Monday, December 14, 2020

The Revenge Motive- Maybe


 

"If ones motives are wrong, nothing can be right."

- G.W. Carter


"Revenge is never the best driver for a battle, but a common one."

- Janet Morris



Stephen Kay questioning Greg Jakobson in the Trial "People versus Charles Watson"

Kay: Did Mr. Melcher ever record or Film Mr. Manson?

Jakobson: No.

Kay: And did Mr. Manson want to be recorded by Mr. Melcher?

Jakobson; Yes.

Kay: Was MR. Manson...did he appear to you to be upset that Mr. Melcher did not want to record him?

Jakobson: Yes.

Kay: Mr. Manson wanted pretty badly to be recorded, didn't he?

Jakobson: He was really pushing yes.


So, How far would you go to get revenge? 

Do you think you could ever get to the point where you would kill somebody? Order someone to be killed? If you are like me, it would probably take a deliberate act of violence against yourself or family, to make you even consider going that far. Even then, I doubt I could do something that severe to another human being. I would most likely spend the rest of my life imagining the cool and bad-ass ways I would get even, while doing nothing in reality of any consequence. I am a big dreamer when it comes to being a tough-guy. But, it keeps me out of trouble lol. I like it that way. Others find their own bad-ass ways to get revenge without turning to violence. Take Doris Tate for example. She made sure that life stayed as difficult as possible for the people who did her wrong. Doris followed the rules to help make some new rules that really stuck it to the people who...Well, maybe that was a bad choice of words.

But, Doris really did some very admirable work to make sure she got her chance to be heard on behalf of her daughter. It has been offered, from time to time, that Doris lost her daughter as a result of Charles Manson seeking his revenge for being snubbed by people in the music industry. I personally never really thought much about it at first. I read and listened to so much information when I first got interested in this, and objectively-  Helter Skelter was the one motive that had the most evidence to back it up.  I have laid out as thoroughly as I could over the years why I have seen MORE evidence for H/S than any other motive. I am not 100% sold on H/S either, but using the test of Circumstantial, Physical, and Testimonial evidence, I have been able to lay out more specific examples for H/S than any other motive. It is what it is. However, after all these years I am still not able to feel any more confident in Helter Skelter either. And today, there is one other motive outside of Helter Skelter that I am willing to, at least, consider. I have seen almost nothing of serious consequence to support the drug-burn theory, and despite George Stimson's best effort- "Get a brother out of jail" is still not doing it for me either. I have, however, read some testimonial evidence over the years for the Music Snub Revenge motive. When I read my very first post on the "Only Official TLB Blog" written by Col- I became submerged in this case. I felt strongly for the first few years that the "Real Truth" was buried somewhere in the music connections in Laurel Canyon. I was never able to prove it. I did stumble across a few things here and there though, as I came to realize Helter Skelter was much more likely. But the Music thing always stuck with me. So- Today, I will go there. 

It is not too hard to imagine that Charlie could order someone to be killed as an act of revenge- just think of Shorty. Again, I am not sure I really believe revenge was the motive for the Tate Killings. But, I have often said that we cannot say for sure what the motive wasn't- until we know for sure what the motive was. So, keeping that in mind, let's take a look...


"Now life was one big party. Rock musicians and hopeful singers like Charlie, actors and hopeful actors, girls who didn't do anything, Producers like Terry Melcher, talent people, Managers like Gregg Jakobson, and star's children would all come over to the house and it would be a drug circus"

- Tex Watson   ("Will You Die For Me")

"We just hung out. He played some songs for me, sittin' in Will Rogers old house, on Sunset Boulevard. Dennis had the house there. And I visited Dennis a couple of times. Charlie was always there. I think I met him two maybe three times."

- Neil Young ( Shakey Biography by Jimmy Mc Donough)


I guess these were the "Salad days" for Charlie. He was still considered a charming and interesting guy, and he was still accepted and even given deference among some pretty glitzy cliques. That must have felt pretty damn good while it lasted. We have all heard the stories of the people Charlie was associating on in his earliest days in L.A. Giving Deana Martin a ring. charging Didi Lansbury's credit cards. When you are allowed to run in these circles you can start to imagine a life that is very far away from the streets of West Virginia, Kentucky, or Ohio, Charlie had come from. And come-on, as much fun as living in a tricked-out bus, or playing camp-out at Spahn ranch was- I am sure that getting ready for parties in the Hollywood Hills by taking warm showers in plenty of luxurious clean space, and changing into sharp new clothes, was pretty exhilarating for Charlie in a way he just was not normally accustomed to. I think that Manson was probably thinking that he had found his way to a life beyond his wildest dreams. Imagine going from Terminal Island to the precipice of the Hollywood big-time...

Only to have it all fall apart. Because, as we all know. Charlie and his clan of free-loaders would wear out there welcome at the Wilson residence fairly quickly. And then Charlie's lack of talent, and over the top behavior, would cause everyone who had been willing to give him a chance to run as far away from him as they could get. These are the facts. And as we also know, things then started to get ugly. Real Ugly. Now, I am not saying that I can prove for sure that this change of his social status was the reason that caused Charlie to start ordering people to kill. But I am pointing out that, starting around the time when the music dreams were ending, the overall desperation started accelerating. For Charlie the dreams of living the high life were giving way to the reality of a bare existence on old dilapidated ranches at Spahn and Barker. Hinman, Crowe, all those events starting happening out of desperation for money. Prior to his disassociation with music industry people, that desperation did not exist. The end of  the idea of Melcher delivering the big-time came immediately prior of the escalation violence in the Family chronological history. (Below is a hastily put together timeline that is close enough to make my point)

April/May of 68- Dennis picks up Ella-Jo and Pat hitchhiking. Within 24 hours a sizeable portion of the Family would move in.

August 8/9 of 68- One year to the day of TLB- Charlie is recording at Gold Star Studio on Dennis' dime, and following it up doing overdubs with Dennis the next day at a smaller studio in Van Nuys.

Now it is during these recordings that Charlie first starts to play with knives, act sort of scary, and sing weird lyrics. In short, he finally starts to show the "Beautiful people" who he really is. At the same time, he has started to take a serious toll on Dennis Financially. So much so, that by the early part of fall-Charlie's life of luxury starts to fall apart....

Fall of 68- ( Very busy few months for our purposes) Family sets up permanent camps at first Spahn in late August, and then Barker by November. Also in early part of fall, Dennis has abandoned house on Sunset, and Family are chased out by his manager. Between September and December the Beach Boys will record and release " Never Learn Not to Love" changing the name to Charlie's song, and not crediting him. Charlie did not take this well. According to Van Dyke Parks, this incident would cause Charlie to approach Dennis Wilson with a single bullet and threaten his kids. This would mark the end of any real remaining relationship between the two. 

