Bugliosi should’ve gotten a prison term, along with people who’ve got positive opinions of him. I’ve got NEWSPAPER transcripts that proved Bugliosi used lies to win the Manson case, but Astrocreep will just spin to call that newspaper bias, won’t he?
Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!
The good thing is.....most of these crude and childish posts (hopefully all of them) by these two morons will be deleted by the time I wake up in west coast time.
Gorodish, I take it the admin or moderator will delete anything that criticizes Vince, as if it were a commandment (“though must not criticize his holiness—Vincent Bugliosi).
The admins usually delete any personal attacks on other posters, especially the crude, low IQ stuff you and your fellow Manson worshipper Mon are making on regular posters here. Your angry drunken buddy Mon has already been down this road with his racist, misogynist, and homophobic posts in the past. Like I told you earlier, you should start your own Pathologically Obsessive Neurotic Hatred of Vincent Bugliosi blog. And please take d1971/SAG/RWH/LG/Mon and some of the others with you.
See the thing is, Bugs won the case and the con man pedophile reform school boy sodomizing murderer died in jail, where the others will all die.
You guys mention authors that “uncovered” dirt on Bugs, great. It doesn’t change anything in reference to his winning this case. I respect any author that has taken the time to gather evidence, research, interview, etc- that doesn’t make something a fact and that doesn’t change the outcome of this case. Was Bugs disbarred for unethical or immoral conduct? No.
And what you both fail to realize is that I have zero emotional investment in this because the side that I align with, won. I have nothing to prove and could care less about the clearly homophobic remarks, the Hitler supporter claim, all of the illogical and nothing to do with this case Mark Fuhrman crap. Means nothing to me but speaks volumes about both of you.
Additionally, I hope the comments you’ve made stay up as a reference to your collective character and inability to present an actual argument. Yet another shortfall.
AstroCreep, I bet you love Johnnie Cochran, too, since he won the OJ case (even though he made people forget about OJ's ex-wife and her breakdancing friend).
Where the problem lies here, I think, is that some posters here look to interpretations of the events, while others stick as close to the concrete evidence, or first-hand testimony or narration and draw their own conclusions.
The former group seems to lean on authors of books, and the books themselves, as sources of authority; this is a lot like most Humanities coursework in college.
The latter group tends to look at the photos, police reports, the autopsy reports, the pre-trail 1st hand testimony, the post-trial comments at parole hearings, the interviews, and then come up with their own ideas, rather than piggy-backing on the ideas of others. This is a lot like the study of forensic science.
The former group sorts personalities concerned with either the TLB crimes and legal proceedings, and authors who interpret them into "good guys" and "bad guys", and then they choose favorites are root for their favorite personalities to win. The latter group sees the personalities as possible influences in the events, but views them like the weather: they had an effect on the events, but how did that alter the event, if at all?
Under this scenario, it didn't matter if Manson was good/bad, or Buglioso was good/bad. All that matters is the physical evidence and 1st-hand narratives, and where these seem most likely to point.
I think that is a great synopsis. I am in the "latter" group. The one that goes by evidence, facts; not on how much I hate one player. I appreciate your outlook on this blog. You were a young adult in 1969 and have a good "finger on the pulse" of the times. I was 13 going on 14 at the time of the arrest of Manson and the others....cognizant of everything, but not having an adult's insight. My fascination has always been people like Tex, Krenwinkel, Atkins, and the other defendants, and a lot of the marginal players. Manson holds very little interest for me; he was just a cracked actor leading a freak show. The fanboys can have him.
BTW. MON Durphy is already 6 of the people posting here. So what we really need are fewer and better Mon Durphys.
I was wondering about that myself. Destroyer Of Their Own Credibility writes better than Mon, but maybe that's a ruse. It's still the same crude homophobic sex references that are one of Mon's hallmarks.
Bugliosi was acquitted in the perjury case. Daye Shinn, who was also charged with perjury stemming from the same instance, was also acquitted. He was, however, held in contempt and jailed for giving Manson the Nixon newspaper in an attempt to cause a mistrial. He was also subsequently disbarred. So it's a little disingenuos to cry about the prosecution not playing fair.
You’re right on the money. I’m indifferent to Bugs and/or Manson, and all the other misfits who ended up in jail.
From my beginnings here I’ve stated that Bugs did a commendable job securing a win/conviction. People here want to rewrite the law to fit their agenda. If one can’t wrap their head around the fact that they’re all guilty because of what the law states, then you can’t even have a discussion because their whole foundation is based on non-fact.
