and even vilify victims. In the previous post, I mention the same thing- the family is responsible for all outcome in this case.
ReplyDeleteCowboy Charlie at the wheel on the bus to never never land.
ReplyDeletePeter
ReplyDeleteHe had Sadie's confession to the inmates
He has Tex's print
Katie's Exemplar
He had all the evidence to execute all the actual killers
He needed a flip to get CHARLIE and only CHARLIE
Sadie's confession could only be used against Sadie at trial. In fact didn't Bugliosi stipulate to not using it at all. Even Sadie's jail kites were heavily redacted to remove any reference (even indirectly) to other defendants.
ReplyDeleteGood luck sending somebody to the gas chamber based on a handwriting exemplar. Or even a finger print. Without the confessions or the testimony of Sadie or Linda, all you have are medical experts and forensic investigators.
Sorry, I believe it was her GJ testimony he stipulated to not using at trial. I'm not sure how they handled any of the testimony from Sadie's cellmates if they testified.
ReplyDeleteI believe Sadie took back her confession once it got to trial so that is why they couldn't use it. They could use the inmates tales of Sadie confessing to them but with the fear of hearsay. If they could have used it, they wouldn't have needed Kasabian as a star witness and she would likely be in jail with the rest of them. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that during the trial.
ReplyDeleteRWH once again wrote in anger.....
ReplyDelete"He wasnt at the scene when they were killed, my point was Lindas drug addicted scumbag ass was more liable than Manson"
Rudy/SAG/Dave1971.....
It is obvious to me at this point that you are firmly in the the camp of "Charlie is innocent". That is fine; that's your opinion and I will respect it. However, your angry spewing every time someone disagrees with your viewpoint does not contribute anything of value to these blogs. You should follow the example of another Charlie supporter, George Stimson. George's well researched, thought-provoking posts are one of the highlights of this blog, and he even writes books on the subject.
I would suggest that before you sit at the computer, save the fifth of Popov or Kamchatka for later. Maybe you will stop typing "c..t", or "drug addicted scumbag" re Linda K., or some of the stupid 1950s racial slurs you've tossed Grim's way during past angry meltdowns. Keep it civil, ya know......
Chill out dude.....
Hmmmm lets see...chill out....let me think.....still thinking......wait for it.....still mulling it over.....nah i dont think i will, thanks for the suggestion though
DeleteJean Harlow said...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Linda should have expected something more violent at Cielo as everyone knew about Gary either from Sadie and/or Bobby's arrest for murder
Good point, but equally, murder is a bit of a jump to be thrust into with no warning or real preparation. Why, if all you've done thus far is beg for money on the streets, dumpster dive, rock and roll with an actor, creepy crawl, hoof $5000 from your bud and nick a credit card from a car, would you imagine you were expected to commit a murder if no one told you that was what you were meant to do ?
RudyWebersHose said...
He wasnt at the scene when they were killed, my point was Lindas drug addicted scumbag ass was more liable than Manson
Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Suppose your girlfriend or wife or daughter is gang raped by three 19 year olds and then sliced up and dumped in the river and dies a horrible death and the perps are caught, admit what they did but in the course of the investigation, it transpires that they were put up to it by a gang leader who was somewhat older and more experienced who said to them that if they wanted to join his gang, they had to show their commitment by taking a life and these were three guys that wanted in on this gang. They would not have committed the crime had it not been for the gang leader but there is no question that they are responsible for what they did. Would you be happy for that gang leader to completely escape any comeback simply because he wasn't present at an event he put the actual murderers up to ?
Im just tired of this drug addicted meth dealing cunt Linda getting painted as innocent in all this
Who has painted her as innocent ? Like I said earlier, one major thing in her favour was that she didn't kill anyone. Without her testimony all the DA has is a couple of fingerprints and a jailhouse confession. The totality of the evidence when put together with Linda's testimony nets the result that it netted. Without it, possibly only Atkins and Van Houten are a good bet. The dudes with the fingerprints are by no means sure bankers.
Even Bugliosi didn't think she was innocent. When Joan Huntindon, in Robert H's book, asked what would have happened to Linda if Susan hadn't recanted, he said "under the laws of conspiracy, she would be guilty. But I would never have asked for the death penalty for her.....because she didn't go into the house, she didn't do any stabbing." Then he interrupts her when Joan states that she didn't know there would be killing, with "The 2nd night she did, the 1st night she possibly didn't know. She was guilty." Twice within a couple of sentences of each other.
ColScott said...
Grim you ignorant slut
Coming from an abandoned nuclear power station, that's actually quite a compliment !
I am a disbarred drunken lawyer from Hawthorne but I could convict her in 24 hours
You couldn't convict sugar of making tea sweet if most of your rants over the last 13 years are evidence of of your prowess.
It's simple- after knowing that your friends slaughtered 5 people the night before you went to another random house the next day!
Ah, yeah and prevented a murder from happening.
I've recently been giving you props publicly for a comment you made last year about forgetting more about TLB than Dianne Lake ever knew. Please don't make me reconsider.
Easy answer Grim, id torture them and their entire families to death and then blow my brains out, no unneccesary tax dollars wasted on trials and if youre wondering if im serious I can assure you i am....IF a situation like that happened to me
DeleteLol you mean that bullshit story that Linda and Vince cooked up about the knocking on the wrong apartment door that neither Susan or Clem backed up and the manager of the building claimed was unoccupied the month of August? That the incident youre speaking of?
DeleteWhen the apartment building manager told them the apartment Linda supposedly knocked on and told the guy they had the wrong apartment was vacant for all of Aug 69 Vince said it must have been a transient who was squatting there
DeleteRudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteEasy answer Grim, id torture them and their entire families to death and then blow my brains out, no unneccesary tax dollars wasted on trials and if youre wondering if im serious I can assure you i am....IF a situation like that happened to me
Would that include the gang leader that set the terms and put them up to it but wasn't there ? You've left him rather conspicuous by his absence in your scenario.
No it wouldnt because hes not involved, unlike Bugs liked to believe its not possible to brainwash people to kill, Tex and Pat killed because they like it
DeleteGrim said : " Coming from an abandoned nuclear power station, that's actually quite a compliment ! "
ReplyDeleteI dare say I got quite a chuckle out of that !!
Grim You ignorant Slut- leave it to you to create a complicated analogy that only proves my point. BUG wanted to GET CHARLIE and it did not matter whether he actually was the gang leader you describe (hint: he wasn't) or not. He needed one of the guilty ones to flip
ReplyDeleteNone of them blamed Manson until the death penalty was reversed and they realized theyd have a chance to get out of prison some day
ReplyDeleteRudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteyou mean that bullshit story that Linda and Vince cooked up about the knocking on the wrong apartment door that neither Susan or Clem backed up and the manager of the building claimed was unoccupied the month of August? That the incident youre speaking of?
Three quickies for your perusal ¬> The manager of the building said that sometimes there were transients in those apartments and that could have been the case that night though no one could confirm it. Secondly, Susan partly corroborates the visit in her last book and though she slices Linda on it in the first book {she says Linda chickened out of murder ~ in her last book "she" totally reverses her opinion on Linda as a murderer}, she fully corroborates it there. Remember, the point is that it's Nader's life that supposedly gets saved so whether there was someone there or not, Atkins tells the story in "Child of...." And thirdly, there is no way Clem can back up that story as a few people pointed out to you in a recent post, because in doing so, he places himself as a member of the conspiracy and it's too risky.
Yes and im sure the first thing a person ILLEGALLY occupying an apartment is going to do is answer a random knock on the door after midnight, makes total sense to me lol
DeleteRudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteNo it wouldnt because hes not involved
Hitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, Yakubu Gowon, Saddam Hussein and Radovan Karadžić should have paid you to represent them. You'd have made a fortune....But they'd still have lost. And they probably would have had you offed but they'd do so happily, knowing you wouldn't hold them even part responsible.
its not possible to brainwash people to kill
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I think that's too simple a way of putting it, there's so much that that doesn't take into account when it comes to the complex relationships of people.
But who is talking about brainwashing into killing ? "Not I" said the hen.
None of them blamed Manson until the death penalty was reversed and they realized theyd have a chance to get out of prison some day
If by "blame" you mean shoving the responsibility on Manson while negating their own involvement like Bobby did in his second trial, fair enough.
But blame is the entirely wrong word. Pointing out his part in their fate is not the same as blaming although Pat skates awfully close to it at times.
Besides which, as is often the case, you're way off beam. Susan Atkins laid out Charlie's part in the murders to at least 5 people {Howard, Graham, Caballero, Caruso, Bugliosi, not to mention the GJ}, Leslie did so to Marvin Part, Linda did so to Joe Sage, Robert her husband and Jeffrey Jacobs, Pat strongly hinted to Claude Brown and Tex did before he even got the death penalty. The women all did so before 1969 was even out.