March of 69- Charlie goes to 10050 Cielo looking for Terry Melcher, and is rebuffed and treated rudely by both Rudi Altobelli the owner and Sharon's photographer Shahrokh Hatami. He is no longer being welcomed by the "Beautiful people"

May of 69- Terry Melcher goes to Spahn to audition Manson and leaves unimpressed. returns a couple days later and same result. Terry arranges for a mobile recording vehicle to return, but Charlie would eventually scare that guy off as well. Shortly after, Melcher would pass on his rejection through Jakobson.

At this point the dream is officially over and Charlie knows it. Nobody left in that circle will have anything to do with him,

Early July 69- Crowe incident

Laster in July 69- Hinman incident

August 8/9 of 1969- TLB....

I have never read any timeline the Family had prepared for how to handle to execution of Helter Skelter. But if you want to see, in real-time, an outline of a guy go from one extreme in life to the other in the course of about one solid year- look at the above timeline again. Charlie's life went from glamour and possibility, to poverty and desperation. Maybe Charlie started to simmer over who he felt was responsible. Once the Family crossed the line to violence it may have just become a matter of time...


"Circulating around Elektra Records or A&M when I was there was some Manson tape that had come in , gotten rejected, come in and gotten rejected again. People remembered that tape suddenly, and some people were thinking, Gee, glad we didn't sign him, and Gee wonder if our rejecting him played a role? There was this vague sense of  not so much guilt that anyone contributed, but that they were part of a chain of events that, unknowingly and unwillingly, led to the outburst of whatever all this rage was."

- Michael James Jackson    (A&R Executive in "Laurel Canyon" by Michael Walker )


"As long as I live, I will never talk about that".

-Dennis Wilson to Rolling Stone in 1976


"For my cousin...our group members to be involved with that and to have the guilt associated with that, I mean had to be a tough burden to carry with him for the rest of his life."

- Mike Love ( interview with ABC News)

 

So back to this: Why That house? And, does the choice of THAT house tell us anything about the motive?

"The Girls spent the whole day preparing food and joints, fixing up the house in Canoga park where the Family was spending the Winter. Melcher never showed. Once again Terry Melcher had failed Charlie. More than ever, Terry Melcher, in his house at the top of Cielo Drive, with his power and his money was the focus for the bitterness and sense of betrayal the Family felt for all the phony Hollywood hippies who kept silencing the truth that Charlie had to share. These "Beautiful people" , Terry and all the others, were really no different from the rich piggies in their white shirts, ties and suits. and just like them, they too deserved a damn good whacking."

- Tex Watson ( Will You Die For Me)


It took Charlie quite a bit of time to find a place to go the second night, didn't it? They all testified to that,

But not the first night. And they all testified to that as well.

Charlie knew exactly where he wanted to send them that first night. Did Charlie send them there for personal revenge? He had been slighted there in the past by Rudi, and Sharon's Photographer. He knew that some pretty important "Pigs" lived inside, and he also probably did NOT know how to find Melcher himself at that point, but may have felt THAT house would serve the purpose just the same. Is that possible? Could that have been why Charlie sent them to THAT house that night? Is that harder to believe than the idea he sent them there to start a race war? Maybe. Even Mr. Helter Skelter himself had to adress it:

"We knew there was at least one secondary motive for the Tate murders. As Susan Atkins put it on the Caballero tape, "The reason Charlie picked the house was to instill fear into Terry Melcher because Terry had given us his word on a few things and never came through with them."

-Vincent Bugliosi  (Helter Skelter)

For years I have been told on this blog that Bugs "Invented" the H/S motive for his personal gain in addition to being able to implicate Charlie. Maybe. But if Bugs overplayed H/S - did another motive get underplayed as a result? Something as simple as revenge? Charlie painted a very rosy picture of things for everyone in the early days of the family. As time went on and it became harder to deliver, it must have become more and more important to find places to point the finger and people on whom to lay the blame. Maybe, over time, rich or well-off people became the enemy. Furthermore, maybe the rich, or well-off people that Charlie knew- and who had personally denied that lifestyle to him- became enemy number one. As far away as the "Recording star" dream became for Charlie- the more his venom towards those people seemed to grow. Did the frustration reach a boiling point?


"He seemed a little uptight, a little too intense. Frustrated artist. Spent alot of time in jail. Frustrated songwriter, singer. Made up songs as he went along. New stuff all the time, no two songs were the same. I remember playing a little guitar while he was makin' up songs. Strong will, that guy. I told Mo Ostin about him, Warner Brothers- "This guy is unbelievable- he makes up the songs as he goes along, and they are all good." Never got any further than that, Never got a demo. Glad he didn't get around to me when he was punishing people for the fact that he didn't make it in the music biz. That's what all that was about. Didn't get to be a rock and roll star so he started fucking wiping people out. Dig that."

- Neil Young   (Shakey Biography by Jimmy McDonough )

Neil Young seemed to think so, and he was not alone. there was certainly a feeling in the Los Angeles music community back then that they had gotten too close to the monster. Many of the people from the music industry who wound up in Charlies orbit would go on in life to speak of Manson in a way that demonstrates either guilt in having not been a target of the violence, or guilt in perhaps having been some kind of influence in causing it. Most of them stayed quiet out of guilt and/or fear. There was a common feeling that it was something close to all of them. You can sense it in the interviews and old videos. It was real. Maybe that tells us something about all of this, and maybe its mashed potatoes? I really don't know.

But let me ask you this: Melcher and several others went into seclusion or hiding after the murders. Some refused to talk about it ever again. Do you think they were afraid of the Family and Charlie at that point because of a race war? Or, do you think they were afraid Charlie might send one of the others after them to seek some sort of misguided- Revenge? 

Hmmm... Lets take a quick look at what another one of the actual killers had to say:


"If Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was imminent, and he desperately didn't want to get caught for the murders, why would he still go ahead and arrange for the people to be murdered? He wouldn't. Something else provoked this rash act. And as we go through the events that led to those two nights in August of  1969, you will see exactly how a long line of interrelated events led to all of this."

" They were not revolutionary or environmental symbolic killings. They were heinous, degraded, and depraved murders of completely innocent people, 3/4 with loved ones, families, and friends, dreams and hopes just like the rest of us- and all for the most basest of causes; the serving of Charles Manson's self interest."

- Susan Atkins ( The Myth of Hekter Skelter)


So in fairness, both Tex and Susan say the motive was ultimately a moshposh of contributing factors. But I did not make any of these quotes up. I also know Tex and Susan can't really be trusted, and change stories, and are self-serving blah, blah, blah...

