Monday, February 11, 2019

Tex Watson local Dallas News Story From 1969 Plus Raw Footage





Appreciation once again to Tom H



39 comments:

Doug Smith said...

Nice!
I've only previously seen around 40% of this
The background shots of the area really show the rural nature of Watson's Texas home.

hippie doll said...

You can definitely see why California was an exciting, more happenin place to be, compared to his hometown!

Peter said...

You spelled "that shithole" wrong.

Logan said...

Love love love this footage. A window to a world lost forever, but still barely recognizable

Monica said...

Great footage.

Off topic...I believe this is the day, 50 years ago, that Polanski signed the lease on Cielo. They moved in on the 15th. How happy Sharon must have been on this day. I'm fascinated with anniversaries and there are a lot of them coming up, sadly.

F'ing Tex.

David said...

Monica Said: "I believe this is the day, 50 years ago, that Polanski signed the lease on Cielo......there are a lot of them coming up, sadly."

You are correct. And I very much agree with you on your second thought, there.

"The Polanskis signed a rental agreement on February 12, 1969, at $1,200 a month, and moved in three days later."

Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 56). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

What a pretty little area. Wonder how Watson would feel if you could show him his footage... any pangs of nostalgia? Any sense of regret that he might never see this place again? (Although I'm sure it looks different now) Or would his only regret be that he'll never get to minister to them about Our Lord Jesus?

AstroCreep said...

I’d be willing to bet ole Tex thinks he’ll be back there when he reaches the heavenly kingdom, embraced by Jesus.

While I DO subscribe to the thought that victims families are better served figuring out how to forgive their family member’s murderer, I feel that is more for the family member to find peace, NOT to absolve the murderer from the crime.

I don’t care how much Jesus he peddles in prison, Tex will be judged and sent to the pit of hell.

I don’t believe in the physical heaven or hell- to me, it’s a last reflection of the type of person you’ve been while you’re here on earth. What can Tex say about that while he’s lying there waiting to die? ‘I’ve been a good person minus all those brutal killings?’ ‘Except for 1969 I was a model human?’ Sure Tex, keep on believing.

Matt said...

AstroCreep said...
...I DO subscribe to the thought that victims families are better served figuring out how to forgive their family member’s murderer, I feel that is more for the family member to find peace, NOT to absolve the murderer from the crime.


I agree wholeheartedly. Hate and resentment do nothing to harm the target of those thoughts and emotions. It does however eat the person alive who is feeling them.

The perpetrators of these heinous crimes also need to find a way to cope. Most "find God". If not for (silly) things like that they would find it impossible to cope with the grim reality of their situation. In a prison interview I can remember Watson giving his views on "faith vs works". Naturally he falls on the side valuing faith before works, it's how he is able to believe that his life has some value. Poor fucker...



chris hannel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinAnn74 said...

$1,200 a month in 1969? Wow!! That was so expensive! That house, while very cozy looking with a beautiful yard & pool looked a bit run down. I wonder how much they paid in rent for Patty Duke's home?

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

Hate and resentment do nothing to harm the target of those thoughts and emotions. It does however eat the person alive who is feeling them

Yet, forgiveness is not something that comes naturally to human beings ~ not when we are talking about 'heinous.'

The perpetrators of these heinous crimes also need to find a way to cope

That would be true only if the perps came to genuinely regret and be remorseful for what they'd done. And if someone is genuinely remorseful, then we're onto a whole other ball game in which we then have a matter that we cannot avoid; how do we cope with someone who has committed a heinous crime for which at some point they come to be truly sorry and remorseful ?
It seems to me that many that have views on this subject that are on the side of "right" have a far harder time coping with a genuinely repantant and remorseful offender than the offender does coping with what they've done. It's not often one hears about an offender that is so overwhelmed with the guilt of what they've done that in their remorsefulness, they suffer depression, kill themselves, self harm or demand to eschew something like parole that they may stay in jail.