ColScott said...
(hint: he wasn't)
Unfortunately for you, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that he was just that. He even admitted to it on occasion in his " Magic roundabout thru' the looking glass" way.
BUG wanted to GET CHARLIE
Fortunately, he didn't ignore what kept coming his way.
But I would actually credit your point, if it could be shown that no one had a scooby doo until Bugliosi appeared on the scene and then suddenly, everything began heading Mansonward. But that is not the case. Way before he was on the case, matters were falling into place and the sands of time had finally run out for Charles Manson. At least 8 people were pointing at Charlie for murder before Vincent T and Aaron Stovitz were assigned the case.
You ignorant Slut
Tell that to Steve Grogan next time you want to announce him as "The Beheader." Of course, he might just say "back at you, nub." He won't cut off your head, though if he did, it would be the first time.
RudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteYes and im sure the first thing a person ILLEGALLY occupying an apartment is going to do is answer a random knock on the door after midnight, makes total sense to me
LA could be a way out place in '69. Maybe he was waiting for a delivery from that new all night pizza joint that used authentic Venice sea salt in their recipes.
Amazing how much you know about 1969 Los Angeles considering youre were 6 at the time and in England
DeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteI know you are a staunch defender of Kasabian
Actually, I just don't inhabit a zone where everything is left or right, black or white, up or down, in or out. There are some things I do defend her on and I'm not too interested in whether the consensus is that she's a lying scumbucket that should have been sniffing cyanide strapped down. It's too easy to crumble under the weight of what the many might think. I've said for some time that I can see lots of complex, paradoxical areas in this case and that necessitates trying to be fair to all parties, even the nasty ones.
As an aside, I wonder, had all the defendants in the original indictment actually been put to death but we had the same basic information to hand, whether there would be some sort of outcry nowadays about what she received. Hey, it's a thought.
The prosecution had such a weak case against her and they knew it. Had she kept her mouth closed there is every indication she would have walked because there was nothing strong against her, nothing to corroborate her even being at either venue so Atkins would not have been much cop there. However, if Atkins hadn't neglected to mention the little trip to Venice, I can see a way in which a flimsy case against Linda becomes a stronger one, especially if one pulls in Breckenridge, Nader, Eleanor Lally, manager of Ocean Front Walk, the cops on the beach, Sage and Jacobs to give some weight to Flynn and Atkins. They only provide partial corroboration but in the actual trial the prosecution wanted some of them as corroboration and didn't get any of them except Eleanor the manager. I've waited for a long time for someone to cogently point out how she lied or could have been prosecuted and no one has, even though these things have been declared almost routinely.
But I've thought about it, yes, in my own layman's {ha ha, some could say lame man's} way and with nothing approaching expertise, but I've given it thought.
There are a number of things on which she is most dodgy. But in the overall scheme of things I think the result was the right one and it couldn't have happened without her. It doesn't mean I wish she was my Mum !
I seriously wonder whats misfiring in your brain at times Grim, Vince got Manson who wasnt at the scene, had no physical evidence he was at the scene, had none of the killers or anyone else saying he was at the scene, what makes you think he couldnt have gotten Linda who was at the scene and admitted getting into Parents car and distracting Frykowski as he ran out the front door?
DeleteTwo detectives using intimidation tactics could have gotten a confession out of Linda in 5 minutes, threaten to take her piece of shit kids and shed have sung like a canary
DeleteRudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteAmazing how much you know about 1969 Los Angeles considering youre were 6 at the time and in England
Amazing how little you know about history, the case you profess interest in and the global nature of the second half of the 20th century. Not being alive in '69 is no excuse.
You've tried that one before Hose, and it failed woefully last year too. I don't have to have lived under Colonial rule in the 40s to have ideas and thoughts as to what some of it was like and frankly, it's an rather unimaginative person that can listen to 100 people speak about a place over a 41 year period and remain ignorant about that place just because they've not been there.
David said...
if you are actually suggesting she didn't 'know' people were murdered night #2, that's absurd
Is it ?
Well, it may indeed be. But it may not be.
Something that I noticed a long time ago without really noticing it consciously was the difference in the Family's responses to the Cielo and LaBianca murders. Cielo was a big deal to them, way bigger than either Crowe or Hinman. Every thing I have ever read from a Family member, regardless of which side they stand on shows that the LaBianca murder in its immediate aftermath barely registered on their radar. Susan asked Pat what happened......and that's about it. When Susan was asked by her lawyers whether she checked out reports like she had done for Cielo, she said no because the news was full of 'Tate' so she stopped tuning in. There's such a paucity of info as to what the feelings were about that second night whereas at least we're told that there was some emerging knowledge rumbling about the ranch about Cielo. The talkers Atkins and Van Houten made the point a few times that little needed to be said and so while I have no doubt that Linda expected there to have been deaths at Waverly, I do believe her when she says she did not know. There is no essential difference between 'knowing' and 'knowing for certain'. She knew that 5 people lost their lives at Cielo, even though she only saw three people, because the others talked about what they'd done on the way back and then it was on the news which they watched. But never have I seen Linda say that she talked about or heard from Tex, Pat or Leslie what happened in Waverly. The Clem/Sadie/Linda mission didn't end in a killing, yet it was known to everyone in the car that there were to be 2 murder squads that second night. Leslie asked Susan what they'd done and was told they just went back to the ranch. Nothing about Ocean Front Walk.
When one listens to Kasabian, what she told Joe Sage, how her feelings towards Charlie changed at Cielo etc, it indicates to me that she fled because of what she'd seen and what she did actually know. It's all Cielo related. However absurd that may seem, I don't instantly dismiss its possibility. It's no more absurd to me than Sandy not knowing until a month later, even though she was out of jail by 12th August. Despite the way various members have talked about their love and togetherness, they didn't tell each other everything and right away when they did get around to mentioning things.
RudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteI seriously wonder whats misfiring in your brain at times Grim
I seriously think that whatever it is Hose, you could actually do with some of it.
Vince got Manson who wasnt at the scene, had no physical evidence he was at the scene, had none of the killers or anyone else saying he was at the scene
Jokes aside, and I do really enjoy some of the conundrums you pose mate, but there is so much more to convicting Charles Manson than whether or not he was at the scene. Physical evidence isn't a requirement in a conspiracy case, but evidence of some sort of conspiracy. He was indicted because one of the killers said he was at one scene and conspired in both, he was convicted with that {a participant saying those things} and a whole lot more.
what makes you think he couldnt have gotten Linda who was at the scene and admitted getting into Parents car and distracting Frykowski as he ran out the front door?
She never admitted getting into Steve's car until 2009.
If she had said absolutely nothing or that she wasn't there, what proof was there that she was, with Atkins recanting ? And even without Atkins recanting, what corroborated her story ? In a joint trial, Atkins going with what she had gone with for the GJ was pretty vacant. Pat she could slam, Tex she could slam, Charlie she could include {his gun, his instructions, his words and philosophy underpinning what she wrote, the leather thongs ~ and many of the same witnesses that testified anyway}, but Linda ?
But you know what first got me thinking that Bugliosi couldn't get Linda ? His own words. He described his case against her as anemic. That's a great word.
Two detectives using intimidation tactics could have gotten a confession out of Linda in 5 minutes, threaten to take her piece of shit kids and shed have sung like a canary
What, like they did with Leslie ? They couldn't even get teenage girls like Ouisch and Dianne to spill any beans. Once indicted, the Police don't go in there interviewing the indictees.
Lol leave me alone with her for 5 minutes and id have her confession
DeleteVince described his case against Manson the same way
DeleteGrim said: "Actually, I just don't inhabit a zone where everything is left or right, black or white, up or down, in or out. There are some things I do defend her on and I'm not too interested in whether the consensus is that she's a lying scumbucket that should have been sniffing cyanide strapped down."
ReplyDeleteI never said she was.
My comment about you being a staunch defender of Kasabian came from this: I believe she was motivated by the same human frailties that other similarly situated criminals share: saving her neck and money. You believe she wanted to tell the truth and would have testified anyway and IMO that colors how you view the evidence when it comes to her. You believe her without a healthy dose of skepticism.
I do not believe for an instant she was motived by some quasi-revelation or pseudo-religious sense of needing to do justice, or being 'compelled to tell the truth'. And frankly, except for her attorneys and her statements, parroting her attorneys, absolutely nothing supports this- and you know how much we should trust attorneys. That whole schtick is what we do, as attorneys. I do it in practically every case.
I also believe she was in Cielo Drive and that means her story is not completely accurate. I also believe we have so many examples of where the physical evidence contradicts the official narrative because Atkins made up a tale and Kasabian at times parroted Atkins because, well, because she was told to do just that. Then Watson picked up the theme because saying the official narrative is wrong means....you don't get out.