But, what if neither Tex or Susan really knew why they did what they did. What if  Charlie had his own reasons to send them where he did, and just made some stuff up for them to get what he wanted?  Ultimately, maybe Charlie died, knowing alone, why he really sent them to that house on that night. I am not going to tell you I know for sure one way or the other. Some things just make more sense to me than others. Sometimes it just seems that the most confusing riddles have the easiest answers if you just don't overthink them. That house represented everything to Charlie he never had, and had come to realize, would never have, That house was rejection. When it became time to be spiteful to a world that was rejecting him, perhaps it was not too difficult for Charlie to figure out where to start. 

Maybe all the pressure and all the anger swelled into one group of people and one specific place for Charlie to focus on, Maybe one man pushed over the edge decided to take his revenge against the people who denied him what he felt entitled to. Maybe that man sold a story to his friends to get them fired up to help him, and maybe it worked. Maybe TLB happened because a frustrated loser ran out of options and crossed a line when he had nowhere else to go. Maybe the people who committed the actual crimes never understood the real reason they were obediently doing so. Maybe Bugs knew this all along and swept it under the rug to sell books, and a motive to secure his verdict against Charlie. Maybe that worked too. Maybe the whole thing was really about a motive as old as time itself...

I don't know... Maybe



- Your Favorite Saint



183 comments:

Matthew said...

Well done. I have always believed that there were a couple motives and it all depended on who you asked. You hear many people who ended up in Manson's orbit that he was a pro at knowing what each person needed or needed to hear to make them believe that he was all knowing. I do believe that Manson's true motive was revenge. But to get certain people to kill for him he needed to find their trigger. I think he talked Pat into believing the HS theory. Leslie was part HS and to make her feel part of the inner circle. He asked her that night are you as crazy as me? She was chosen. Tex was so hopped up on speed, he would believe anything. He also wanted to be Manson's right hand man. Susan needed attention at any cost. If there had been other members that were sent, there would be other motives. Some would have done it to get a brother out of jail and some were all in on the HS bullshit. But as far as Manson's motive, I have always believed it was 100% revenge. He did not get his way and that house represented that.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Saint,
in this blog-post
��
https://www.mansonblog.com/2019/01/manson-in-mexico.html?m=1
I commented regarding Terry Melcher and motive.
Since then, because of 2 former "acquaintances" of mine, it is my
VERY-STRONG-FEELING that the Melcher snubb is motive for the Cielo Drive Murders.
And I base that on this
��
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgeFPC
this
��
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950/status/1091109190800527361
something about the "TEX" Tapes,
and a "source" of mine that I have communicated with since my personal involvement in The OJ Simpson Case & Saga.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

starviego said...


Somebody sure thought Melcher was a target:

whatuphollywood.com/info/
In September of 2015 Paul Hunt of Big Fun Video filmed an interview with Judy Lamppu, a lovely lady who was Doris Day’s secretary during the “Doris Day Show”, which ran from 1968 -1973. Judy’s first day on the job was on August 9th, 1969, arriving to find the place swarming with cops, who were there to protect Doris Day’s son Terry Melcher.

orwhut said...

St.
Of everything you've ever had to say on this blog, I like this post the best.
Thank you,
Whut

Gorodish said...

starviego typed:

Judy’s first day on the job was on August 9th, 1969, arriving to find the place swarming with cops, who were there to protect Doris Day’s son Terry Melcher.

Obviously another horseshit story. Hardly anyone knew about Manson's involvement until October/November 1969. Why would cops be there to "protect" Melcher on the very day of the discovery of the victims?

starviego said...

Gorodish said...
"Why would cops be there to "protect" Melcher on the very day of the discovery of the victims?"

Melcher himself has indicated he thought, on the day after, that he was the target of the killers. If he communicated his fears to the cops, they may have offered some protection, just like they did to Witold K.

-------------------------

Anyway the Coroner agreed with the Saint:

Coroner, by Thomas Noguchi, c.1983 pg137of252
Dr. Hacker's theories and my own study of the case have led me to conclude that Manson had a different motive (other than Bugliosi's Helter Skelter motive). Why did he choose Sharon Tate's residence for the orgy of murder? I believe that the pseudogod chose that particular house for a very mortal reason: symbolic revenge for a failed musical career. And after he had turned his worshiping cultists loose on Sharon Tate and her friends, the LaBianca murders were purely random, committed only to throw police off the real "revenge" trial at 10050 Cielo Drive.
.

ColScott said...

The revenge motive works, but like all motives it has a big problem (which is even bigger in the revenge motive) which is seldom looked at- We know WHY Charlie chose each killer (indebted/indoctrinated) but how could he be sure they WOULD KILL? Tex was a good old boy and had killed no one. The girls too. What was said? "Go up to Terry's house and do as Tex says and leave something witchy". It makes sense to send them up there to scare Terry, send a message. It really does. But beyond that????

Peter said...

Nice post Saint. I also believe that revenge against the establishment and the music industry represented by Melcher was Manson's primary motive for selecting his targets. I would also point out the way he treated family members with upperclass backgrounds as opposed to those without. He treated them better. I see him as a bit of a suck-up who wanted to be in the establishment despite all he preached.

I found this letter among the files at Cielodrive that I think perfectly, shortly, and sweetly, illustrates the collision of Charlie's fantasy with reality. (Its from a facebook post, thus the excessively long link)

https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/119072859_10157709276295784_7546333249066875129_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8024bb&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=ZK_td97YfGEAX9zVLED&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&tp=14&oh=a4da7d4c6a80c55493e4b66edca844a8&oe=5FFEE10E

ColScott said...

tiny url wants to meet you Peter

Speculator said...

Great post and very thought provoking. I tend to find that all the possible motives have their own drawbacks, some more than others, which makes it hard to lean towards any one of them alone. With the revenge motive, didn’t Manson already know that Melcher had moved and knew his new location. So why not target him directly? Perhaps he decided that he might be an immediate suspect if he did that given his recent connections to Melcher and the fact that he would’ve stuck in the minds of plenty of those around Melcher. Maybe he decided that Cielo put enough distance between him and the crime whilst still knowing that he would terrify Melcher purely by his previous connection to the property. But he surely must’ve known that if Melcher at all connected the murders to Manson then he ran the immediate risk of being served up as a suspect to the police. You do have to wonder that if Melcher did have some suspicions the morning after Cielo then he could’ve possibly saved the lives of the LaBiancas had he contacted the police straight away. A visit to Spahn by detectives might have at least spooked the killers enough to not go out on the second night. I can certainly see revenge against or hatred of the rich “piggies” in general being part of the driving force behind the murders at Cielo. Two such opposite ends of the social spectrum rubbing up so closely together was always going to end badly when the novelty wore off. The thing that has always puzzled me is what happened in the immediate run up to Cielo, what were the dynamics in the days immediately prior to those murders, why was that night chosen rather than the day/week:month before - or after for that matter. Something drove the action on that particular weekend that hadn’t been in play at any time before - otherwise the crimes wouldn’t have happened when they did.

starviego said...