Most "find God"

I'm not at all sure that that is true.
But if it were, that in itself is a hugely risky move. God may forgive, but it's a mistake to think that that is all there is to it and that the forgiven person feels great and doesn't have to progress. It's ironic; God's forgiveness is actually the door that leads to much anguish for those of us that are self centered. Far from being a complete one off from which a person walks off thinking they've beaten some kind of heavenly rap, it's only the beginning of a life of constant change that the believer doesn't control, whether you have human support around you or not.

If not for (silly) things like that they would find it impossible to cope with the grim reality of their situation

I disagree. Having been both atheist {and for some of that time, a right scummy thief} and currently a follower of Christ, there's a very, very real degree to which coping with grim realities is actually a heck of a lot easier when you don't have to have God as part of the equation. And the deeper one goes with God, the harder it is because one's sense of wrongdoing to others is so much sharper because you reach a point where you can't in all good conscience not view other humans as immensely valuable, even when they treat you like toilet paper.

In a prison interview I can remember Watson giving his views on "faith vs works". Naturally he falls on the side valuing faith before works, it's how he is able to believe that his life has some value

The faith vs works debate is as old as the hills and is generally misunderstood, in my experience, by many people. But certainly biblically, the concept is that faith without works is dead. The two go hand in hand, they don't stand aside from each other in some sort of competition. "I will show you my faith by my works" as the saying goes.
I prefer the word 'actions' over 'works.' 'Works' is so 17th century and heroin fix~y.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

While I DO subscribe to the thought that victims families are better served figuring out how to forgive their family member’s murderer, I feel that is more for the family member to find peace, NOT to absolve the murderer from the crime

It's an interesting exercize looking at all the comments in the various TLB site archives over the years, regarding Suzan LaBerge when she forgave Tex for murdering her Mum and Stepdad. You couldn't pump a tyre up with the air that came her way to commend her for such a move. That is, barely anyone has. Doris Tate did the opposite. Steven Kay wasn't impressed. The general online consensus was either that [a] it was a Tex manipulation scam as she came out to bat for him at a parole hearing {I think it was 1990},[b] She and Tex had obviously colluded in Rosemary's death {with all the colourful 'evidence' of her living near Tex, or suspicions of her tipping off Charlie when her and her Mum & Stepdad returned to LA from Lake Isabella} or [c] she was a hypocrite for forgiving Tex but 'not' Pat & Leslie {though no one could possibly know that}.
While I don't think she was wise to come out to bat for him at that parole hearing, I think she showed real courage in forgiving him and publicly so. It's doubtful she would have done it were she also not a Christian at the time. In being a Christian, it wasn't about making herself feel better {one may not. One never knows if they'll even feel good, let alone better}, it was about doing what she believed God was telling her to do. Any peace she may have gleaned would in spite of, not because of.
But here's a thing. It did not absolve Tex of the crime. Nothing could absolve him of the crime. Forgiveness is not about absolving but about no longer holding something against someone {or some group or nation or organization or whatever} when you have every right to.

I don’t care how much Jesus he peddles in prison, Tex will be judged and sent to the pit of hell.
I don’t believe in the physical heaven or hell- to me, it’s a last reflection of the type of person you’ve been while you’re here on earth


Well, then what possible difference does it make ? Let's say for the sake of argument that once you're dead, that's it. Nothing possibly follows, no judgement, no punishment, nothing even to look forward to. Then you'd have to conclude that every murderer has beaten the rap. Even if they die a gruesome death in jail at the hands of an inmate. Ultimately, nothing makes any difference. We'll all go the same way to nothingness. There isn't, arguably, {and many criminals do argue this, either verbally or in their actions} any real compelling reason to behave yourself and not get involved in crime.
So basically, if there's nothing there, Tex won't be judged and sent anywhere. He'll die an old man that was locked up most of his life, whose existence was funded by hardworking people, some of whom hated him.

What can Tex say about that while he’s lying there waiting to die? ‘I’ve been a good person minus all those brutal killings?’ ‘Except for 1969 I was a model human?’ Sure Tex, keep on believing

There are loads of people all over the planet since the dawn of human existence that basically think like that. They may not have killed but have nevertheless done things they would not have accepted were it done to them, yet feel, on balance they're OK, good people, even. Strikes me as a very human way to think about oneself.

beauders said...