I also believe she did spin what she saw/participated in that night to save her skin, project the right image to the jury and because her attorneys, likely after consultation with Bugliosi, 'helped' her testify. We do that. It is what we do even if we don't coach witnesses (which is unethical, by the way). We buy our clients dresses or tell them what to wear. We tell them to get haircuts. We add African art to their houses before the jury visits. We tell our experts to wear tweed-ok, that's a stretch.
I also don't believe some of her story- 'Sadie make it stop' being a big one- but I wrote about that elsewhere. I do believe the broken bush proves she was there and saw what she saw. I don't believe you could see the pool from anywhere at night except inside the house and could actually prove that in this courtroom if I wanted to hire the expert. It's called line of sight, which also involves 'light' sources.
On another point you raise:"I've waited for a long time for someone to cogently point out how she lied or could have been prosecuted and no one has, even though these things have been declared almost routinely."
First, it's not 'lied'. It is far more complex than that with memory issues and all that. It's being inaccurate/wrong or misleading by omission.
The conviction of Manson and a conviction of Kasabian requires a 'snitch'. It is that simple. Every time we have discussed this you have told me I get everyone but not Atkins or Kasabian. Without one of the the four you are correct. I can't convict her. That said....
If you give me one of the four- Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins or Van Houten- as the DA I will write the post and show you how Kasabian is convicted. It is, indeed, a slam dunk. It is called felony murder. I don't need HS. She is guilty of first degree murder. She gets 15-life like Van Houten and likely sits there today.
All I need is one witness, I can corroborate, who places her either inside the gate at Cielo or in the car outside Waverly. Without one of the four, and as Bugliosi noted (and I agree, by the way) convicting Kasabian (or Manson) is difficult if not impossible.
Back to the post: Kasabian's testimony makes her liable for half a million dollars. I really don't understand why you questioned her inclusion in the lawsuit. You sound a bit like RWH defending Manson- she didn't harm anyone.
Grim said: "Well, it may indeed be. But it may not be."
ReplyDeleteYou are back to that fine point without admitting you are making it. She knew Grim, for Christ's sake! This is borderline silly.
"borders on"
ReplyDeleteGrim,
ReplyDeleteYou are indeed a staunch supporter.
They drove from house to house to church looking for people to kill.
'We are going to get some pigs.'
'Stop the car. I want to kill that person.'
'Don't scare them. Don't let them know you are going to kill them.'
'Don't you know a pig in Venice'. 'Ok, kill him and hitch home.'
What on God's green earth do you think she thought happened that night? A game of canasta?
Maybe just maybe, Grim, she is no different than Rick Gates. That's not bad, just less reliable.
Let me ask you something David out of genuine curiosity because i dont know and you being an attorney should help illuminate this for me, in California if a friend and I are in a bar and my friend is armed with a handgun and another patron bumps into him and rudely brushes it off and my friend comes back to our table and tells me how angry about the situation he is and i tell him, well youve got a gun, go shoot him, not only that but lets say hes had the gun for months and ive been saying man i want you to kill anyone who crosses your path and disrespects you, am i guilty or at least chargeable with conspiracy to commit murder in CA?
DeleteYes. Or at the least solicitation to commit murder in the first degree. TLB is more analogous to the first example because there was a specific target. But TLB also involved planning that is absent from your example; an agreement among the parties to commit the crime.
DeleteOk Peter so youre saying there was a specific target at Cielo? If you are that kind of shoots the HS theory down, who was the intended target or targets and what was the reason or reasons they were targeted, also by you saying there was an agreement among the parties to commit the crime youre involving Linda
DeleteAlso Peter let me ask you this do you agree with CA law in the hypothetical case i described and if so do you feel comfortable living in a country that has that type of legal overreach (for lack of a better term)? My belief is that we are our own people as adults and that our actions are our own, me TELLING SOMEONE to commit a crime does not make me guilty of the crime if that person commits it
DeleteRobert C wrote :
ReplyDeleteGrim said : " Coming from an abandoned nuclear power station, that's actually quite a compliment ! "
I dare say I got quite a chuckle out of that !!
Ditto on that....3 hours after I read it I'm still chuckling..........
Back to the original subject of the post, RWH's histrionics notwithstanding.....
ReplyDeleteBartek apparently has two daughters, one of whom appeared on the Polish version of "Big Brother". I am assuming he left an estate/will and if he did, the daughters are still entitled to any royalties from this judgment. Does anyone know if the daughters are still pursuing this ?
I think David or someone was saying he had to renew the judgment every so many years and that lapsed so the judgment is no longer enforceable.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm wrong. I'm an antitrust lawyer. If the discussion was about George and the family conspiring with other ranches to drive up the price of horseback riding, I would be all over that.
Peter said: "If the discussion was about George and the family conspiring with other ranches to drive up the price of horseback riding, I would be all over that."
ReplyDeleteThat one made me laugh out loud.
You are not wrong. As the post states the last renewal of the judgement I found was in in 1991. There is some possibility someone may have registered the judgment in state court but if they did my legal assistant was not able to find it.
In laymen's terms the judgment no longer exists.
RWH said: "Let me ask you something David...."
ReplyDeletePeter is correct, again. Yes.
Now lets change your scenario. As your friend starts to get up you stop him and say 'I was just kidding. Let's creepy crawl his house'. You follow him home, wait till he turns off the lights. Break in and move his couch, crap on his floor and eat his brie.
He wakes up and without warning to you, your buddy shoots him. Now add felony murder.
David in the hypothetical case you mentioned do i go on the creepy crawl with my friend or not? If so then yes i think id be guilty of burglary or breaking and entering but not murder if i didnt touch the homeowner or take part in his murder and i dont see how any fair minded person could see otherwise, the fact that in that case i could literally be put to death for simply being on the scene should scare the shit out of any Anerican who believes in freedom
DeleteGrim- the burden of proof is on RWH.
ReplyDeleteThese people ARE in jail (or dead like Charlie), having been convicted- FACT. Zero evidence to the contrary has been presented during their 49 years of confinement- FACT. HS was PROVEN to be the motive- FACT. All of the supporting evidence backs this- FACT. HS was introduced long before Bugs was involved- FACT. Charlie was convicted even though he wasn’t at the crime scene because THAT’S THE LAW- FACT. Linda, wasn’t convicted of anything- FACT.
RWH- perhaps you should present your evidence to the contrary to the parole board and have these poor people freed and Charlie’s good name restored given your propensity to be unable to see the difference between fact and what if.
I don’t think Linda is innocent of anything- she just wasn’t convicted of anything.
RWH- Bugs “got Charlie” because A). Charlie was guilty B). Charlie broke an actual law C). He was proven guilty of breaking that law - if you don’t like that law (which you appear not to) then perhaps you should run for office and fight to change that law. Or call an elected official and fight to have them change the law. Arguing about Charlie not being “at the crime scene” changes nothing. He was guilty of a crime, period.
Lol i don't have to justify my opinions to you snowflake
DeleteNo you don’t little man, you can just keep on annoying everyone like the ignorant boob that you are.
DeleteAnd you know what they say little man, “opinions are like...... “
Also Astro i dont think Tex, Pat, Leslie, Bobby or Bruce are innocent so why would i argue for their release? Theyre all piece of shit murderers and i hope they die behind bars, you see....THEY WERE THE ACTUAL KILLERS, see how that works?
DeleteOk "big man" lol
DeleteLil Man- you left off Charlie, you see... HE WAS A KILLER, see how that works Lil Man?
DeleteAlso Astro the "FACT" is that HS was not proven to be the motive for the crimes, Vince managed to convince 12 people Charlie and the girls were guilty of murder but we dont know what those 12 people believe was the motive
DeleteI guess we disagree on Manson being guilty "big man" lol
DeleteLil Man- you disagree with the law, the court, the judge and jury. I didn’t find Charlie guilty. I’m just able to differentiate fact from fiction.
DeleteThe judge has no say on whether he was guilty or not dummy, 12 peoples opinions doesn't make something "fact", ill accept that he was convicted but like Charlie said, you got the right people its the motive you got wrong
DeleteLil Man- the judge is a part of the judicial process- please be less ignorant if you can help it.
DeleteAlso, Lil Man- it’s been 49 years. Why hasn’t the official narrative changed given it’s “wrong”.
PS Lil Man- curious what you would do with your five minutes alone with Linda-
Same thing id do with you, grab an LA phone book and a baton and rattle your skull for a little while
DeleteLil Man- try and keep your little wits about you. Never go straight for the head. Rookie move.
DeletePS Lil Man- beating on women a thing for you? Or is it just little scumbag ass women?