ColScott said...
"The revenge motive works, but like all motives it has a big problem (which is even bigger in the revenge motive) which is seldom looked at- We know WHY Charlie chose each killer (indebted/indoctrinated) but how could he be sure they WOULD KILL? Tex was a good old boy and had killed no one. The girls too."

In her interview with her attorney Marvin Part, Leslie describes how Charlie came to her and Krenny the night of the LaBianca murders, and asked them if they knew what had to be done--killing--and they both said yes. I suspect all the killers on the first night had been similarly approached and had given their support. In the way that Charlie could order something done without it making it sound like a command.

So all that "I thought it was just going to be a creepy-crawl" stuff was just another horseshit story.

David said...

Great post, Saint

Unknown said...


" ... and he also probably did NOT know how to find Melcher himself at that point."

I thought Charlie had left a message or two at Terry's Malibu digs.

Robert C said...

So Charlie enlists one guy (Tex) and three women (including the driver) to go to Cielo during murder night. At Cielo are four men and two women.

On paper under normal circumstances it doesn't look good for Tex & Co. And Tex is apparently not so stoned that he can't climb a pole and cut the right wires nor lead the gang up the hill in some orderly fashion. And if Charlie told the girls to do what Tex says then apparently Charlie had faith in Tex's facilities that night.

Now the questions become who knows how many are in that house and why for ? Did Charlie not know and sent in an 'understaffed' force to deal with what's there ? Or did he think giving Tex a gun would even up the odds ?

Meanwhile, did Charlie tell Tex to 'clean out' everyone in the house he found (an indication he didn't know if Melcher was there or not so a lean toward Helter Skelter) ?

Or did he tell Tex to get Melcher plus whomever else was in there (obvious lean to revenge) ?

Or maybe Charlie just told Tex "you know what to do - here's a gun" type of thing and let Tex play it by ear (helter skelter/revenge) ?

I tend to lean toward the last one. Charlie knows how the courts and jailhouse rules go and all along has been trying to keep himself relatively untouchable or 'clean' by having others do his bidding without proof of his direct involvement.

Yes, I think revenge was a major player in the affair but he didn't really know that specific night who was up there. Because of that Helter Skelter must have been part of this too as part of Charlie's newer proclamation and may have been in part an incentive to get Tex and the girls motivated since they were at that time part of the intended audience for this nonsense.

Good write-up, St. C.

As an aside, as I remember it, the term 'pig' or 'piggies' most commonly referred to the police back then but to a lesser extent the wealthy and those in power and control too. But it was mostly aimed at the cops. That always put into question in my mind did the writing of such on the door and fridge of the victim's residences really refer to the occupants of something greater much like the mis-spelling of Helter Skelter ? Or was it simply a misappropriation of a popular slogan of the day ? Oh well, just a thought.



starviego said...


Unknown said...
" " ... and he also probably did NOT know how to find Melcher himself at that point."
I thought Charlie had left a message or two at Terry's Malibu digs."


I think they knew where he lived. From recent interview with Candice Bergen:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/candice-bergen-streep-let-them-talk-b1767488.html?fbclid=IwAR2dNO3Dd6XM8MD-iv5A1cD5CuZ-m-PjRY-0YNv0kewa-Jl92jBBbZV5v2U
"Then one day, Terry just said, ‘We’re moving.’ I said, ‘When?’ He said, ‘Tomorrow.’ His mother had a house in Malibu that became David Geffen’s house where we went. Then they took the telescope off our balcony at the beach house. It was like Manson saying, ‘Don’t try to hide from me.’”

gina said...

Or perhaps, as I've long thought, HS was the ultimate motive and Charlie decided that it was time for HS after he was repeatedly "snubbed" by the Music Industry. Then, after deciding it was time for HS, he chose who to start with based on revenge against Melcher. LB was to further the HS idea, and chosen simply because he knew the house after having partied with Harold. Seems simple enough to me. Occam's razor and all that....

grimtraveller said...

Not to be a toad and all, but revenge was one of the motives the prosecution presented at trial for the murders. There's nothing new or original about the consideration. I have seen or read so many Bugliosi episodes from across 4, maybe 5 decades where he offloads ad nauseum about Manson's revenge motivation. He never fails to get it in ~ neither did he fail to ever talk of Charlie's lust for death and him being a con man.
I've long thought the LaBianca murder was, at the point at which Manson headed over to Waverly, a revenge in the making ~ just not with the LaBiancas in mind because he didn't know them. I suspect the ex-housemates of Harold True were his intended targets. Manson wasn't actually lying when he said the LaBiancas' deaths were random. Deaths weren't random, just their death. The intention was that there was to be death.
The murder of Shorty had a definite revenge component, even if it was misplaced.
The death threats meted out to Dennis Wilson, Irving Kanarek, Judge Older, society in general {the one about bloodletting if he got the death penalty}, the press and Vincent Bugliosi were all shot through with revenge.
Saying that Charlie entertained notions of revenge {before, during and after the murderous period} is like saying that there was a November last year.

ColScott said...

starviego READ better- my point was just because you send Tex et al on a kill assignment does NOT mean they would do it. I mean what were the actual odds? None of them had killed before and did not know the people


gina- Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually true. Revenge is a universal, simple motive. Drugs/greed/money is a simple motive. Imaginary race wars based on Beatles albums created by Mailman stalker mentally ill DAs is complex and not simple. You do not understand Occam's Razor and may never cite it again.

Grim slut- re the True Housemates- I kinda agree with you- were they ever interviewed by the pigs?

gina said...

gina- Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually true. Revenge is a universal, simple motive. Drugs/greed/money is a simple motive. Imaginary race wars based on Beatles albums created by Mailman stalker mentally ill DAs is complex and not simple. You do not understand Occam's Razor and may never cite it again.

Misunderstood my use. I meant that it was the most OBVIOUS solution and the simplest to understand. I have never thought Bug was mentally ill or otherwise compromised and I still don't. I stand by my use and I will cite it anytime I see fit.

ColScott said...

Gina- weird his own fucking wife thought he was mentally ill, And no, yuou will not be able to use the postulate any longer, The Occam Society has voted and you lost

gina said...

LOL...
I demand a recount! Or I will head to the SCOTUS!

Anyway, I still believe HS was part of the motive not ONLY cause of the book/Bug.

Speculator said...