Grim isn't the job of the real Christian to forgive all?

AstroCreep said...

Grimace said: “Well, then what possible difference does it make ? Let's say for the sake of argument that once you're dead, that's it. Nothing possibly follows, no judgement, no punishment, nothing even to look forward to. Then you'd have to conclude that every murderer has beaten the rap”

I guess that’s where you and I differ. I’m of the opinion that heaven (in a non physical way) is your legacy. That people can lie to themselves is a real thing, I agree... however, I think when the time comes, they’ll all reflect back and realize what a giant POS human they have been- in other words, they immortalize themselves (as do others based on the legacy they’ve left behind) as bad (hell).

It’s why I’m not a fan of organized religion. There are HORRIBLE people that pose as clergy, priests, cardinals, bishops, and every other denominational representative. These people are predators and monsters and have done horrendous acts. To say at some point in life ‘I accept Jesus xyz’ and be forgiven for all sins is BS and I can’t subscrive to anything that believes this to be fact.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

I guess that’s where you and I differ. I’m of the opinion that heaven (in a non physical way) is your legacy. That people can lie to themselves is a real thing, I agree... however, I think when the time comes, they’ll all reflect back and realize what a giant POS human they have been- in other words, they immortalize themselves (as do others based on the legacy they’ve left behind) as bad (hell)

Life is a continuum. Assume for a moment that a person lives for 80 years. In that time they will do a variety of things. Supposing that someone did do something horrendous at 30 but spent the other 50 years doing great stuff from which thousands of people benefitted. Does that cancel out the horrendous stuff they did when they were 30 ? No, but are they going to be pegged forever to a period of horrific acts ? Even if they've moved away from being that person and holding that mindset that they held at the time ?
In truth, a concept of legacy makes absolutely no difference if the same fate awaits the POS human and the person that goes around doing what is regarded as good. For the dude that wrote "Ecclesiastes" that's the central hub of his dilemma.

It’s why I’m not a fan of organized religion

Although I know what is generally meant as 'organized religion' I have to say, I detest organized religion. There's honestly very little that's organized about life with God leading the charge ! It's us as human beings that tend to 'organize.' The church may have mutated into an organization but it should never be in essence. Rather, it's meant to be an organism. The difference is anything but subtle, though it is nuanced.

There are HORRIBLE people that pose as clergy, priests, cardinals, bishops, and every other denominational representative. These people are predators and monsters and have done horrendous acts

I agree. Equally though, there are probably a lot more that that does not apply to. I wouldn't reject the concept or reality of government because some of its representatives are shitbags. I wouldn't dismiss actors because some have been shown to be wrecked wasters or film directors because of the casting couch mentality that pervades some of even 21st century thinking.
And an important word you use there is pose. Power can corrupt, regardless of whether one is in a supposedly caring and nurturing environment or not. People are people and people make choices, whether they are looked at as vanguards of right and wrong.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

To say at some point in life ‘I accept Jesus xyz’ and be forgiven for all sins is BS

If only it were that simple.
Being forgiven by God of all one's sins up to that point takes into account some interesting notions. Firstly, the matter begins with God, it's God's initiative. Which implies that any 'sins' or wrongful actions against a person or group or nation are sins against God that God feels.
Secondly, it's not really for any person to say that it can't happen if God decides that it's happening. If he wants to forgive, that's his prerogative, irrespective of what anyone happens to think.
Thirdly, the person that accepts Jesus isn't going down to the shops to claim on a winning lottery ticket that they only paid a $ for. Acceptance of Jesus is a process that takes into account some hardline realities. It may be couched in a singular decision at a specific time but its ramifications are lifelong. One has to accept why one is in need of Jesus and God's forgiveness. Not as easy as it seems on paper. You don't have to have murdered or raped or abused or stolen or neglected to be in need of that. On top of that, one needs to understand that this is a life turnaround. One is letting God in and the necessary direction that comes with such a move. It is almost never apparent early on just what this may entail, which is why down the line, so many people fall back into old ways or drop out altogther. One has little control whether you'll run into positive influences or some of those predators you mentioned earlier. It is as easy to accept Jesus and later decide that you no longer want to have anything to do with him as it is to not go that way in the first place. The acceptance is simply the beginning of what may well be a long and drawn out saga.
Fourthly, if one is not genuine, either at the start of conversion or at any point along the way, God will know. The concept is "I will show that I trust God by what I do," so just mouthing acceptances and platitudes ultimately is pretty lame.