David,
ReplyDeleteI think the argument is that Charlie says, "Hey, go creepy crawl this house. But instead, they kill everyone. There Charlie could not be said to have entered into the conspiracy to commit murder. Just conspiracy to commit burglary (enter a dwelling at night to commit a crime).
That's why, I believe it is you who has very perceptively pointed out in the past, the Helter Skelter motive in connection with "now is the time for Helter Skelter" is such a pivotal fact. It shows a meeting of the minds on the point of murder. After that, any action by any of the defendants can be attributed to any and all the members of the conspiracy.
Had the girls mounted their own defenses, it is possible they could have successfully argued that they were unaware of the true nature of the conspiracy (although I think it would be difficult to argue that they were unawares that any criminal activity would take place that night) and thus possibly gotten their convictions down to a felony murder. I don't know offhand whether this would have any effect on the level of sentencing. I'm sure had "Lindas drug addicted scumbag ass" (TM) not been granted immunity, she would have made such an argument, which - regardless of whether you believe her "make it stop" testimony - is supported by her actions, which was to run away and hide in the car as soon as nobody was paying attention to her. Which even the other defendants admitted was the case.
I think this would have been harder to argue the second night, but as we all know, Linda was able to do it in her third and final trial.
Even if Manson did say the legendary "now is the time for HS" crap (which i think is laughable) who says HS meant murder? None of the killers or Charlie ever said HS was a code word ir directly meant murder or killing unless i missed something
DeletePeter said: "There Charlie could not be said to have entered into the conspiracy to commit murder. Just conspiracy to commit burglary (enter a dwelling at night to commit a crime)."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you.
IF he had said that ("Go creepy crawl Melcher's old house, that will scare the crap out of him when he hears about it."). IF we erase that statement by Manson that 'now is the time' and IF the murders stopped at Cielo Drive then Manson's alleged comment to Atkins about her putting his ass back in prison would support the argument that from Manson's perspective the murders at Cielo were not part of any plan but horrible speed driven ad libbing by Watson and thus beyond the conspiracy. Manson's alleged return to Cielo then actually makes sense. He goes back to see what happened and try to cover up the crime to save his own neck.
But the fact they repeat the crime night #2 confirms the purpose of night #1. The same people do the same thing. There has never been a logical explanation for the repeat performance that exonerates Manson. Instead that night confirms the existence of the conspiracy to commit murder both nights. The author of the contract not only initiates a second round he goes along to make sure it is done correctly and chooses the target whether it was True's roommates as some believe or 'the house next door'.
The only significant difference is there are three additions but if you look at the before and after of night number one Manson clearly is participating (get some camp, grab a knife and go with Tex.....). But Clem is also lurking about and that suggests to me he was in the whole time. The judge thought so.
Then add one of the stupidest decisions that anyone ever made: Van Houten joins the conspiracy.
Theres too many factors that point to Waverly being about getting the money that they didnt get the night before, Mansons statement to Atkins when she got back on night 1 proves Cielo was not a planned murder
DeleteGrim You ignorant Slut,
ReplyDeleteI have spoken first hand with Kay, Stovitz and others. If Charlie had used a solid, non douche lawyer and mounted a defense, there is almost no way he would be convicted. Until BUG and his fantasies came along no one thought he would be convicted. A GOOD LAWYER would have gotten Charlie's case severed from the others. I would ask for a separate trial and appeal to the fucking SCOTUS with "there has been zero evidence presented at this point that I was within ten miles of these killings I demand a separate trial." I would get it, I would delay it. Then IF and ONLY IF the drugged out babykillers, now already having been convicted, testified, I would laugh and say "you believe these losers?" I would have my client in short hair and a suit.
AGAIN- Charlie winning an acquittal would be easy. Hell, he should have had the case dismissed going into the trial.
He did not WANT That. He wanted attention. And a close reading of the literature makes it clear he had NO COMPREHENSION of conspiracy laws and Kanarek obviously never warned him about them.
The reason why all the posters here mock you and laugh at you is you keep walking into the closed door. You state something as true that is not then continue to argue it. It is Logic 101 fallacies with you every day.
You think because one day I posted that Shorty was beheaded in error (my verbiage was quite askew) that I am therefore wrong on 100 other things.
There are in Fact real Immutable realities
1- Your avatar picture is sick making
2- Your arguments are ignorant, ill informed and in error
3- Most people cross the street when they see you
Astro
ReplyDeleteWhile he is annoying, what is your point? "Official Narratives" never change. They cannot change. This does not make it true. cf The Official Narrative on the Vietnam War, The Iraq War and others
Col-
DeletePoint being, it’s become the official narrative because the family allowed it to become the official narrative. It’s been 49 years. If it wasn’t the real reason for the killings (in at least some of the killers minds) we’d have almost immediately heard different. It would have NOT become the official narrative.
Bugs didn’t create HS. It was established long before he was involved through multiple credible sources as interviewed by law enforcement etc.
If HS was so far fetched and not well supported by these multiple credible sources, it wouldn’t have flown.
I don’t believe HS was Charlie’s motive for murder. I believe it was his motive for conspiracy and how he got the band of misfits to battle the establishment. It gave them a unified cause.
By making ignorant claims like “He wasn’t even there” has zero to do with his culpability yet that’s his only argument.
Plus, Lil Man is just annoying as F.
Lol you consider Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, Virginia Graham, Ronnie "heroin adfict" Howard, etc credible?
DeleteLol im still laughing "credible sources" hahaha
DeleteVirginia "ive had more dicks in me than the urinals at Dodger Stadium" Graham the "Hollywood Hooker to the Stars" hahahahaha
DeleteLil Man- you cherry pick. There are MANY credible sources, far more than fingers and toes you can count on so I know that’s big numbers for you.
DeletePS Lil Man- still waiting on anything factual from you. So far, nada.
Lol "big man" ive thouroughly destroyed you and it was easy, over and out snowflake
DeleteJust to amuse myself tell me who you think was "credible" as far as proving helter skelter was?
DeleteLil Man- try and keep up here before you run off to your shift at Circle K- the burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you. I side with the actual victor here, the guy who locked them up because he proved his case.
DeleteLil Man = 0
Astro = 17
Snowflake youre the one who claimed there were numerous "credible" witnesses and im just questioning your statement, since theres so many i would think it should be easy to come up with at least one
DeleteLil Man- the jury deemed them credible when they unanimously convicted. Your side (the losing side) wasn’t able to paint them as non-credible during the trial.
DeleteLil Man = 0
Astro = 18
Snowflake- you still havent answered the question, who is a credible witness showing HS was a motive?
DeleteLil Man = 0
DeleteAstro = 19
Snowflake=0
DeleteRudyWebersHose= 20
Im going to just assume you cant come up with one credible witness and declare HS to be bullshit
DeleteLil Man- you’re asking me to prove something that was proven long ago. It’s one of the reasons Charlie died in prison.
DeletePS Lil Man- I’m scoring myself double in this last exchange because you ask the same question.
Lil Man = 0
Astro = 21
So ill take that as a no, you dont have any credible witnesses to the validity of HS as a motive, cool
DeleteSpecial Snowflake= 0
RWH= 22
Lil Man- aka: RudyWebersLittleHose aka: ScrambleHead Jr- the prosecution won. Manson et al lost. This was largely due to the jury finding the prosecution’s witnesses credible, Linda included.
DeletePS Lil Man- your side lost. Since Charlie died in prison I’m scoring myself infinity, since death is eternal and all that.
Lil Man = 0
Astro = Infinity x Infinity squared
Lil ScrambleHead Jr- you lost. It’s going to be ok. Please refrain from beating small animals or women in your frustration.
DeletePS Lil ScrambleHead Jr- there’s this fancy thing called Google and you can look and see what witnesses were called by the prosecution (the winners) and the defense (losers). To be fair to you, I haven’t once suggested every witness called by the prosecution (winners) was perceived as credible. As mentioned below, there are dozens and dozens- you can elect to educate yourself or you can keep beating your losing drum.
RWH said: "Even if Manson did say the legendary "now is the time for HS" crap (which i think is laughable) who says HS meant murder? None of the killers or Charlie ever said HS was a code word ir directly meant murder or killing unless i missed something"
ReplyDeleteActually, that is precisely what Bugliosi succeeded in accomplishing during the trial.
Col Scott said: "Until BUG and his fantasies came along no one thought he would be convicted. A GOOD LAWYER would have gotten Charlie's case severed from the others."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you.
While I have issues with Sanders, at one point he notes that as soon as Kasabian described her interaction with Frykowski that night and the moments just after everyone was convicted, it was over. You don't want to be in the courtroom for that. I'd have severed my client's trial regardless of who it was and delay. Get it off page one and let Kasabian tell her story multiple times before she gets to me. As Grim noted, no tears at Watson's trial. The further I get away from the others in time and space the better my chances.