ColScott - I’ve often wondered about Manson sending the team up there, supposedly untested in terms of committing murder. I guess that he couldn’t be sure as to how it would play out in that respect. maybe that was part of some perverse amusement for him - will they won’t they etc. There again though, the hardcore of his group was essentially a criminal enterprise that had already escalated to murder. Atkins has tasted some of it at Hinmans. And I do wonder if Watson had already killed prior to Cielo. The rumours of other murders and all that. Would Manson really have wanted to run the risk of prison if things had gone wrong at Cielo, the group were apprehended or whatever and they implicated him in it too. I think he was pretty confident in Watson in particular - and was that borne out of previous experience? Didn’t Watson mention in one of his books that him and Manson tried to ambush a couple outside a casino one night with the intention to rob and kill? It makes you wonder what else Watson hasn’t divulged.

Peter said...

Maybe the reason for the second night was to make the first night appear to have been random.

Peter said...

The first night was very specific to send a message. The second night could have been anybody so that only the people he wanted to get the message got it.

Matt said...

gina said...
Occam's razor and all that...


We're talking about a cult, though. At The Peoples Temple in Jonestown they practiced the mass suicide many times before the cyanide was actually added. Heaven's Gate really believed their mother ship was hiding behind a comet and aliens would escort members of the group to the Kingdom of Heaven via that same extraterrestrial spacecraft. The Branch Davidians believed that Koresh was the Messiah and all women – including those underage or already married – were his spiritual wives.

As Harold True said, "you can't ascribe reason to crazy".



Monica said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Monica said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Monica said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan S said...

Charlie wouldn't have been certain they could achieve their grisly mission and he wouldn't care. He talked a lot about doing it for many days and tex was only recently let into the inner circle with his recent success of LK and her 5000$ so he was so Eager to please.

It may have even been tex taking some shit talking by charlie too seriously and going way farther than charlie ever wanted. To me that's the most likely scenario. Like expert John Douglass concluded, tex took control of the cult and charlie was put into the position he had to wrest it back with the 2nd night. Now the nuance of "taking control" is not that tex was now the leader after cielo, but he made the cult into something it wasn't before and made all the awful talk of Charlie's into an awful reality that Charlie didn't really want.

Unknown said...

Why does everyone EXCLUDE Linda when talking about murderers at Cielo and Waverly? Was she not there?

Unknown said...

Sorry but Charlie was in control on night 2, he was the only one with a gun, he tied at least Mr LaBianca and took control telling everyone they'd be ok and then left, he took control of night 2, he knew AT LEAST Watson and Krenwinkel would kill

Unknown said...

Not trying to be offensive but look at the color of most of Jim Jones victims, most were black and in an area in Guyana with nowhere to go

Unknown said...

There was a message to night two and I believe it involved Suzan and Joe, Joe backed out later but Suzans behavior immediately following the killings then what happened 20 years later is just too much for me, you're telling me out of 300-400 towns in California that Suzan picks Calepatria AND the same school to move her kids into that Tate's sister had her kids in?

Unknown said...

In today's world it would have taken at most a day to figure out what was going on for a number of reasons, Melcher living there before, Rostau and Massaro having been there before, Parent complaining "I won't tell anyone you were here" at the time of the murders, Parents car having sustained body damage on the way out, no victims cars taken even though Sharon's was rented and a lot, lot more

Unknown said...

Listen to Garretsons interview with Brian Davis from 12 or 13, most is unbelievable but the part about being given a ride back up to Cielo after he went to Sunset is believable to me

Unknown said...

Speculator, I don't think Watson or Atkins had killed but they had taken part in murders, especially Atkins with Hinman

Unknown said...

If you give the simplest country white boy enough drugs for a long enough period he will see his victims as "shapes"

Unknown said...

Just because a DA or former DA continues on his lifelong story about "Helter Skelter" means it's true?

Unknown said...

Why didn't Manson kill Dennis Wilson, Kanarek or Older if he was serious about it? He was already going to prison for life for his other "murders"

Unknown said...

Or I should say have it done? There were plenty of people to do it for him after he was locked up

Peter said...

If by "there" you mean hiding in the car, yes she was there.

Unknown said...

They were at Cielo before so they knew what to expect, Tex knew Voytek was stoned out of his gord and that with the gun he could handle Jay, Steve turned up and Tex got to him before he got out of the car, after that Sharon and Abigail were nothing, if you look at Watson's behavior when they got to Weber's to wash off he was practically unchanged, Watson was an unusual person

Unknown said...

Someone PLEASE remind people that Tex was 6'3" 200 pounds and a physical high school athlete

Unknown said...

I agree with you here, LaBianca night was meant for MURDER nothing else, if Watson was as crazy as people thought he'd have disconnected the boat or taken the Thunderbird, the guns, coins, and drove out of there, with the boat removed it would have have been unrecognizable and not reported as stolen until the next day

Unknown said...

By there I meant euphorically but I still can't understand why Linda gets a big excuse for BOTH nights, why were Manson and Linda arguing before getting to the LaBiancas? She OBVIOUSLY knew what was happening, if I had witnessed what she had the Tate murder nights, I'd have RUN that night and got the fuck out of there

Unknown said...

And yes Watson did mention that him and Manson chased down some older ladies from a new casino in Chatsworth

starviego said...

Unknown said...
"Someone PLEASE remind people that Tex was 6'3" 200 pounds"

I don't believe Tex was that tall. And he sure wasn't 200lbs after months of tweaking.

Unknown said...

Look at all of his height charts, he was 6'3", 200 when he was tweaking is a little off, more like 175-180

Torque said...

Unknown, in one of Tex Watson's parole hearings(I don't know exactly which one), he gave a detailed account of his weight. He said that at his heaviest, he was 160lbs, and that was when he played football. Check out the transcripts of the parole hearings at cielodrive.com. Watson, when questioned about his weight, said something like, "I was just not that big of a man."

Gorodish said...

Unknown AKA dave1971 AKA S.A.G. AKA R.W.H. AKA etc. etc typed:

Someone PLEASE remind people that Tex was 6'3" 200 pounds

Tex was about 6-1 and 165 lbs. You can see in the group photo with Ballarat Bob Dunlap, at Barker Ranch from November 1968, that Tex is a beanpole. A sheriff report on him from Olancha in August 1969 reads "ruddy complexion, slim build". And like Torque brought up, he disparages the 200-pound thing during one of his parole hearings. He looks beefier in his high school and college pics, but the drugs and dumpster diver/macrobiotic diet of Spahn Ranch assured he was thin.

Gorodish said...

Torque typed:

Didn’t Watson mention in one of his books that him and Manson tried to ambush a couple outside a casino one night with the intention to rob and kill?

NotReallyUnknown AKA rudywebershose typed:

And yes Watson did mention that him and Manson chased down some older ladies from a new casino in Chatsworth

It was at a former poker club, the old Pass Club in Simi Valley, at the very top of Santa Susana Pass, where Box Canyon Road intersects with Santa Susana Pass Rd. The building is still up there, along with cell towers and junked RVs. It has an incredible view of both Simi Valley and the eastern San Fernando Valley. I've been up to the property as a guest several years ago.