beauders said...

isn't the job of the real Christian to forgive all?

While I wouldn't describe it as a job, yes. When a person genuinely asks God for forgiveness, God elects to no longer hold against that person that which he has the right to and requires those that choose to follow him to do likewise in their daily dealings.
It can be easier to forgive someone of a rape or a murder than to forgive them for embarrassing you when you were trying to dance at a party or whatever. The reality is that each one of us will have things that we would find it really hard to forgive and many others looking at the list might think, "oh, that's nothing !"

AstroCreep said...

Grim, I agree with most all that you’ve written. In human form, we are to forgive in order to find peace. It’s not our job to judge, that’s left to a higher power to sort out- which is my point.

Your reference to a lifetime of good deeds being erased by one horrific act- I view that the same as a grade in a class- you can score a 100% on an exam but fail one test and your grade average is lower. Most of us fall into this category. We have pure intentions and are good at heart. We make mistakes. We do things we’re not proud of. And we feel guilt and remorse for our acts. I’d put a person who consumes drugs and/or alcohol and gets behind the wheel and kills a child in this category. It wasn’t his intent to kill and will probably be consumed by guilt for an eternity. Could I forgive this person if he killed one of my children? Yes. It make take years but eventually I know I have to forgive this person or I will be as consumed as they likely are. If I can’t forgive this person, it will affect my life and interactions that make me good and pure intentioned. Then....

There are some people that are just evil. No amount of good deeds will excuse their evil. I believe Tex is one of those people.

Milly James said...

The Apostles Creed - Forgive us our trespasses as we should forgive those that trespass against us. - How does God feel about those of us really can't forgive? Something that really sticks in our respective craws?

brownrice said...

Regarding good deeds -vs- bad ones, here's what the composer of Helter Skelter has to say...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85ipUgy5B4

...and it sounds about right.

Doug Smith said...

Speaking to both AstroCreep & Grim Traveller:

Reference, perhaps, Mass Killer of his ENTIRE FAMILY - John List. Led a nondescript and productive life both before AND after slaughtering his family in 1971. Even doing significant community outreach in Colorado prior to his 1989 capture.

His belief in his OWN fate after death ruled out his committing suicide - but NOT slaughtering his ENTIRE FAMILY and, fleeing...eluding capture...for 18 years:

"List later expressed a degree of remorse for his crimes: "I wish I had never done what I did," he said. "I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since." When asked by Connie Chung in 2002 why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that suicide would have barred him from Heaven, where he hoped to be reunited with his family."

Doug Smith said...

Astro - "There are some people that are just evil. No amount of good deeds will excuse their evil. I believe Tex is one of those people."

110%

Doug Smith said...

Some people are just wired in ways that some/most of us will either never grasp/believe/mesh with...or, simply are not wired ourselves, in such a way as to comprehend such thinking

grimtraveller said...

Milly James said...

The Apostles Creed - Forgive us our trespasses as we should forgive those that trespass against us. - How does God feel about those of us that really can't forgive? Something that really sticks in our respective craws?