By stating things like “they aren’t guilty” is the epitome of ignorance. Why? Because they’re sitting in jail rotting. It’s fact that they were found guilty, that’s a fact. They are guilty based upon the law and their participation which was clearly demonstrated in the longest legal case at the time. So by stating “they aren’t guilty” is based on what? Some books and articles that show Bugs gave the mailman a beatdown?
To further this example in simplest terms for the homophobes, if they were innocent as the claim has been made, they’d all be free upon appeal. The FACT that they are still in jail (guilty) is because there has yet to be anything factual or credible to secure their release.
I would like to personally apologize to anyone who had to suffer through the exchange that occurred here last night. Until Patty's comment just above I had ignored it and simply deleted the comments from my e-mail. Had I been aware of what was going on I, for one, would have acted sooner.
Thank you Patty.
For those who care my decision had nothing to do with being pro or anti Manson/Bugliosi. It has to do with personal insults and the use of unnecessarily profane language.
Perhaps those who feel the need to post such comments could stop for a moment before they hit post and ask whether they would want their mother or child to read that crap.
Well, there's no doubt I contributed to this and I certainly regret not being able to filter myself, or rechannel my frustrations better. I can offer no excuse but accept my part in it.
You are wrong. If you look you will see that comments that did not contain personal insults and language that is utterly inappropriate were left up. What I deleted was the crap, whether posted by you or anyone else.
Express your opinions without insults and unnecessary garbage or do us a favor and leave.
So what if I hate people whose opinions make my blood boil? Is that worse than being a racist, sexist, or homophobe? If somebody’s got opinions that make my blood boil, he/she deserves to have traumatic and horrific things happen to her/him! Besides, I AIN’T Mon Durphy. If you think I am, you must think George Stimson is Mon Durphy, too!
If you hate then you have no place here, go somewhere else. Despite reactions every opinion has value here. It doesn't matter if you think VB is the Devil or a Saint. It doesn't matter if you believe Manson is guilty as hell or framed. What matters is that the discourse remain civil, that those who are the unintended targets of your comments are not made to feel that way.
If your blood boils over the fact Astrocreep believes Manson is guilty and VB did a good job or that he believes the HS motive (if he does) then don't comment. Leave. That is your right just as it is the right of the administrators of the blog to delete those comments.
PS: And before you go the route of citing me the 1st Amendment, please read it.
It's really a shame and I feel bad for folks like Dave, Pattie and Matt that they have to monitor the Mon durhys and DOP's on this blog. I'm loyal to LS blog because that is who I started with and I love LS & Katie. I also like like Matt's blog here so anyway I wish you hate mongers would find another place to spew it.
The word is tolerance. We all have disagreements and feel strongly about our beliefs and opinions whether it be Manson family garbage or more important beliefs like politics or religion.
I don’t have anything against anyone who can state their case and make a valid argument even if it goes against what I believe. To start throwing around hate and wishing ill will towards people because of a 50 year old case seems pretty silly to me.
Grimtraveler corrected me many times or presented an opposing viewpoint to mine and it was interesting to hear his point of view.
I’ve accomplished far too much in my life to let someone I’ve never met upset me because of a difference in opinion about something that doesn’t affect me in any way. It doesn’t affect my life or my family or the things I enjoy. I’ve enjoyed all of the posts here and respect those that take the time to do the hard work and contribute.
I will fire back at those who insult others which is where this whole comments section went sideways last night. I do so only to call attention to the rude behavior and low class aspect of insulting people on a blog. A blog that was created for people who find this case interesting to share and learn new things. It wasn’t created for people to come in and hurl insults blindly.
Bugs gave Manson just what he deserved. Good and hard. And the best part is that Manson made it so easy for him. Bugs took Manson's own con and made him eat it. He played him from the arraignment to the death sentence. And the people who buy into Manson's "defense" are just as dumb as Manson was.
Everyone is allowed to disagree. That is what beings enlightenment, after all the official narrative 800 years ago was that the earth was at the center of the universe and it was flat.
Astrocreep,
Well said, just do me a favor, shelve your own knee jerk responses. I deleted some of your comments too.
Now see, that Unknown two above is getting to the edge. Add a word or two and we are right back there last night and then 'they' will react.
I think DoO asked last night what Astrocreep felt about Tom O'Neil.