Unknown said...

Lol come on man she wasn't hiding in the car at Cielo it even says that in Bugs book

Unknown said...

Revenge is a possible motive, but here’s a few things:

1. Hitler was a failed artist. Did he start the Nazi Party as revenge against the people that rejected him? Probably not. More likely a combination of bitterness about the Treaty of Versailles and the culture of anti-semitism of the time. Just like Charlie’s story, there are many layers.

2. As time goes on, I believe the murders were a combination of the drug burn and copycat. Tex and Kasabian were both reckless drug dealers that brought destruction to a lot of people. Frykowski and Sebring are both links to this. The women of the family probably had more to do with the crimes then anyone has talked about. THEY were pushing Charlie’s record career. THEY were hooking all the bikers and Hollywood types. THEY were spouting Charlie’s gospel. THEY were far from the brainwashed zombies that everyone believes. Manson wasn’t even at the ranch until a day or so before the murders.

3. According to Tom O’ Neil, Melcher visited the family after the murders. While some of O’Neils’ theories are crazy, Melcher knew more than he told the police and the prosecutor.

To be continued...

Speculator said...

Unknown - I agree about the multiple layers and combination of different motives. The question is though, which was the primary motive and therefore the trigger for the events that weekend? Why was that weekend chosen and what was going on in the days immediately prior to it that triggered the events. Let’s face it, the idea that it gets to evening time on the 8th and Manson spontaneously decides “now is the time” etc and Watson simply says “yup let’s do it” seems ludicrous to me.

Speculator said...

And yes O’Neill did appear to some good evidence of Melcher visiting Spahn post 9th August. I gave up on his book though when it moved into Mk Ultra CIA ramblings!

Dan S said...

Exactly what i said. Charlie took control on night two

David said...

Unknown said: " According to Tom O’ Neil, Melcher visited the family after the murders. While some of O’Neils’ theories are crazy, Melcher knew more than he told the police and the prosecutor."

Did Melcher do that?

What I found in O'Neil's book was that practically every zinger came from someone who is dead and someone who, with a little research, has no estate/heir. Thus he is safe from the legalities of any claim he makes. And, of course, they can't say 'that's not accurate'.

Now, 'yes' he says here and there he has tapes of his interviews. If that is the case and if he intends his work to have any historical value then he should set up a website where we can listen to them- like Cielodrive. Without that, and much like Ed Sanders (who has/had a shed of documents, photographs, etc) you have, really, nothing of historical value unless you can independently verify the point.

You are asked to trust him, because he is a reporter. So now, I ask you: are you a Fox person or a CNN person? Do you 'trust' the other 'side'?

Then why 'trust' him? Because he agrees with you?

He offers nothing we can research and confirm.

I found it particularly interesting he spent 50 years on this. He couldn't hand it (or any part) over to his publisher at any point in those 50 years, even though, at start, they paid him to research it. Why?

Well, one answer is the publisher wanted proof before they published and he couldn't offer it to them, just his word.

I would find his book far more compelling if he had published it when his witnesses were alive. Of course, that would have detracted form the 2019 surge of interest.

I feel the same way about Ms. Lake.

Even Bugliosi published while his 'witnesses' were alive. That is why HS is the starting research point.

Oh, if Melcher was at Spahn after August 8-9-10 do you really believe Kanarek would have let that slide, given Melcher's testimony? Well, ok, he was not a very good attorney, but all three of them dropped it?

The only real goal on cross examination is to break the witnesses credibility. I've tried to do it for 35 years, trust me.

Read Melcher's direct testimony. He says I had nothing to do with Manson besides, tangential a few moments in time, $50. This event catches him in a lie. It destroys his credibility and also suggests Melcher and Manson were buddies- and that feeds 'the cops framed him' argument and, if he admits it happened, it allows you, as an attorney, to ask the next question: 'did anyone tell you not to mention that?'

Just like we see that as a zinger- so would Kanarek et al and so would the jury.

My 2 cents.


Unknown said...

Speculator: great point about what the trigger was. I think the women may have come up with the copycat motive with Bobby, Sandy and Lynette locked up. Hence the words in blood at all three locations. Tex, tweaked out of his mind, probably thought “Hey I know a place we can do this and rob the drugs too”. Linda probably didnt need too much convincing.

This theory considering all of the women were young and inexperienced in crime (except Linda). They made a half-assed decision, and it becomes the crime of the century without meaning to.

With regards to revenge, Why wouldn’t Manson take Melcher (or the Wilson brothers and Jackson) out in a quiet, Mafia style hit? He had the opportunity, and he probably would have gotten away with it. It doesn’t make sense to orchestrate a high profile set of murders to draw attention to himself. We’ll probably never know.

David said...

So here is how it came down in the courtroom:

Melcher: I gave them $7 in change I dug out of my car seats, three bucks I had in my wallet and a flat of spam I had in the trunk. I never saw them again. Not once. Not ever, after um….May ….[looks at Bugliosi who holds up eight fingers] 8th . [Bugliosi nods] Right, that’s it, never again after May 8th.

Bugliosi: No further questions.

Judge Oder: Cross examination?

Manson to Kanarek: He’s lying. He was at Spahn in September. I have 30 witnesses who can prove this (explains the circumstances).

Kanarek: I don’t see a 14th Amendment issue here, but I’ll object on 18th Amendment grounds.

Manson: No, no, no…He’s lying. That has to matter. Right? Isn't that what you guys do?

Kanarek: I disagree, but I’ll ask counsel. [to Daye Shinn] Daye, Manson says (fills him in).

Daye Shinn: I don’t see what this has to do with the fact Caruso and Cabellero got all the money from Atkins’ book.

Kanarek to Manson: Shinn says its irrelevant.

Manson: [Gestures to Hughes and Fitzgerald.]

Kanarek: Ron, Manson says (explains the issue).

Hughes: I am not sure what to do, here. I think you should learn what ‘vibes’ means and reevaluate your crappy cross examination of Yanna the witch. I also have a good blunt and a hit of microdot for you so you might understand what the F---- you are asking. Wait! I don’t represent Manson anymore…my bad.

Kanarek to Manson: [Shakes his head.] [Manson points to Fitzgerald.]

Kanerak: [Leans to Fitzgerald, explains the situation.]

Fitzgerald to Manson: [A thumbs up.] I got this.

Fitzgerald: Mr. Melcher. Isn’t it true you went to Spahn Ranch after the murders, in September 1969?

Melcher: Um….[looks at Bugliosi who is staring at the table]… um, I guess so.

Fitzgerald: You guess so or you know?