The thing with the various sentences and soundbites that get used from the bible is that they are usually stripped from the context in which they were presented and are often paraded as rules. Christ spoke a lot about forgiveness and almost always put the matter in a much wider context of "this is God's nature and this is what God requires of you and this is the kind of person you should be aiming towards being ~ like God, despite your limitations." More importantly, he lived forgiveness, which gave him the freedom to expect others that followed him to do the same. Doug earlier spoke of being wired "in ways that some/most of us will either never grasp/believe/mesh with, or, simply are not wired ourselves, in such a way as to comprehend such thinking" and in a way, that's what many of us are like in relation to God and therefore whatever God might want or whatever God may deem to be wrong. Most of us aren't on that wavelength for great swathes of our lives so it doesn't even occur to us that God could be pissed with us, especially if we don't consider what we're doing to be "bad" or "wrong." Those that choose to follow Christ are held to a far more stringent standard of behaviour simply because by electing to trust in God, one is showing the difference that God is making in that life and what it means to have God's direct activity going on. Far from making that person "better" than everyone else, it only serves to highlight just how much in need of God and how flawed we are. By the same token, it shows that not only is God not out of reach, but that anyone can hear from him and be picked up again when we make the mistakes that are inevitable with being a free thinking being in the rather odd position of being in a relationship with God.
Directly answering your question, a person that comes to trust in God through Christ knows what it took to get them to that place. God didn't have to forgive. Many of the things we have to forgive are singular. For God it was multiplied by only he knows how much. He's not stupid, he well knows what he's asking. He knows how hard it is to forgive. If one has been hurt the last thing one wants to do is no longer hold it against the perp. But he's basically saying, "well, I was in your situation and it is in my nature to forgive ~ learn from me and get it in your soul.." The person that doesn't want to finds themselves in a difficult dance and it may well play on their mind for a long time because they know what they need to do. But as was said earlier, life is a continuum. It might take you 10 years to forgive. Far better to just do it and struggle with the residue if it should pop up unexpectedly every now and again {as it may well do. It certainly does with me} than resolutely refuse to do it. If it's clear that you are to forgive or you won't be forgiven then by not forgiving you're both telling God to get stuffed and hurting yourself and the relationship which is supposed to sustain and guide you. It's showing that one doesn't trust God and that's not something he feels wonderful about.
When Suzan LaBerge became a Christian, can you imagine what went through her head when she felt God making clear to her that she had to forgive the chief butcher of her Mum and Stepdad and destroyer of her family {she had a breakdown} and the lives of her and Frank ? I wouldn't mind betting she didn't want to do it. I wouldn't want to.
But she did.



grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

There are some people that are just evil. No amount of good deeds will excuse their evil

I don't think the issue is about excusing a past evil. It is undeniable that no matter what happens on earth, nothing can ever undo something that has already been done. But we're still left with the dilemma of what does one do with someone who committed a horrific crime when they were young, and then moved, gradually {if not always perfectly} away from that person and that mindset.

Doug Smith said...

Some people are just wired in ways that some/most of us will either never grasp/believe/mesh with...or, simply are not wired ourselves, in such a way as to comprehend such thinking

But if some people are just wired that way, then they are only behaving according to what they are. And that ultimately means that they can't really be responsible for the things they go on to do. Quite often there's more choice involved in the things we do than is sometimes comfortable to admit. If Charles Watson is intractably wired evil {evil as we count it, that is}, then why have we not seen any evidence of this since 1969 ? That's a heck of long time to suppress your nature. That he's in the structured environment of jail is no answer as Jeffrey Dahmer and Whitey Bulger would attest to....if they were still here.

brownrice said...

Regarding good deeds -vs- bad ones, here's what the composer of Helter Skelter has to say...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85ipUgy5B4]...and it sounds about right

It's kind of paradoxical but I don't really think in terms of good deeds vs bad ones. Who on earth keeps count of that ? How does one even quantify that or where you are on the scale ?
Sometimes when watching "The Apprentice" my wife, kids and I are sometimes amazed at the person that gets fired in a particular week. We just can't see why they got canned. Then the firer explains their reasoning and then one might go "ah...." They'd've picked up on something that I just didn't catch. Sometimes, what we thought was a good bit of work wasn't seen in that way at all.
I'm reminded of a newspaper that was started for the express purpose of printing good news because the proprietors felt that the general news was filled with negative stuff all the time. They folded after a few editions because people weren't interested in reading about things that should have happened anyway, "Parent takes child to dentist who commends child on clean teeth."