I'll respond with my opinion. I have his book. I haven't read it yet. I did skip through it but can't speak intelligently about it. When his piece came out back in 2014 (?) about the Tex Tapes, I thought, if true, he got played by the DA's office and should have gone to Texas and bought the tapes from the trustee.
If what he says is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, there is something on those tapes. But to date what we have seen in the legal briefs and heard in the oral arguments is that what is there is "hundreds of pages about race wars and magic kingdoms under the desert". If true, well, draw your own conclusions.
Generally, I will admit when someone starts saying the CIA picked Manson, a small time con-hood-pimp to terminate the new left and the anti-war movement and did so believing these murders would do that (they did not) and encouraged the murders and then they leave their thesis with a lot of open ended questions like "Why did Manson parole officer not take him in" (he wasn't on parole.). I feel like responding: "There is only one possible explanation, extraterrestrials".
IMO if you don't have proof, you have nothing but opinion. Now, don't get me wrong, opinion is a good thing but it is an opinion. I have expressed many here, myself. You may think it, you may even know it but if you can't prove it, you really have nothing (as some of my posts have proven).
So that is what I think of Tom O'Neil (right now). Oh and if you blast VB for profiting from these crimes do you actually think it was a coincidence he published his book in June (?) 2019? do you actually believe he is not playing to his own 'base'? How much was that book?
This sort of partisanship and "us versus them" factionalism are like a pernicious disease that is spreading across many forums.
I started posting to Usenet back around '92 or so, and for quite a while it remained reasoned and civil, with protracted arguments labeled derisively as "flame wars" and the act of maliciously provoking emotional responses labeling "trolling", in the sense that it was a sort of rude fishing expedition...
"FISH ON!!!
"It looks like a big'un, Cap't'n!"
Most current forums have either a very restrictive moderation regime, or are completely worthless to participate in, unless you want to read someone's rage therapy sessions. I've walked away from many such.
By pure good luck I found this one; it is much less based on the *perceived* personalities of the historical figures of the case, and much more concerned with forensic analysis and problem-solving, as contrasted to other Manson forums, where the posters speak of the same characters using first names, as if they fancy themselves good friends--or sworn enemies against whom hey have a long-standing grudge. This is to me less than inane: the posters do not know the characters, will never know them, so why kid yourself into believing you know how they felt--then arguing over whether they were justified in feeling that way?
But not this one, and I've enjoyed participating a bit up until about a week ago. Then we started seeing something like WWF fanboys booing and hissing in lieu of any logical constructs--arguments based simply on ad hominem or argument from favored authority. No original thinking or analysis, and proud of it.
I got so tired of it, and disappointed to encounter it here, after such a good start, that I lashed out in anger and acted just like those for whom I have no respect.
So yep, I'll regretfully move on if it seems to me the character of the forum moves to this kind witless name calling and snarky innuendo.
I can't say where it will go. I am not the CEO. I know that those comments were part fo my decision to quit doing research and writing posts. That and the fact I realized I need to move from secondary sources to primary sources to continue with what I enjoy and am not willing to take that step.
Somehow, in the world of historical research the National Enquirer became a valid source. And somehow expressing an opinion now means that others can attack, not the opinion with facts but the person who holds the opinion, categorizing them into a class that deserves to receive hate. I guess it is the times.
But I recommend a couple of sources for those who believe it is ok: The Goebbels Diaries and John Toland's book "Hitler" (the original version, not the reissued, shorter version.
Wait, David, are you saying O'Neill, you, Matt or I, or the handsome Col could've just bought those Tex tapes from the trustee?! Dammit all why didn't we????? I'm no O'Neill lover but where the hell didja get the idea anyone could've just bought them from the trustee? If that's the case why didn't the LAPD instead of fighting Tex in Texas court for them for a year? If O'Neill was a fool not to, so were they, and WE! xoxooxoxo, Veragina
The dirty tricks program was capable of ridiculous things (i know that's fbi, not cia, btw). You could see cielo from lookout mountain! C'mon, star viego, tell me it was human aliens from the government, please? We can still get 300 comments....
Mon Durphy, Rudy Webers Hose, Susan Atkins Ghonorea, and Destroyer of Opinions are all the same person. Notice even the similarities in the names. Other than Mon Durphy which is based on the name of another poster here, specifically.