Suit, tie, nice shoes, haircut, have him take notes and look deeply concerned and focused on the witnesses (notice how Deutsch describes Van Houten).
I think you'd have to put him on the stand but if he would listen, the theme would be 'my God I don't know what happened here. The games got away from me. I can't believe they did that. In fact, I couldn't believe it so I went there'...not sure about that last part.
Not sure how you get around night #2. Of course if they don't have Kasabian they don't have night #2.
Maybe subpoena Atkins after she is convicted and have her deny ever going to Venice. Have her and Krenwinkel testify, as Atkins did, that after the screen slashing they never saw Kasabian again. Get the Yana the Witch guy (forgot his name). If you have time you can find him.
I think you have to cross examine the hell out of Granado and not help Noguchi say Sharon Tate was hung.
Basically go after anything that is even slightly inconsistent with LK- the fence, why no one else saw Parent being shot, the towel around Sebring's head, etc. I'd bring up those hand written memories too and delve into Bugliosi's interview style. You have to stop his leading questions, too. Object less and better.
Anyway, I'm done.
Ah, he's proclaimed himself the victor maybe it can stop now.
ReplyDeleteDamn!
ReplyDeleteThat goes for anybody, id like to hear who you think is a credible voice in proving or even lending credibility to helter skelter as a motive
ReplyDeleteRWH said:
ReplyDeleteOk Peter so youre saying there was a specific target at Cielo? If you are that kind of shoots the HS theory down, who was the intended target or targets and what was the reason or reasons they were targeted, also by you saying there was an agreement among the parties to commit the crime youre involving Linda
The intended targets were whoever was in the house. Yes, I would include Linda. The prosecution also included Linda, that's why she need immunity.
RWH said:
Also Peter let me ask you this do you agree with CA law in the hypothetical case i described and if so do you feel comfortable living in a country that has that type of legal overreach (for lack of a better term)? My belief is that we are our own people as adults and that our actions are our own, me TELLING SOMEONE to commit a crime does not make me guilty of the crime if that person commits it.
Yes. If you ask someone to commit a crime it's solicitation. If you agree with someone that you to commit a crime that is conspiracy. We could be at Church together and I could say let's rob a house. I could do no more than tell you "the house we should rob is 123 Fake Street". Even if I did nothing else and you did all the heavy lifting. We are both equally guilty. Whatever the crime is determines the level of punishment.
RWH also said:
David in the hypothetical case you mentioned do i go on the creepy crawl with my friend or not? If so then yes i think id be guilty of burglary or breaking and entering but not murder if i didnt touch the homeowner or take part in his murder and i dont see how any fair minded person could see otherwise, the fact that in that case i could literally be put to death for simply being on the scene should scare the shit out of any Anerican who believes in freedom
As far as I know Hitler never killed anybody by his own hand.
RWH also said:
Also Astro the "FACT" is that HS was not proven to be the motive for the crimes, Vince managed to convince 12 people Charlie and the girls were guilty of murder but we dont know what those 12 people believe was the motive.
Don't have to prove motive. Doesn't matter what the motive was unless it was a "heat of passion" murder with no premeditation (i.e., you walk in on your spouse and lover and go crazy and kill them) that would be Second Degree.
Lol typical lawyer bullshit obfuscation shell game behavoir, pointing to something completely unrelated and incomparable to prove your point, obviously theres a huge difference Hitler and TLB, theres even less proof on Hitler because ive never read him directly saying ANYTHING related to an official Reich policy of exterminating Jews and other "undesirables"
DeleteVince said himself motive was extremely important in this case
DeleteYou also misunderstood my question Peter, I asked IF I DIDNT EVEN GO ALONG FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME are you comfortable with me being charged with pre meditated murder? Also i didnt say I ASKED the person to commit the crime i said I SUGGESTED HE SHOULD KILL HIM
DeleteI do agree SOLICITATION which i consider to be offering money to someone should be a crime although not murder but possibly accomplice to murder or knowledge beforehand
DeleteDavid wrote :
ReplyDeleteBut Clem is also lurking about and that suggests to me he was in the whole time. The judge thought so.
Then add one of the stupidest decisions that anyone ever made: Van Houten joins the conspiracy.
I'd pay to see the expression on Leslie's face, if/when she ever found out about about Clem's globetrotting musical career. The fact that Leslie has rotted in jail for half a century, while Clem walked after 14 years, must gnaw at her. There was not much age difference in the two at the time of the murders: Clem 18 and Leslie 19 (a few weeks short of 20). Clem had a guardian angel watching over him to avoid the same conspiracy charge that nailed Leslie for 7 murders.
( I know this has been discussed before, it just still amazes me whenever I see Leslie and Clem mentioned in the same breath)
On another unrelated note, California may just have done away with the felony murder rule.
ReplyDeletehttps://apnews.com/a5302e3fd7f04fe0965cc449d83e72a4
See, RWH, democrats and even a few republicans agree with you. You were on the right side on this one...ok, the left side.
In fact, it appears it is on the governor's desk.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437
Now, Gorodish add that to the Van Houten facial expression list: the law that convicted you no longer exists.
Actually im as politically right wing conservative as they come, i just believe in individual responsibility and as little government tyranny as possible, as ive always said i have no problem with Tex, Susan, Pat, Leslie, Linda, Bobby, Bruce and Clem being convicted and spending their lives behind bars
DeleteRWH. I suggest you read the briefing from the Manson appeal available at Cielodrive.com site. All you have to do is make a small monthly donation of a dollar for access to all the source materials in the various trials, appeals, and parole hearings.
ReplyDeleteIn the appellee's brief, there is a whole section devoted to various testimony from DOZENS of witnesses, not just family members, devoted to Charlie's own words regarding Helter Skelter.
All i see is yada yada yada yada but not one "credible" witness, surely there has to be ONE, youre a smart guy and an attorney, just give me one name
DeleteAs Astro said earlier, the jury decided who was credible when they reached their verdict.
DeleteIm just replying to his claim that there were numerous credible witnesses to the HS motive and again I ask, who? Watkins? DeCarlo? Poston? Crockett? Springer? Give me one CREDIBLE witness, someone without something to gain such as immunity from prosecution on other pending charges or someone who wasnt a complete space cadet or drug addict or hooker or just a piece of shit in general
DeleteI miss the days of Mario George Nitrini 111. I never thought I'd say that.
ReplyDeleteI never thought you’d say that either!
ReplyDeleteAs I recommended several posts ago --- don't feed the troll. The troll wants to engage, hook you into **argument**. Don't read the troll's posts, don't respond, pretend the troll is not there. The troll feeds off of attention in any form. Disruption to gain attention is its primary tool. Starve the troll (its not a cute troll).
ReplyDeleteOr you could come up with a credible witness to HS like i asked
DeleteRWH said: "Or you could come up with a credible witness to HS like I asked"
ReplyDeleteManson
Lol nice try
Deletewth is going on with this Hose crap? I thought it was bad with glory hounds like Panamint Patty and her boy Snoopy Van Houston
ReplyDeleteHoser- The reason why Charlie told BUG he had done an amazing job at the end was because HE HAD. He took a bunch of drugged out desert talk and weaved a conspiracy about it. Manson was not a HS witness. But Gregg J sure as shit was. For 15%. And Little Paul, hoping to take over the harem, for 15%. And Dennis Wilson for 5%. and so on. BUG was amazing because he took nonsense and weaved a theory around it. It is bullshit. It is a fucking lie. But 12 white people scared of the 60s believed it.
I agree in part but i believe Charlie himself gave him 75 percent of his case with his behavoir, its hard to imagine ANY jury taking Paul Watkins testimony seriously, Jakobsen ill give you but Dennis never even testify
DeleteTestified, typo
DeleteOne juror was a 20 year old long hair.
DeleteColonel Bunghole, you are a violence promoting disgusting piece of shit. Natural Born Killer, fuck you.
DeleteSomeone left the hose running
ReplyDeleteCome up with any answers yet "attorney"?
DeleteYou got me. I'm not really an "attorney" because I wont spoon feed answers to the "hose" that can't comprehend what a conspiracy is or proximate cause.
DeleteNever claimed to, all i asked for was one example of a "credible" witness for HS as a motive which you cant seem to provide
DeleteColScott said...
ReplyDeleteI have spoken first hand with Kay, Stovitz and others
You shouldn't leave out Father Christmas just because he didn't reply.
David said...
You sound a bit like RWH defending Manson- she didn't harm anyone
David ! You know how to hurt a guy !!
Aaaarrrggghhhh !! The ignominy ! 😆
Just shoot me now.