Milly James said...

Grim - Thank you for your very comprehensive response. I try to detest the behaviour rather than the person but I'm frequently to be found grinding my teeth! Others are clearly made of more gracious stuff.

Doug Smith said...

From said - " If Charles Watson is intractably wired evil {evil as we count it, that is}, then why have we not seen any evidence of this since 1969?"

Perhaps be has continued to manipulate/deceive/use people and/or the system without regard for others and, to advance his own standing within a system.

In many ways, he has just propagated the Manson way while in prison. He has built himself up using hyperbole and exaggeration. He has made himself seem more important and, perhaps powerful to those around him via these actions.

Because - that's how you survive in prison. And/or in a society/environment so immersed in such concepts as "codes" and, "rules" and "accountabilities" aas well as, "hierarchies" and, "systems" and, ultimately - "penance" and, "redemption."

He's just dealing it out a bit differently BUT, ultimately, he is really just SERVING himself.

***Part of me is shaking the tree here...but, more of me is really trying to read between the lines and, to see The Rev Stabmaster for whom he really is***

Doug Smith said...

GRIM SAID ^^^^ NOT FROM SAID

grimtraveller said...

Doug Smith said...

Perhaps he has continued to manipulate/deceive/use people and/or the system without regard for others and, to advance his own standing within a system

Or maybe that's simply one side of the outcome of the steps that he took in becoming a Christian. The other side is that it continues to count against him in parole hearings because he puts his faith in Christ way ahead of anything any of the parole board recognizes as tangible evidence of his changes or anything its members can grasp without having to have faith in Watson himself.
Being a Christian also didn't stop him from getting stabbed ~ an irony if there ever was one.

In many ways, he has just propagated the Manson way while in prison. He has built himself up using hyperbole and exaggeration. He has made himself seem more important and, perhaps powerful to those around him via these actions

I don't think he has propogated the Manson way as such. That said, it's difficult to actually glean from him exactly what the Manson way was when he was in the Family.

Because - that's how you survive in prison. And/or in a society/environment so immersed in such concepts as "codes" and, "rules" and "accountabilities" as well as, "hierarchies" and, "systems" and, ultimately - "penance" and, "redemption."

It's one way to survive in prison. But not every prisoner is a dumb cluck that can't see through a con that runs over a 50 year period. He had his try at a con before he was ever tried with the Atascadero episode.

He's just dealing it out a bit differently BUT, ultimately, he is really just SERVING himself

I don't know. One outcome of going the way he has is that some people may lay off you. But not everyone will, as we saw with when he got that shank in his back. And I'll say it again, being a Christian an stating it over and over doesn't appear to have won him throngs of admirers or brought him any closer to parole.

Part of me is shaking the tree here...but, more of me is really trying to read between the lines and, to see The Rev Stabmaster for whom he really is

That's the thing. Most people that comment on him can't get away from 1969. And so most of the comments about him today are really rooted in him of half a century ago. Few people are prepared to genuinely accept that it is at least realistically possible that his faith and belief and therefore the life he leads, is genuine.

Doug Smith said...

Grim - Some very good points here.

Especially the part about people having a hard time moving past 1969 - in every immaginable way! From toe-sucking Sadie lovers to those who can't fathom people changing while incarcerated 50 years.

How about Stabmaster's own inability to see the gravity and, endgame of his and, the girl's actions in 1969 when he commented on his being stabbed/attacked in 2013.

"Watson told the Board of Parole Hearings that he didn’t think the inmate could hurt him because of the man’s small stature"

Yeah - like he couldn't see how Sadie could inflict penetrating knife wounds upon Voytek...or, anyone upon Leno.

A mismatched, surprise attack with a weapon upon an unarmed and unaware mark give one quite the advantage - I know this very well. I am 6'5" and 250+lbs. When a 5'4" dude put a gun in my mouth, I understood, very clearly, where the advantage was. Not with me.