DoO - He's not saying that anyone who disagrees with him = low IQ
He's saying Mon is a bit of a dim bulb and, is prone to shitty/personal attacks that just seem to blur out for no other reason than to be a prick or, in some bizarre attempt to feel good about himself by being shitty to others.
Diverse opinions are awesome. Being cordial is too
"Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!" ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Did he live?... Or did he just exist & then cease to exist?
For the sake of your need to compare their lives, riddle me this;
1.Did Vincent T. Bugliosi ever wear underwear previously worn by multiple other men. [Charlie did for 70 of his 83 years. That ain't livin'guy.]
2.Do you think when Bugliosi ordered a porterhouse steak with a lightly-oaked, ripe, crisp Chardonnay at dinner, he ever thought...Manson did this to me:/ [Probably more like Manson did this for me:)]
3.Do you think when Manson was wearing another man's underwear eating chipped beef on soggy toast & drinking jim jones-prisonjuice he ever thought...Bugliosi did this to me:/
"Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!" ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Did he live?... Or did he just exist & then cease to exist?
For the sake of your need to compare their lives, riddle me this;
1.Did Vincent T. Bugliosi ever wear underwear previously worn by multiple other men. [Charlie did for 70 of his 83 years. That ain't livin'guy.]
2.Do you think when Bugliosi ordered a porterhouse steak with a lightly-oaked, ripe, crisp Chardonnay at dinner, he ever thought...Manson did this to me:/ [Probably more like Manson did this for me:)]
3.Do you think when Manson was wearing another man's underwear eating chipped beef on soggy toast & drinking jim jones-prisonjuice he ever thought...Bugliosi did this to me:/
Manson defended Hitler's Waffen SS in that infamous Ron Reagan Jr. interview. He said they were doing GOD'S WILL. To me... that disqualifies him from the human race. I don't care about the silly Helter Skelter debate. It's immature. I had family in Poland were murdered by the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen forces. They were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being slaughtered. Nuff said.
Hello Gorodish. Can you tell me where you read about Mike Deasy attacking Manson with a pitchfork at Spahn's Ranch. I'm trying to find the original source of this story. Thanks so much. Paul
There were people warning the police about Manson's Helter Skelter theory LONG before Manson was even arrested for the TLB murders... which obviously was long before Bugliosi was ever involved with the case. Listen to the Paul Crockett / Inyo Co. police tapes from Oct. 3, 1969.
Gorodish. Can you tell me where you read about Mike Deasy chasing Manson with a pitchfork at Spahn's Ranch. I'm trying to find the book where that story is told. Thank you. PaulH
296 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 296 of 296“We need people like Mon Durphy”
I can’t believe I’m actually reading these words.
I wonder if Astrocreep is a Johnnie Cochran fan, too!
Bugliosi should’ve gotten a prison term, along with people who’ve got positive opinions of him. I’ve got NEWSPAPER transcripts that proved Bugliosi used lies to win the Manson case, but Astrocreep will just spin to call that newspaper bias, won’t he?
What kind of person would call Bugliosi a decent human being? A HITLER supporter?
BUGS = WINNER
Con man pedophile sodomizing reform school boys murderer = LOSER
You must be a Johnnie Cochran fan as well!
No surprise there
Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!
Astrocreep, what do you think of George Stimson and Tom O’Neill?
Besides astrocreep, who else is a Mark Fuhrman apologist?
Why don’t you accept newspaper articles?
Exactly, Mon
Mon, it’s only fitting that Bugliosi never became LA DA and that his dreams were crushed.
The good thing is.....most of these crude and childish posts (hopefully all of them) by these two morons will be deleted by the time I wake up in west coast time.
Gorodish, I take it the admin or moderator will delete anything that criticizes Vince, as if it were a commandment (“though must not criticize his holiness—Vincent Bugliosi).
I wonder if George Stimson, Nikolas Schreck, Michael White, Carrie Leonetti, and Cyril Wecht have been banned from this board.
I come to get insulted by the col
I come here to get insulted by the col
As Lurch said, you rang?
DoO-
The admins usually delete any personal attacks on other posters, especially the crude, low IQ stuff you and your fellow Manson worshipper Mon are making on regular posters here. Your angry drunken buddy Mon has already been down this road with his racist, misogynist, and homophobic posts in the past. Like I told you earlier, you should start your own Pathologically Obsessive Neurotic Hatred of Vincent Bugliosi blog. And please take d1971/SAG/RWH/LG/Mon and some of the others with you.