But seriously folks ! There is a universe of difference between the Hose's point and mine. His is that Charlie should never have been prosecuted, much less convicted. Mine is that what saved Linda was that she didn't actually kill anyone {and Susan dumped life} which contributed massively to the way she was perceived.
Every time we have discussed this you have told me I get everyone but not Atkins or Kasabian
Actually, last year I did ask you what happens if you had Susan. But in our conversation about her testifying and why, the idea was to replicate real world conditions as they stood at the time. It made no sense giving you Susan because in the real world of 1970, Susan was no longer available. Therefore, as you yourself admit here, without her you can't convict Linda. The point I was making was that with that in mind, one has to look at why Linda did testify. She didn't have to. But I do accept that that is a hindsight look.
I believe she was motivated by the same human frailties that other similarly situated criminals share: saving her neck and money. You believe she wanted to tell the truth and would have testified anyway and IMO that colors how you view the evidence when it comes to her. You believe her without a healthy dose of skepticism
The money I can't attest to but I'm not such an ignorant slut that I don't factor in her selfishness and self preservation. I think that was a huge part of her reasoning and I've never stated otherwise. When something like that is fused with a desire to tell the truth then you're talking paradoxes. You make it seem like I'm of the impression that she really was an altruistic angel despite the fact that for the last 3 years I've been pointing out across 4 sites a number of her culpabilities and flaws. I don't take your particular stance and when you bring certain awkward matters up, if I disagree or see a different side, I say so. As for healthy doses of skepticism, sometimes I think one can get trapped in that and refuse sometimes to give the benefit of the doubt. We've discussed it before but examples are the slashing of Parent and the shooting of Frykowski. No one remembers either. But Tex said he did it. But you stated that there's no evidence he did and therefore won't accept it. You're right technically but I'm content to accept that he did both even though I'm highly skeptical of much of what he has said.
Actually, there's hardly anyone in this saga I'm not skeptical of !
Associated Press said...
Critics say it’s unfair that accomplices can face execution or life prison sentences even if they were unaware that a killing would or did take place
Obviously it would need to be taken case by case because of the nuances involved in each case {if there are any} but broadly speaking, I agree with that. I've long felt it would make for a fascinating debate on these pages. Where most contributors stand on it, I haven't a clue.
Deb S said...
ReplyDeleteI miss the days of Mario George Nitrini 111. I never thought I'd say that.
LOL!! I always hoped he would come with some misterious but intriguing information ...
He was entertaining
I hope hes doing well in Camarillo
DeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteShe knew Grim, for Christ's sake! This borders on silly
I always thought she did. Until I read her say she didn't. Then I really thought about it. Her murder adventure to Venice didn't end in a death though it was meant to. 4 of the other attempts that night didn't end in deaths though they were supposed to. I don't doubt, as I've already stated, that she expected that the inhabitants of that house were killed. She said as much. But to know for a certainty given the rest of that night ? I don't think it's silly or absurd.
ColScott said...
You ignorant Slut
That's 'igneous.'
If Charlie had used a solid, non douche lawyer and mounted a defense, there is almost no way he would be convicted...A GOOD LAWYER would have gotten Charlie's case severed from the others....Then IF and ONLY IF the drugged out babykillers, now already having been convicted, testified, I would laugh and say "you believe these losers?" I would have my client in short hair and a suit...
I agree wholeheartedly with you on all of that. When Simon last year said it was an easy case against Charlie, I disagreed. Whenever someone has said it was an easy case, I disagree.
Charlie winning an acquittal would be easy
That I don't agree with. Personally, I'm wary when someone tells me that it would be easy to convict or acquit such and such a person. Real life I'm afraid, simply doesn't work that way.
He did not WANT That. He wanted attention
I also agree in part with that. However, he actively prevented severed cases because he was scared of Leslie, Pat and Susan blabbing ~ as they already had done when out of his presence. He felt he could control them if they were tried jointly. And you know what's funky, Scotty ? He did. And it went a long way towards screwing him royally.
And a close reading of the literature makes it clear he had NO COMPREHENSION of conspiracy laws and Kanarek obviously never warned him about them
I agree with that too. I once thought that he might have had some understatnding of conspiracy {I said as much to Melcher's Promises a few years back} but the more I listened to him the clearer it became that he knew not of what he spoke. As for Kanarek, I have to say, he is the character that I am most bewildered by. Sometimes, he made some excellent points. But in almost the same breath he'd negate his own progress. I honestly wonder if the seeds of his breakdown weren't making an early appearance back in '70/'71.
You state something as true that is not then continue to argue it. It is Logic 101 fallacies with you every day
I'm chuffed that you've taken so much notice of my igneous ways to actually reflect them back to me {Well, we have read Squeaky !}, even though what you state is, as they say in the vernacular, bollocks.
You think because one day I posted that Shorty was beheaded in error (my verbiage was quite askew) that I am therefore wrong on 100 other things
Not at all. You're wrong on 108 other things. And it's not because of Shorty.
But jests aside, you're right on loads of things. Most people here are. And don't flatter yourself, posting what you did once might be error. Twice is deliberate. But I only ever brought it up when you were getting a little too above yourself.
Your avatar picture is sick making
Wait till you see my next one !
Your arguments are ignorant, ill informed and in error
Well, I did go through your site. I learned from the best.
Most people cross the street when they see you
The streets in London are pretty narrow.
Grim said: "We've discussed it before but examples are the slashing of Parent and the shooting of Frykowski. No one remembers either. But Tex said he did it. But you stated that there's no evidence he did and therefore won't accept it."
ReplyDeleteWhoa there sparky, I certainly don't recall saying there was no evidence Watson didn't shoot Frykowski and obviously Parent was attacked with a knife. If I did I certainly misspoke/wrote. Yes, no one remembers either. And yes, I'm not convinced Watson slashed Parent. Any evidence of that is likely in the first interview by Atkins' lawyers. The alluded to in the taped interview where they mentioner saying the knives changed hands several times.
Grim said: "Actually, last year I did ask you what happens if you had Susan. But in our conversation about her testifying and why, the idea was to replicate real world conditions as they stood at the time. It made no sense giving you Susan because in the real world of 1970, Susan was no longer available."
Charlie walks too. Based upon that conversation I did the research. Give me one snitch and Kasabian goes to prison and sits with Van Houten. Without one it is harder to convict anyone and nearly impossible to convict Manson or Kasabian.
Grim said: "I think that was a huge part of her reasoning and I've never stated otherwise. When something like that is fused with a desire to tell the truth then you're talking paradoxes."
Grim, I'm sorry, you disregard Fleischman, the Yana guy (not sure why I can't remember his name- Breckenridge?) the fact, according to Sanders that her most damning testimony does not come out in an interview but is written down by her after an interview.
Maybe it's our backgrounds but boy I would have loved to have had that piece of paper and her on a witness stand.
'Let me understand, when Mr. Bugliosi interviewed you you didn't remember seeing Frykowski stumble out the door, look you in the eye?
Yes.
You mouthed to him 'I'm sorry' and then he fell into the bushes?
Yes.
But when you were initially interviewed you didn't remember that?
Yes.
But later, following Mr. Bugliosi's instructions that when you remembered something you had forgotten you wrote that down?
Yes.
Ponder that scenario a moment. Ponder the fact she didn't remember that event when interviewed.
Grim said: "I've long felt it would make for a fascinating debate on these pages. Where most contributors stand on it, I haven't a clue."
You might get your chance.
RudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDeleteits hard to imagine ANY jury taking Paul Watkins testimony seriously
It would be if he was on his lonesome. But it's not so hard if he and a couple of other people let you know that months before murders in which people would be slain in their own houses with things like "Pigs" written in blood on the walls, Charlie was telling folk that this is exactly what was going to happen and relatively so many people mention HS and it can obviously be seen to have played a large part in some people's thinking.
Was HS proven as a motive ? Well, the jury foreman HermanTubick, felt it was. Who determines what is proven ? You obviously don't accept it and there are many that don't. I find far more than those that see it as one of the motives.
The reason I encouraged you to read Simon's book is because he has a spin on it that is a departure from the norm. I remember him saying here that cases are rarely decided on the motive or words to that effect and that ignited a shitstorm of sorts. I found the reaction interesting.
Oh yeah I remember him. Wasn't he Australian?
ReplyDeleteThey could ve busted him for so many felonies. Bugs went for the bullseye.
ReplyDeleteIf only they'd ve crucified L Ron too. But he was way better at getting money. Gary Heidnick was a preacher who made a lot of money. He had dollar bills as wallpaper.