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

From what I remember when Watson was housed at Men's Colony he took advantage of his faith when he started his own ministry. He did this with Bruce Davis. He pretty much took over prison ministry as the person paid to do it handed everything to Watson because he didn't want to do his job. Watson had access to phones and computer, he intimidated other inmates with his power. For goodness he had four children that the state of California paid for. Yes the children came legally but it was immoral on his part to have children he could not take a hand in rearing or support. When Mrs. Tate found she got a law passed that violent inmates could not have conjugal rights, so the people of California agreed with her. After Mrs. Tate's death the prison system finally had enough of Watson's Ministry and moved him to another prison which shocked him enough he bitched about the idea of it at his 1990 parole hearing. He felt it would hurt his family. Mrs. Tate commented that he didn't care about her daughter, her grandchild, or her family. I'm not going to say he is not a Christian but he isn't a great guy. Grim, do you think that it was worth it for the victims to die in order for Watson and his family to be a Christians?

grimtraveller said...

Doug Smith said...

How about Stabmaster's own inability to see the gravity and, endgame of his and, the girl's actions in 1969 when he commented on his being stabbed/attacked in 2013.

"Watson told the Board of Parole Hearings that he didn’t think the inmate could hurt him because of the man’s small stature"


I don't see how the two are related.
I'd say that his 1969/70 moves to fight extradition, then his 'depression' when it was obvious he was soon to be, to quote Led Zeppelin IV, "going to California" then plead 'not guilty by reason of insanity' when he knew full well that he wasn't insane, legally, actually or otherwise, plus him acknowledging that he deserved the death penalty while being glad it wasn't carried out, demonstrate that he was well aware of the gravity of what he'd done. He just didn't want to face the reality of it all.
God hasn't allowed him that luxury. Life with God means opened eyes to one's flaws. One doesn't have all the goodies of God's forgiveness without the repentance which is essentially a turning around of that life. Part and parcel of that is facing some of those things that are very much on the grave side and more importantly, dealing with them. Nicking a few typewriters is unlikely to wreck and decimate people's lives.
By 2005 with him saying he was resigned to staying in jail forever, I think he knew the gravity of his actions. In a paradoxical sense, no one ever knows just what the impact of a murder or any other crime will be on a variety of people on all sides of the equation so a gradual realization over many years is pretty normal, I'd say.
The inmate that stabbed him, why would it be held against Tex that he didn't take the guy seriously as a threat ?

Yeah - like he couldn't see how Sadie could inflict penetrating knife wounds upon Voytek...or, anyone upon Leno

I'm not sure what you mean. He instructed Sadie to kill Wojiciech so again, he was pretty aware of what he was doing....back in '69.

A mismatched, surprise attack with a weapon upon an unarmed and unaware mark give one quite the advantage

That's always been my take. As I've often said, a gun is a great leveller. All logic flies out of the window when someone has a weapon. It's notable that in every Family murder or potential murder {if one believes the Ocean Front Walk/Saladin Nader story where Clem is handed a .45}, the victims were subdued with a weapon[s].

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

From what I remember when Watson was housed at Men's Colony he took advantage of his faith when he started his own ministry. He did this with Bruce Davis. He pretty much took over prison ministry as the person paid to do it handed everything to Watson because he didn't want to do his job. Watson had access to phones and computer, he intimidated other inmates with his power

We tend to hear just one side of this story. If the person that was supposed to be doing the job of prison ministry didn't want to do the job, many believers would step into the breach. Zeal is both a great motivator and a dangerous intoxicant. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, with 44 years with Christ, I bet he wouldn't do that again. Even Christians grow and can look back and see where they weren't acting with any brainpower.

he had four children that the state of California paid for. Yes the children came legally but it was immoral on his part to have children he could not take a hand in rearing or support

That may be so but it's unreasonable and unfair to lay that solely at Watson's door. The state allowed conjugal vists. Basic 6th grade biology tells anyone that pregnancies can occur from this. His wife also consented to this arrangement, not once, but four times.
And whatever misgivings we may have about a jailbound daddy and their relationship with their children, the reality is that there are many that make that arrangement work and in many instances, the children respond to it. Dad is still Dad. It's not ideal, but then, nor is the notion of children not living with both parents {I mean ever} but that is so common now that to even flag it up as unusual brings the wrath of someone on one's head.