Gorodish, are you insinuating that criticizing Bugliosi proved that I’ve got a low IQ?
The shoe fits.
See the thing is, Bugs won the case and the con man pedophile reform school boy sodomizing murderer died in jail, where the others will all die.
You guys mention authors that “uncovered” dirt on Bugs, great. It doesn’t change anything in reference to his winning this case. I respect any author that has taken the time to gather evidence, research, interview, etc- that doesn’t make something a fact and that doesn’t change the outcome of this case. Was Bugs disbarred for unethical or immoral conduct? No.
And what you both fail to realize is that I have zero emotional investment in this because the side that I align with, won. I have nothing to prove and could care less about the clearly homophobic remarks, the Hitler supporter claim, all of the illogical and nothing to do with this case Mark Fuhrman crap. Means nothing to me but speaks volumes about both of you.
Additionally, I hope the comments you’ve made stay up as a reference to your collective character and inability to present an actual argument. Yet another shortfall.
AstroCreep, I bet you love Johnnie Cochran, too, since he won the OJ case (even though he made people forget about OJ's ex-wife and her breakdancing friend).
Thanks for continuing to prove my point. Still waiting on all that Bugs “proof” btw...
What’s up with your OJ and anti-gay fetishes?
Didn't I fucking post a link to newspaper articles that proved Bugs was lying during the Manson trial? Or will that not do?
The article is from the LA TIMES (from 1974)! Or are you too good for the LA Times, AstroCreep?
Bugliosi's dishonesty robbed him of a chance to become LA's DA.
I bet you think George Stimson, Carrie Leonetti, and Tom O’Neil are beneath you in intelligence, too?
Check
Check
annnnnnnnnd.
Check.
Have you even heard of Carrie Leonetti?
Where the problem lies here, I think, is that some posters here look to interpretations of the events, while others stick as close to the concrete evidence, or first-hand testimony or narration and draw their own conclusions.
The former group seems to lean on authors of books, and the books themselves, as sources of authority; this is a lot like most Humanities coursework in college.
The latter group tends to look at the photos, police reports, the autopsy reports, the pre-trail 1st hand testimony, the post-trial comments at parole hearings, the interviews, and then come up with their own ideas, rather than piggy-backing on the ideas of others. This is a lot like the study of forensic science.
The former group sorts personalities concerned with either the TLB crimes and legal proceedings, and authors who interpret them into "good guys" and "bad guys", and then they choose favorites are root for their favorite personalities to win. The latter group sees the personalities as possible influences in the events, but views them like the weather: they had an effect on the events, but how did that alter the event, if at all?
Under this scenario, it didn't matter if Manson was good/bad, or Buglioso was good/bad. All that matters is the physical evidence and 1st-hand narratives, and where these seem most likely to point.
And we never will know for sure..
Whaddaya think?
Death to all differing opinions !
BTW. MON Durphy is already 6 of the people posting here. So what we really need are fewer and better Mon Durphys.
shoegazer typed:
Whaddaya think?
I think that is a great synopsis. I am in the "latter" group. The one that goes by evidence, facts; not on how much I hate one player.
I appreciate your outlook on this blog. You were a young adult in 1969 and have a good "finger on the pulse" of the times. I was 13 going on 14 at the time of the arrest of Manson and the others....cognizant of everything, but not having an adult's insight. My fascination has always been people like Tex, Krenwinkel, Atkins, and the other defendants, and a lot of the marginal players. Manson holds very little interest for me; he was just a cracked actor leading a freak show. The fanboys can have him.
Peter typed:
Death to all differing opinions !
Haha ain't that the truth!
BTW. MON Durphy is already 6 of the people posting here. So what we really need are fewer and better Mon Durphys.
I was wondering about that myself. Destroyer Of Their Own Credibility writes better than Mon, but maybe that's a ruse. It's still the same crude homophobic sex references that are one of Mon's hallmarks.
Hating people who are different from you is disgusting and repulsive and just plain weird.
Bugliosi was acquitted in the perjury case. Daye Shinn, who was also charged with perjury stemming from the same instance, was also acquitted. He was, however, held in contempt and jailed for giving Manson the Nixon newspaper in an attempt
to cause a mistrial. He was also subsequently disbarred. So it's a little disingenuos to cry about the prosecution not playing fair.
Shoegazer-
You’re right on the money. I’m indifferent to Bugs and/or Manson, and all the other misfits who ended up in jail.