If the trials were severed, I would go after Sadie first. She confessed. Then Krenwinkel who left a print at the Tate House. Tex whenever he got back to California because he also left a print. You might be able to flip Tex or Katie after Sadie gets a death penalty, but do you want to since they did most of the killing. You might flip Sadie and then get her anyway for Hinman. But she was nuts so that probably wouldn't happen. I might flip Kasabian, but no leverage there because no physical evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe longer the rest delay, delay, delay, the longer those death penalty sentences get to sink in to the rest of them. And the farther out of Charlie's orbit they start to move.
But Kasabian, Manson, and Van Houten would be tough. The best evidence you could get would be the testimony of the other Family members. If we abandon Helter Skelter, I have what? Dianne Lake? DeCarlo? None of them can place any of the three at the scene. I might possibly flip one of the three. If I previously flipped Sadie, she's no help because ahe wasnt at LaBiancas to put the hat on Leslie. I bet given a little time, I could flip Leslie and that might get me Charlie. Again Kasabian would be tough unless someone flips because no physical evidence.
I could live with that. Charlie, Tex, Sadie and Katie get the death penalty. Maybe I lose Kasabian and Van Houten. But I would avoid people arguing endlessly over Helter SKelter which would be a net gain for society.
Now, if in the trial of one of them argued a copy cat motive, could I say the whole Hinman, TLB, Shea package was a criminal conspiracy and rope in Bruce and Clem? Again, I would need to flip Leslie or Kasabian to put Clem at the scene. I would have whats her name, the one that split the day after Hinman to testify to the formation of the conspiracy. But I would need Mary or Sadie to get Bruce.
In your first scenario youre willing to let a guy who jammed a bayonet into an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman have a chance at seeing daylight again?
DeleteAnd how is Leslie going to get you Charlie if as the official narrative goes shes a co conspirator at Labianca? (as far as him tying them up)
DeleteYes RWH. I would need something more than just her testimony. The leather thong. Possibly testimony from other Family members of Manson and Leslie leaving the ranch together. Harold True testifying Charlie had been to the house next door.
DeleteGrim --- stop feeding the troll, and also using 'bollocks' because that's not used in NA. It sounds like bullocks (bulls) or buttocks (ass) but nobody uses or knows bollocks. An equivalent is 'bullshit' or something thereof.
ReplyDelete"Her name was Pauline and she lived in a tree..."
DeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteYou are being the DA I assume?
Good stuff.
See as defense counsel For Manson I think Sadie is my key witness. I need her convicted but not ‘flipped’. I don’t want copycat. I want her to contradict Kasabian.
You think as DA delay helps you? Interesting.
But I can’t get around night #2.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteWhoa there sparky, I certainly don't recall saying there was no evidence Watson didn't shoot Frykowski and obviously Parent was attacked with a knife. If I did I certainly misspoke/wrote
I said that you had said there was no evidence that Watson did shoot Frykowski, not didn't.
Charlie walks too
Yeah. Which is why she was more important to the prosecution than vice versa.
I'm sorry, you disregard Fleischman, the Yana guy (not sure why I can't remember his name- Breckenridge?) the fact, according to Sanders that her most damning testimony does not come out in an interview but is written down by her after an interview
i. I don't believe Fleischmann when he says that it was his plan to get Susan to recant by Linda sending her letters filled with Charliespeak to destabilize her. Susan is very clear on why she recanted.
ii. I don't disregard Breckenridge. I said that his story had some parts that made me scratch my head. It does. But both here {in the creepy crawl thread} and on Cielo's site I broadly take on board that it's Linda he's writing about.
iii. I'm not sure what of Sanders I'm supposed to have disregarded. I do have a question though, which is are we aware of what Vincent T and Linda actually spoke about in their first meeting ? Does Sanders ever say what was covered ? That might elicit a clue as to why certain things were written down after. It has never appeared to me to be strange that an event is remembered at a later date but not immediately. Partly because it's happened to me many a time.
Grim said: 'I said that you had said there was no evidence that Watson did shoot Frykowski, not didn't.'
ReplyDeleteIf I did point it out because I was wrong. There is Watson's book, the fact he was shot, and the fact the only one who handled the gun was Watson despite, Aquarius.
Grim said: "Susan is very clear on why she recanted."
Atkins is at best unreliable as to everything she says and at worst a liar. She stabbed Frykowski in the back and inflicted what was likely the first 'potentially fatal wounds'.
I guess my better approach is- 'you tend to believe the killers' and/or participants when nothing suggests you should. There is a jury instruction that back in my day I loved, it is universal here and was given in this trial. It goes like this (paraphrase); if you find that a witness lied as to part of their testimony you can decide they lied as to all of their testimony.
Sorry, my friend, and I still hope to hoist a beer with you across the pond, don't quote Atkins.
Grim said: "....it's Linda he's writing about."
But, do you see the person he's describing: more important than her words, her actions. Where is that witness Bugliosi sold to the jury in the dress Joan Didion purchased? She is carefree, dancing talking light heartedly about how they break into rich pigs' home and kill them.
Grim said: "I'm not sure what of Sanders ...."
In HS Buglioli says he told Kasabian to write things down that she remembered after the interviews and didn't remember during them. He says she did. These are things she didn't remember during the interviews that went on for sixty hours. Things that came back to her.
Sanders in the 2002 edition has an image of one such note. That corroborates Bugliosi. From other research I can tell you he has most or all of them.
On that note is written the 'Sadie make it stop/looking in Frykowski's eyes' event [page 412]. It contains these words:
"I saw the image of Christ in him [Frykowski], I cried and I prayed, with all my heart. Then I saw who I was and who they were, and wanted me to be- He fell in the bushes and in my mind someone [the image of Kasabian covers the next written words].
Just read the words objectively.
It is a sales pitch. Bugliosi didn't ask for her quasi-religious experience but I damn well guarantee you her attorneys had her give it to him.
The whole damning testimony is there. 'Katy' chasing Gibbie "white gown" "knife up".
According to Bugliosi these notes are things she didn't remember when he interviewed her but only remembered later. I know you will justify it but how on the face of the earth could you only remember this 'later' and not when being asked: 'and then what happened'.
For sixty hours?
How could she not remember that and need to remember it and write it down, 'later'? The lawyer in me says: her lawyers 'helped' her remember after Bugliosi said: well, yes, that's helpful, but.....
Is she lying? As to the basic observable facts, probably not. As to the commentary,comentary, eye contact, religious epiphany? Yes, she is.
This is a novel, not a witness's recollection. They don't remember that way.
I dont remember anyone else handling the gun in Aquarius than Watson, maybe im forgetting it, who else did?
DeleteHose - not sure if you are being a bit of a shit disturber here - "I dont remember anyone else handling the gun in Aquarius than Watson, maybe im forgetting it, who else did?" - but I just had my morning coffee spraying out of my nose as I choked on it after seeing you using such a respected and scholarly source as Aquarius in your rebuttal. What's next - James at 15?
DeleteThe Cosby Show? You must be pulling our legs here.
Ha! Your next screen name - Cliff Huxtable's Sweater! Lance Kerwin's Condom!
Doug i was referencing Davids mentioning it in his post you fucking moron, it might help to read the post im responding too and I replied directly under his post, now fuck off
DeleteLike other pieces of FICTION that recreate the murders that this entire blog is about Aquarius is a part of it regardless of how ridiculous it might be, the directors and producers of that show had their take on the Cielo murders just like other pieces of FICTION like Helter Skelter or even worse The Family, now go play in traffic Doug
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSprinkler - it's all good bro...I was taking the piss/razzin ya.
DeleteMight wanna switch to decaf. No buck knife for you!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePanamint Patty- Your inability to correctly read a work of art surprises no one here. NBK does not promote violence in any way. You and Snoopy with your rubbings and fireplace bricks certainly do reflect badly on TLB Researchers but there will always be the fringe lunatics, looking to get signatures from killers who sing in pubs. It's delightful to note that you will end your days staring at a wall while trying to convince it to move out of your way.
ReplyDeleteDreath- I apologize for many of the troll commenters here. Grim feels the need to commemorate every fart his brain makes. I say we tolerate him because he has at least twice prompted a valuable new train of thought for me. The fact that I was banned for a million posts for pointing out repulsive behavior while the entire blog was formed via Liz stealing Facebook fotos kinda sets the tone. Your articles are smart and thought provoking.
Dreath I no longer believe we will ever learn the motive. This is why I stopped the only official TLB Blog
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1st the money, then the power, THEN the women. Oh that assbackward Charlie!
ReplyDeleteRodney Dangerfield was hilarious in NBK. I was the only one laughing in the theater though. I guess for some people rape, child abuse and incest outweigh comedy genius ("I'll show her a little tenderness later; she's not gonna see my gave for an hour!")
The motive was fools acting the fool btw. Hinman owed Bobby for sex favors; Tate et al was Tex trying to impress the girls; Labianca was Charlie showing them how to do it right after they bragged about their murder mess; Shea was them getting into a groove.