Melcher: [Looks to Bugliosi who is avoiding eye contact] Yes, I was there like…um…maybe….ten to twelve times after the murders. I can’t remember them all. We moved out of Cielo because my mom was afraid he’d kill me.

Fitzgerald: I understand that, Mr. Melcher but isn’t it true you went to Spahn Ranch to apologize?

Melcher: Um…yes…I guess so…[looks at Bugliosi, who ignores him and even waves him off]. But why isn’t Dennis here? He had more to do with this than me. I mean, yes, the first time after that it was more about the dope and the women.

Fitzgerald: Mr. Melcher, I don’t care about either Mr. Wilson or the women what I want to know is didn’t you drop to your knees before Manson and beg him to forgive you?

Melcher: Um…only once, yes. That’s true.

Fitzgerald: And isn’t it true the only reason you went there and dropped to your knees and begged, yes, Mr. Melcher, begged, for forgiveness was because, as Ms. Atkins said in her Grand Jury testimony, Manson ordered everyone murdered at Cielo Drive, your former home, because of you?

Melcher: Yes, that is true, Charlie told me that before I......

Fitzgerald: You went to Spahn for one and only one reason…..isn’t that true sir……because they murdered those people to put the fear of God into you and only you….no drug burn….no Helter Skelter….no copycat…just to scare you. Isn’t that true?

Melcher: Yes, that is true…well the first time after that, like I said it was about…...

Fitzgerald: No further questions.

Shinn: Objection as to Ms. Atkins.

Hughes: Join as to Ms. Kasabi…err…. Krenwinkel or Manso…..whomever.

Kanarek: Objection, your Honor, this entire line of testimony denies my client his 14th Amendment rights. It is also incompetent irrelevant and immaterial. It also deprives my client of his 12th, 13th and 18th Amendment rights. May we approach?

Judge Oder: No, Mr. Kanarek. Mr. Bugliosi?

Bugliosi: The question does not have anything to do with the 18th amendment. That has been repealed.

Judge Oder: [Nods] Overruled.

Manson: Your Honor? Could I please represent myself?

David said...

My bad, very sorry...thanks to Cielodrive.com for the transcript.

Dan S said...

Oh, bravo! Mad magazine really needs to do a proper parody.

Gene Aquamarine said...

Wow, this was enjoyable to read! Great writing, and the interspersed quotes and photos added a lot. When you closed by saying that the house represented everything Charlie never had/would never have, that house WAS rejection, I was nodding my head, and seeing how that level of 'humiliation up close', overlaid with hyper-vigilance, mental instability and drugs could facilitate just about any kind of violent reaction.

Unknown said...

Gene: with all due respect:

10050 Cielo Dr wasn’t the center of the world. If Manson wanted revenge, why not go for studio executives? Judges? The Polanski house was a drug den without Sharon putting her high heel down and kicking everyone out. Hollywood and law enforcement knew drug deals happened there. It’s a god damn shame that Tate and Folger were home at that time. They didn’t deserve to die this way.

Gene Aquamarine said...

10050 was not have been the center of the world but it might have been the center of Manson's personal obsession/psychodrama. Please don't think I'm saying the victims deserved what happened. Tex and his accomplices were barely able to pull off what they did, at a private residence in the dark with the element of surprise. They probably couldn't have gotten so close to a powerful, ensconced studio exec or judge with heightened, professional security. It was opportunistic as well as savage and evil.

Unknown said...

With response and respect:

Manson had access to everyone in Hollywood because he had drugs and pussy. Think about it: lawless access to women without MeToo breathing down your neck. I wouldn’t go that way, but some people would. A sordid group of crimes without socio/religious undertones. Copycat/drugs.

grimtraveller said...

Matthew said...

But as far as Manson's motive, I have always believed it was 100% revenge. He did not get his way and that house represented that

Not long ago,the Col said No one stops to think that multiple things can be true at once and I thought that was one of the better points that he has made down the centuries. I live in a world of paradox where lines can appear to be blurred because multiple things can be true at once. It's normal for me, which is probably why I try to explain so much of what I see pertaining to this case and argue with everyone at some point !
HS is by its very existence a revenge motive. If you follow each of its sections and the way he "ran" the Family, it becomes clear that Charlie Manson is settling scores with all of the groups he has some axe to grind with. Women {Mom, wife}, liberals {pop stars, Hollywood, hippies} and conservatives {White men, authority and Dad}, society at large, government, Blacks, family, schools, churches and more besides.
Pretty much everything about him was couched in a hitting back of some sort. Even hanging with underage girls and young women and encouraging them to renege on controls that people usually exhibit to prevent them going down the road of our baser instincts was cocking a snook at American society at large.
Vengeance/hitback is so common in criminal and murderous activity. Look at ISIS and Al Queda. Look at Hitler and the 3rd Reich and place that in the context of Versailles. Look at the Bolsheviks/Communists in the Soviet Union. Look at what happened in Romania in 1989. Look at Zimbabwe after independence. I think a lot of governmental practice that masquerades as security/protection has revenge lurking in its shadows.
We could write a 4000 page tome on the place of revenge in history and still be barely scratching the surface. One could ask ¬> would Hiroshima and Nagasaki have happened if there hadn't been Pearl Harbour 4 years previous ?
The way the particular revenge is enacted differs depending on the individuals or groups concerned. It could be mixed with all manner of different head episodes ~ for example, Eldridge Cleaver admitting raping White women as acts of insurrection against White America. As he put it "I felt I was getting revenge." Crazy ? Perhaps but that's a secondary point. The point is revenge takes many different forms that are particular to the one enacting the revenge so saying "well, I wouldn't do this or that" is of no relevance or importance whatsoever. None of us are Charles Manson.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

The revenge motive works, but like all motives it has a big problem (which is even bigger in the revenge motive) which is seldom looked at- We know WHY Charlie chose each killer (indebted/indoctrinated) but how could he be sure they WOULD KILL?