From my beginnings here I’ve stated that Bugs did a commendable job securing a win/conviction. People here want to rewrite the law to fit their agenda. If one can’t wrap their head around the fact that they’re all guilty because of what the law states, then you can’t even have a discussion because their whole foundation is based on non-fact.
By stating things like “they aren’t guilty” is the epitome of ignorance. Why? Because they’re sitting in jail rotting. It’s fact that they were found guilty, that’s a fact. They are guilty based upon the law and their participation which was clearly demonstrated in the longest legal case at the time. So by stating “they aren’t guilty” is based on what? Some books and articles that show Bugs gave the mailman a beatdown?
To further this example in simplest terms for the homophobes, if they were innocent as the claim has been made, they’d all be free upon appeal. The FACT that they are still in jail (guilty) is because there has yet to be anything factual or credible to secure their release.
Standing by for all of your proof otherwise.
Too bad y'all fired your moderator, looks like you could use a hand today
I would like to personally apologize to anyone who had to suffer through the exchange that occurred here last night. Until Patty's comment just above I had ignored it and simply deleted the comments from my e-mail. Had I been aware of what was going on I, for one, would have acted sooner.
Thank you Patty.
For those who care my decision had nothing to do with being pro or anti Manson/Bugliosi. It has to do with personal insults and the use of unnecessarily profane language.
Perhaps those who feel the need to post such comments could stop for a moment before they hit post and ask whether they would want their mother or child to read that crap.
Thanks
Well, there's no doubt I contributed to this and I certainly regret not being able to filter myself, or rechannel my frustrations better. I can offer no excuse but accept my part in it.
My apologies to all whom I may have offended.
The motto of the Manson Blog "you are free to express your opinion as long as we agree with it" lol
Mon Durphy,
You are wrong. If you look you will see that comments that did not contain personal insults and language that is utterly inappropriate were left up. What I deleted was the crap, whether posted by you or anyone else.
Express your opinions without insults and unnecessary garbage or do us a favor and leave.
So what if I hate people whose opinions make my blood boil? Is that worse than being a racist, sexist, or homophobe? If somebody’s got opinions that make my blood boil, he/she deserves to have traumatic and horrific things happen to her/him! Besides, I AIN’T Mon Durphy. If you think I am, you must think George Stimson is Mon Durphy, too!
DoO,
If you hate then you have no place here, go somewhere else. Despite reactions every opinion has value here. It doesn't matter if you think VB is the Devil or a Saint. It doesn't matter if you believe Manson is guilty as hell or framed. What matters is that the discourse remain civil, that those who are the unintended targets of your comments are not made to feel that way.
If your blood boils over the fact Astrocreep believes Manson is guilty and VB did a good job or that he believes the HS motive (if he does) then don't comment. Leave. That is your right just as it is the right of the administrators of the blog to delete those comments.
PS: And before you go the route of citing me the 1st Amendment, please read it.
We are not the government.
It's really a shame and I feel bad for folks like Dave, Pattie and Matt that they have to monitor the Mon durhys and DOP's on this blog. I'm loyal to LS blog because that is who I started with and I love LS & Katie. I also like like Matt's blog here so anyway I wish you hate mongers would find another place to spew it.
There are hate mongers that disagree with me and Mon Durphy
The word is tolerance. We all have disagreements and feel strongly about our beliefs and opinions whether it be Manson family garbage or more important beliefs like politics or religion.
I don’t have anything against anyone who can state their case and make a valid argument even if it goes against what I believe. To start throwing around hate and wishing ill will towards people because of a 50 year old case seems pretty silly to me.
Grimtraveler corrected me many times or presented an opposing viewpoint to mine and it was interesting to hear his point of view.
I’ve accomplished far too much in my life to let someone I’ve never met upset me because of a difference in opinion about something that doesn’t affect me in any way. It doesn’t affect my life or my family or the things I enjoy. I’ve enjoyed all of the posts here and respect those that take the time to do the hard work and contribute.
I will fire back at those who insult others which is where this whole comments section went sideways last night. I do so only to call attention to the rude behavior and low class aspect of insulting people on a blog. A blog that was created for people who find this case interesting to share and learn new things. It wasn’t created for people to come in and hurl insults blindly.
Bugs gave Manson just what he deserved. Good and hard. And the best part is that Manson made it so easy for him. Bugs took Manson's own con and made him eat it. He played him from the arraignment to the death sentence. And the people who buy into Manson's "defense" are just as dumb as Manson was.