When Mrs. Tate found [out] she got a law passed that violent inmates could not have conjugal rights, so the people of California agreed with her

Well, some of them did !
Conjugal visitation didn't arrive unpacked out of nowhere.
I had an interesting debate about this with my son the other day. He thought they were a good idea. I disagreed. True, we're not Californians, but it's common to people in every part of the world. That said, I'm well aware that I could well have a very different view if my wife or I was in jail and our system provided conjugal visitation.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

and moved him to another prison which shocked him enough he bitched about the idea of it at his 1990 parole hearing. He felt it would hurt his family. Mrs. Tate commented that he didn't care about her daughter, her grandchild, or her family

Should he not have complained that his family would be hurt ? Don't the great and the good generally take the view that the children are not to blame for any of the prevailing situation so why do anything to affect their well being, just because one of their parents may be a scumbag ? Life is nuanced and is a continuum.

I'm not going to say he is not a Christian but he isn't a great guy

I wouldn't know. He is much reviled and hated and along with Linda Kasabian and Vincent Bugliosi kind of forms the unholy trinity of TLB blogs and thinkers. But I tend to look beyond 1969 in trying to work out where he's at and who he is and that means taking into account loads of things. I'm not going to ignore shit he might have got up to in 1990 but I will look into his version of events and I will shine the light of my own 34 year Christian journey on what I can glean from him. He's made errors that I've made myself and that I've seen repeated by tons of believers. But we didn't murder and therefore aren't subject to the same scrutiny, even though the same mindset and struggles were apparent.

do you think that it was worth it for the victims to die in order for Watson and his family to be Christians?

Was it worth it for all those that either died during the middle passage or were taken from their African homes and transported to totally foreign climes as slaves in order for people like myself to now daily live a life with the kind of benefits that are available, that possibly the majority of those currently living in the countries many of the slaves were sold and bought from don't have access to ? People go blind for lack of health provision in parts of Africa that we get done at our doc's surgery in the West.
Life is full of difficult nuances and it rarely comes down to simple unshakeable equations that pan out nicely.
Other than Jesus, I most certainly do not think that anyone's death is "worth it" in order for someone to become a Christian even though I believe Christ to be the truth and the way to go for all humanity.
But the victims didn't die so that Charles Watson could become a Christian. He could have become a follower of Christ at any point in his life. Had the victims not been murdered other circumstances could have led to him making the move towards Christ. And while it is undeniable that it was while he was in jail for murder that he became a Christian and that he being a murderer was instrumental in his changearound, that can't in any way somehow soften the blow of what he did. I'd have plenty of words to say to anyone that genuinely felt that had he not committed murder he wouldn't have become a Christian, therefore it was somehow worth the murders if it meant one person or even a whole nation met with Christ. I also think Christ would be pretty insulted by such logic. For one thing it would demonstrate how little the person was letting God clean their mind and soul.

Doug Smith said...

I was being sarcastic
I should have noted that

He knew damn well what was going on.

beauders said...

Thanks, for the honest answer Grim I was afraid I might have said something that insulted you and that was not my intent, I was truly wondering about your opinion. Someday I'll make it back to London and I'll buy you a beer or a tea if that's your bag, take care.

grimtraveller said...

Doug Smith said...

I was being sarcastic

I did wonder about the Leno bit but it was sandwiched between two interesting parts about the guy that stabbed him and being held up with a weapon so I erred on the side of caution. Or cawed on the side of ersion !

beauders said...

I was afraid I might have said something that insulted you

Not at all. There are difficult questions worth asking and I believe in giving answers where I can.

Someday I'll make it back to London and I'll buy you a beer or a tea if that's your bag

Definitely a beer { a Cobra zero}. Other than a curiosity cup in 1981, I've not drunk tea since 1970. As a child it was probably the dominant liquid in my body, I usd to drink so much of it, but as I turned 7, I just went off it and never returned.