I could also see Cielo being an MDA power play and Leno's debts being the motive for Waverly with a twist of CIA (Tex the Manchurian Candidate and Chuck Summers the handler) and Hinman could ve been invited to join the family with ella jo or sassy bottoms as the bait
"Face" not "gave" in my Rodney quote sorry
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRobert C said...
ReplyDeleteGrim - stop....using 'bollocks' because that's not used in NA
My mode of expression is like Joseph's coat of many colours.
David said...
Sorry, my friend, and I still hope to hoist a beer with you across the pond, don't quote Atkins
Bugliosi in HS and McGann in that 2009 LA Times article corroborate Atkins the unreliable regarding the path to recantation as does Manson in that Rolling Stone article from June 1970. I wouldn't just rely on Susie ~ look where it got Charlie !
I look forward to a beer and a sweet sherry with your good self.
ColScott said...
I say we tolerate him because he has at least twice prompted a valuable new train of thought for me
You can send me the cash anytime ~ I'm on paypal
Grim feels the need to commemorate every fart his brain makes
Such are the vagaries of residing on the dark side of the moon.
She claimed in her book that she recanted because "family" members knew where her son was and had kidnapped him before and that Bugliosi promised to keep her in protective custody in the jail and didnt
DeleteDuffman says a lot if things.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteI know you will justify it
As opposed to conclude that there is only one reading of it ? When a particular scenario is presented, unless it is air tight and solidly clad and leaves no room in which to dance, then there is weighing up that needs to be done and that's all I try to do. You feel that Linda was lying about the 'after hours' stuff in her notes. I think she was a Hippie. I think there are things that may well have been remembered after heavy duty interviews about Family life and murder. Why ? Because that is something that is common to human beings. It's certainly been common to me. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover James Breckenridge had a whole lot of remembering to do when he wrote that article of his ~ it would have been written long after August of '69.
how on the face of the earth could you only remember this 'later' and not when being asked: 'and then what happened'. For sixty hours?
I guess, the same way when making points in a post, afterwards remembering other things that one may have wanted to/intended to say that got lost in a particular train of thought or explanation.
The example you gave doesn't change the essential point of what she says she saw. It's fluffy and all the rest but how important was it ? The other perps weren't convicted because Linda said she saw the image of Christ in Frykowski.
She is carefree, dancing talking light heartedly about how they break into rich pigs' home and kill them
That's not how it was put at all. The connection between the 'cutting capers' {breaking into rich pigs' homes ~ interestingly, she doesn't call the householders 'pigs'} and “Yeah, well they’re killing people like that out in LA” is never made in the article. They're in two different places, dealing with two separate subjects. Furthermore 'Yana' never ascribes the killing of the “Pigs that try to act like freaks” to her group, just an anonymous "they." According to Breckenridge, she's saying that's what "they" are doing in LA not "my group are doing it and I'm part of it."
Robert C said...
'bollocks'....that's not used in NA
I have it on unassailable authority with the necessary documentation that this is not so {if it were the Col, I'd have said it was bollocks !}.
'Bollocks' generally means 'rubbish', 'bullshit', 'crap', 'not true' but 'the dog's bollocks' {analogous to 'the cat's meow', 'the cat's whiskers', 'the bees knees' [which in itself is a play on 'the business']} means 'brilliant', 'fantastic', 'the best', 'wonderful'.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteUntil BUG and his fantasies came along no one thought he would be convicted
Until Bugliosi looked outside the glass menagerie {used in the original sense of the word} that many lawyers {no offence David; you're my kind of lawyer} inhabited, they possibly had a good point. But ultimately, that don't mean shit. By 1954 Hungary had not lost a football match for 4 years. They'd scored 13 in 2 games against England and a couple of weeks before the world cup final had beaten West Germany 8-3 and now, having put 4 in each game against Brazil and the holders Uruguay were facing W.Germany again. They were 2-0 up in the first 8 minutes.
But they lost 3-2.
The same thing had happened to Brazil 4 years previously. They put 13 goals past Spain and Sweden in the final pool and only needed a draw against Uruguay to be world champs. They went a goal up. They lost 2-1. The same thing happened to the Dutch in 1974 and Brazil in 1982. Every expert on the game pegged all those sides as surefire winners.
They all ended as losers.
So the fact that 'most' lawyers thought there was no way Manson would be convicted tells us just how wrong the experts can be. The worst bit is that it's probably that more than anything that inflated Buglioi's ego to the point where one could see it from the moon on those Apollo space missions.
"Most" lawyers were right at the beginning of the trial, what they didnt expect was what a circus Charlie would turn it into, if hed had stayed quiet, cleaned himself up and let competent counsel do their jobs he more than likely would have walked
DeleteGrim: "I have it on unassailable authority with the necessary documentation that this is not so {if it were the Col, I'd have said it was bollocks !}."
ReplyDeleteSorry Grim but your unassailable is assailed. Baloney, BS, HS, nonsense, no way, etc. all work but not bullocks in NA (with the exception of perhaps a small remote isolated Scottish hamlet somewhere in Canada). I first came across that term in my 50's watching an english movie.
Grim said "So the fact that 'most' lawyers thought there was no way Manson would be convicted tells us just how wrong the experts can be."
At that time, Manson was going to be convicted via the full weight of the US government and the full weight of Hollywood regardless of any pesky legalese. You cannot find a heavier living weight than that in the universe as we know it regarding power, control and money. Being fully conscious back then I distinctly remember thinking he's going down no matter what - it wasn't debatable. His metaphorical termination was preordained. In the highly unlikely event the law failed to convict, he would have been sanctioned.
Pretty established - worldwide- from 1977 onward...
Deletehttps://goo.gl/images/1g0rdI
Only around 7yrs after the term "creepy crawl" for example
To Grim -- by the way, we rarely use 'rubbish' either.
ReplyDeletePeter said...
ReplyDeleteI could live with that. Charlie, Tex, Sadie and Katie get the death penalty. Maybe I lose Kasabian and Van Houten. But I would avoid people arguing endlessly over Helter SKelter which would be a net gain for society
If you haven't utilized Linda as a witness and you've gone after Susan you have no one to rope in Charlie, you have no one to rope in Linda because what Susan said at the GJ couldn't be used against the others. If she's recanted, it can be used against her but it puts the prosecution back to Square one reagarding her co~defendants. But the findings of the ME and Dianne Lake nets you Van Houten.
With HS, what would happen is that some bright spark would eventually say "Hey, I wonder if HS was a motive and if Manson has gotten away with murder ?" and someone else would say "don't be so stupid !" and the arguments would reign like the Queen.😆
RudyWebersHose said...
ReplyDelete"Most" lawyers were right at the beginning of the trial, what they didnt expect was what a circus Charlie would turn it into, if hed had stayed quiet, cleaned himself up and let competent counsel do their jobs he more than likely would have walked
Well, we'll never know. The fact of the matter is that Charlie wasn't convicted on his behaviour in the courtroom.
But the Col wasn't refering to the beginning of the trial, he was referring to 7 months earlier when Caballero was certain Atkins would never testify in a trial and what she had told the GJ couldn't be used against him and Kasabian wasn't in the picture because no one, at the time she came to LA, knew what she had actually seen or the strength of her involvement.
In his and Gentry's book Bugliosi more or less notes that at the end of '69 and start of '70, the general consensus among the law fraterniy was that Manson would walk. I have no way of proving it but I suspect his book was at least in part, a two fingered salute at the skeptics of the period. One gets the impression from what others said about him that he wasn't exactly the most liked guy on the block.
As for him cleaning up and behaving, he'd still have been facing exactly the same case and weight of evidence from a variety of directions with Linda's eyewitness stuff from the 2nd night so the ease with which you seem to feel he would have walked wouldn't really have been so easy after all.
ColScott said...
He had Sadie's confession to the inmates. He has Tex's print
Katie's Exemplar. He had all the evidence to execute all the actual killers
Actually, only what he has against Sadie and Leslie is surefire. Earlier, David and yourself pointed out that a snitch was needed to bag Charlie and Linda. Well, those prints found at the scene, not being bloody ones, need someone to make sense of why they were there. Prints in themselves don't prove someone committed murder.
Had Sadie not blabbed, it would be interesting to know what would have happened when Tex's print was found and he'd said something like, oh yes, he'd gone to see Jay at 7pm knowing he'd be there. There were quite a few prints at Cielo that weren't accounted for and any of them could have belonged to one of the killers. Why the assumption that a print from someone in the system for public intoxication means that they've caught their killer ? You spoke earlier about what a good lawyer would have done with Charlie ~ with Sadie not testifying and Linda not part of the plan at that point, a good lawyer could have fought the implications of the prints. Not easily, but doable.