Who would have thought that a blog about the Manson Family would attract so many weirdos.
DoO,
Everyone is allowed to disagree. That is what beings enlightenment, after all the official narrative 800 years ago was that the earth was at the center of the universe and it was flat.
Astrocreep,
Well said, just do me a favor, shelve your own knee jerk responses. I deleted some of your comments too.
Now see, that Unknown two above is getting to the edge. Add a word or two and we are right back there last night and then 'they' will react.
I think DoO asked last night what Astrocreep felt about Tom O'Neil.
I'll respond with my opinion. I have his book. I haven't read it yet. I did skip through it but can't speak intelligently about it. When his piece came out back in 2014 (?) about the Tex Tapes, I thought, if true, he got played by the DA's office and should have gone to Texas and bought the tapes from the trustee.
If what he says is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, there is something on those tapes. But to date what we have seen in the legal briefs and heard in the oral arguments is that what is there is "hundreds of pages about race wars and magic kingdoms under the desert". If true, well, draw your own conclusions.
Generally, I will admit when someone starts saying the CIA picked Manson, a small time con-hood-pimp to terminate the new left and the anti-war movement and did so believing these murders would do that (they did not) and encouraged the murders and then they leave their thesis with a lot of open ended questions like "Why did Manson parole officer not take him in" (he wasn't on parole.). I feel like responding: "There is only one possible explanation, extraterrestrials".
IMO if you don't have proof, you have nothing but opinion. Now, don't get me wrong, opinion is a good thing but it is an opinion. I have expressed many here, myself. You may think it, you may even know it but if you can't prove it, you really have nothing (as some of my posts have proven).
So that is what I think of Tom O'Neil (right now). Oh and if you blast VB for profiting from these crimes do you actually think it was a coincidence he published his book in June (?) 2019? do you actually believe he is not playing to his own 'base'? How much was that book?
This sort of partisanship and "us versus them" factionalism are like a pernicious disease that is spreading across many forums.
I started posting to Usenet back around '92 or so, and for quite a while it remained reasoned and civil, with protracted arguments labeled derisively as "flame wars" and the act of maliciously provoking emotional responses labeling "trolling", in the sense that it was a sort of rude fishing expedition...
"FISH ON!!!
"It looks like a big'un, Cap't'n!"
Most current forums have either a very restrictive moderation regime, or are completely worthless to participate in, unless you want to read someone's rage therapy sessions. I've walked away from many such.
By pure good luck I found this one; it is much less based on the *perceived* personalities of the historical figures of the case, and much more concerned with forensic analysis and problem-solving, as contrasted to other Manson forums, where the posters speak of the same characters using first names, as if they fancy themselves good friends--or sworn enemies against whom hey have a long-standing grudge. This is to me less than inane: the posters do not know the characters, will never know them, so why kid yourself into believing you know how they felt--then arguing over whether they were justified in feeling that way?
But not this one, and I've enjoyed participating a bit up until about a week ago. Then we started seeing something like WWF fanboys booing and hissing in lieu of any logical constructs--arguments based simply on ad hominem or argument from favored authority. No original thinking or analysis, and proud of it.
I got so tired of it, and disappointed to encounter it here, after such a good start, that I lashed out in anger and acted just like those for whom I have no respect.
So yep, I'll regretfully move on if it seems to me the character of the forum moves to this kind witless name calling and snarky innuendo.
Shoegazer,
I can't say where it will go. I am not the CEO. I know that those comments were part fo my decision to quit doing research and writing posts. That and the fact I realized I need to move from secondary sources to primary sources to continue with what I enjoy and am not willing to take that step.
Somehow, in the world of historical research the National Enquirer became a valid source. And somehow expressing an opinion now means that others can attack, not the opinion with facts but the person who holds the opinion, categorizing them into a class that deserves to receive hate. I guess it is the times.
But I recommend a couple of sources for those who believe it is ok: The Goebbels Diaries and John Toland's book "Hitler" (the original version, not the reissued, shorter version.
Wait, David, are you saying O'Neill, you, Matt or I, or the handsome Col could've just bought those Tex tapes from the trustee?! Dammit all why didn't we?????
I'm no O'Neill lover but where the hell didja get the idea anyone could've just bought them from the trustee? If that's the case why didn't the LAPD instead of fighting Tex in Texas court for them for a year?
If O'Neill was a fool not to, so were they, and WE!
xoxooxoxo,
Veragina
Destroyer anyone who uses terms like "super-douche" is obviously working with at least a 160 IQ lol
The dirty tricks program was capable of ridiculous things (i know that's fbi, not cia, btw). You could see cielo from lookout mountain! C'mon, star viego, tell me it was human aliens from the government, please? We can still get 300 comments....
Shoegazer.
Mon Durphy, Rudy Webers Hose, Susan Atkins Ghonorea, and Destroyer of Opinions are all the same person. Notice even the similarities in the names. Other than Mon Durphy which is based on the name of another poster here, specifically.
DoO - He's not saying that anyone who disagrees with him = low IQ
He's saying Mon is a bit of a dim bulb and, is prone to shitty/personal attacks that just seem to blur out for no other reason than to be a prick or, in some bizarre attempt to feel good about himself by being shitty to others.
Diverse opinions are awesome. Being cordial is too
Doug--diversity of opinions shouldn't include opinions that are obscene, narcissistic, sheeple, or hypocritical!
I'll agree with you that they shoukdnt be allowed if you agree that I will decide what is obscene, narcissistic, steeple, or hypocritical.
I’ll be civil—I’d love to know what proof you’ve got here that Bugliosi didn’t invent the HS theory.
DoO said: "I’d love to know what proof you’ve got here that Bugliosi didn’t invent the HS theory."
Start here and then just keep going:
"Manson Wanted a Racial War, Friends Say", Eric Malnic, LA Times, December 7, 1969.
"Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Did he live?...
Or did he just exist & then cease to exist?
For the sake of your need to compare their lives, riddle me this;
1.Did Vincent T. Bugliosi ever wear underwear previously worn by multiple other men.
[Charlie did for 70 of his 83 years. That ain't livin'guy.]
2.Do you think when Bugliosi ordered a porterhouse steak with a lightly-oaked, ripe, crisp
Chardonnay at dinner, he ever thought...Manson did this to me:/
[Probably more like Manson did this for me:)]
3.Do you think when Manson was wearing another man's underwear eating chipped beef on soggy
toast & drinking jim jones-prisonjuice he ever thought...Bugliosi did this to me:/
[ drumroll...YES, game, set, match - Bugliosi.]
"Mon, it’s so fitting that Manson lived longer than Bugliosi. It’s only a shame that Bugliosi lived to be 81. People with positive opinions of him, though, are worse people than Charles Manson could have EVER BEEN!"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Did he live?...
Or did he just exist & then cease to exist?
For the sake of your need to compare their lives, riddle me this;
1.Did Vincent T. Bugliosi ever wear underwear previously worn by multiple other men.
[Charlie did for 70 of his 83 years. That ain't livin'guy.]
2.Do you think when Bugliosi ordered a porterhouse steak with a lightly-oaked, ripe, crisp
Chardonnay at dinner, he ever thought...Manson did this to me:/
[Probably more like Manson did this for me:)]
3.Do you think when Manson was wearing another man's underwear eating chipped beef on soggy
toast & drinking jim jones-prisonjuice he ever thought...Bugliosi did this to me:/
.
Manson defended Hitler's Waffen SS in that infamous Ron Reagan Jr. interview. He said they were doing GOD'S WILL. To me... that disqualifies him from the human race. I don't care about the silly Helter Skelter debate. It's immature. I had family in Poland were murdered by the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen forces. They were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being slaughtered. Nuff said.
Does anyone know where the story about Mike Deasy chasing Manson with a pitchfork came from? Was it from a book?
Hello Gorodish. Can you tell me where you read about Mike Deasy attacking Manson with a pitchfork at Spahn's Ranch. I'm trying to find the original source of this story. Thanks so much. Paul
Hello Gorodish.
Where did you read about Mike Deasy attacking Manson with a pitchfork at Spahn's Ranch?
Thank you,
PaulH
There were people warning the police about Manson's Helter Skelter theory LONG before Manson was even arrested for the TLB murders... which obviously was long before Bugliosi was ever involved with the case. Listen to the Paul Crockett / Inyo Co. police tapes from Oct. 3, 1969.
Gorodish.
Can you tell me where you read about Mike Deasy chasing Manson with a pitchfork at Spahn's Ranch.
I'm trying to find the book where that story is told.
Thank you.
PaulH
Post a Comment