How did Hitler or Gadaffi or Bin Laden ? How does anyone that plans a killing with someone who has not killed before {and even with those that have} know they will carry out the act ? How does any army leader know their soldiers will not freeze or run away, that they will kill ?
How does a newlywed know their spouse will make love on their wedding night ?
Exactly. No one knows for sure.
But there are indications that might tell you where one may delve or what one may do.
Charlie by the summer of '69 had seen the kinds of changes those that remained with him had gone through. He'd seen to all intents and purposes straight females engage in lesbian sex. He'd seen many of the same females pimped out to his fat, greasy, sleazy buddies. He'd seen males and females reject and abandon the mores that they'd previously struggled with but still held {at least nominally} as being "right." He'd watched how young people were keen to go to some lengths to prove their countercultural chops. He'd seen how they'd bit by bit followed his leanings in crime. He'd watched them come to rely on him in many ways as someone older and yes, smarter. He'd watched how they held him in God-like status and how no one openly questioned his tale of having been crucified nearly 2000 years ago. He'd seen how, when he told them to get on their knees and baa like sheep, they'd done it. He saw how they reacted when he chided them about not having given themselves over to egoless reality. He'd watched certain members leave and with no prompting return. He'd seen how some members had left and with coercion returned. He saw what happened when he hit some of the women. He noted how people followed his lead in the aftermath of the Lotsapoppa shooting and became paronoid of Black people coming up to Spahn. He noted that Bobby, who wasn't even one of his hardcore guys, was not beyond killing and that Susan and Mary were with him when he did so and didn't run a mile ~ they didn't tell the cops either ~ indeed, Leslie told Marvin Part in '69 that Susan was almost infatuated by killing in the aftermath of Gary, that she wanted to be in on the murders. Granted, it was only her opinion but this was privileged info to her lawyer.
The killers also believed in HS, absolutely.
Charlie didn't know for sure they'd kill {Linda didn't and Susan couldn't ~ she fought Wojiciech and may have dealt death blows only because he was fighting her and later, Leslie froze until Tex fortified her} but by August 8th '69 he had a fairly good idea in his own psychedically improvised, rambling way that if he sent some of his troupe out to kill, they would. He actually misjudged some of those he sent. In the grand scheme of things, that's but a secondary issue.

Peter said...

She knew she wasn't going to get immunity if all she could describe was the floor of the car.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually true

Actually, that's not so. It's more nuanced than that. It states that "more straightforward explanations are, in general, better." And there is a humongous caveat ~ it has to take into account all available evidence. It also does not at all follow that the simplest explanation is the right one because human beings are as unpredictable as we are predictable. And there is no accounting for what may be in an individual's head or what ingredients make up a group consensus.
To be honest, Occam's razor, or to go by its more regal name, Principle of Parsimony, is, in my opinion, a load of narrow minded shit when used in the Manson case, usually paraded by those that are not willing to either think outside the box or who are prepared to jettison much of the available evidence because they don't like the fact that it scotches their theory or what they want to believe.

Revenge is a universal, simple motive. Drugs/greed/money is a simple motive. Imaginary race wars based on Beatles albums created by Mailman stalker mentally ill DAs is complex and not simple

You know what's interesting about Brooks Poston's Oct 3rd '69 interview with Don Ward ? He talks about HS without having any idea either of the Family's involvement or of the fact that "Healter Skelter" was written on the LaBiancas' fridge because that was kept from the press. And at this point, he wasn't connecting Charlie with any murder other than that of Shorty and Lotsapoppa. He lays out so much of what the prosecution went on to learn. And this is before the Family is even arrested in the desert, let alone there being a case to prosecute, let alone there being a prosecutor.
To some extent Col, you're denying the available evidence by not having that interview front and centre in anything you go on to say about race wars and made up motives.
Manson told the world during his trial about the influence of popular music on young minds and how it shaped their thoughts and their actions when he said "The music speaks to you every day, but you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to even listen to the music...Helter Skelter is confusion. Confusion is coming down fast. If you don't see the confusion coming down fast around you, you can call it what you wish. It is not my conspiracy. It is not my music. I hear what it relates. It says, 'Rise!' It says, 'Kill!' Why blame it on me? I didn't write the music. I am not the person who projected it into your social consciousness" and he later concluded to Bugliosi that the Beatles' music and acid were responsible for the TLB murders.
The fact that it isn't simple and easily packaged is about as relevant as whether Nickleodeon shows are better than Disney ones. It is not about whether an explanation is simple but about whether or not it is true.
And to state again for the umpteenth time, there were at least 4 motives mooted by the prosecution for the murders.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said:

She knew she wasn't going to get immunity if all she could describe was the floor of the car

Which is why this point you've been making for a few years now makes no sense. Why don't you just come right out and say "Linda lied at the trial !"
And then go about providing the evidence.

I also believe that revenge against the establishment and the music industry represented by Melcher was Manson's primary motive for selecting his targets

I absolutely agree with you. He happened to believe college educated people were pigs too which I think accounts for him heading to Harold True's former house the next night when his random options ran out. The housemates that rejected his request to move in there were college guys. Yet another HS score settled {thankfully not}.
What tangled webs we weave ! That was a good example of how one can be in complete opposition to someone's point one moment then in the next breath in total harmony.
This case has a lot of that. Because it's not always that simple.

starviego said:

the Coroner agreed with the Saint:

Coroner, by Thomas Noguchi...Dr. Hacker's theories and my own study of the case have led me to conclude that Manson had a different motive...I believe that the pseudogod chose that particular house for a very mortal reason: symbolic revenge for a failed musical career. And after he had turned his worshiping cultists loose on Sharon Tate and her friends, the LaBianca murders were purely random, committed only to throw police off the real "revenge" trial at 10050 Cielo,


The irony of that being that it's the LaBianca killings that ultimately sink Charlie. That's what had him on the suspect list to begin with.
Anyway, Dr Noguchi's opinions on the whys and wherefores are interesting....but hardly settle the matter !

ColScott said...

Grim slut- re the True Housemates- I kinda agree with you- were they ever interviewed by the pigs?

I don't know. The cops did check their house the day after the LaBiancas were found and discovered that no one was living there. Harold True certainly believed Charlie had his former housemates in mind for murder and someone claiming to be one of the housemates' nephews wrote in to one of David's posts a couple of years ago saying that both True and his uncle Ernest {one of the housemates} were of the belief that on the night in question, Charlie was after them. It doesn't prove it to be so but it's more than food for thought when put together with everything else that we know about that night.

Peter said...

I think she ran out of there pretty early in the proceedings. Certainly before people were getting chased down with upraised knives. But Bugliosi needed someone to put a knife in everybody's hand. Linda knew what she had to do.

Speculator said...

Grim Traveller - while I often admire your near forensic dissection of comments on here, I’m sure you will concede that your thoughts and theories, as much as anyone else’s, have little support in terms of hard evidence. The problem being that there is a distinct lack of hard evidence for any one particular motive and very little that really “settles the matter”. The overwhelming amount of evidence in this case comes from proven liars and criminals. At at the heart of this is a hardcore group who were essentially a criminal enterprise and not, it could be argued, some pseudo religious cult. The whole HS thing may simply have been a vehicle for Manson to control and manipulate his naive minions to do his will - and not in itself a motive for anything. It could purely have been a tool to get the job done for whatever the real motive(s) were. I’m not saying that was the case but it’s perfectly logical to assume that it is a possibility given the manipulator that was Manson. I’m sure if Manson had gotten his record deal then HS would’ve been radically revised into something a lot more benign if not jettisoned altogether along with most of his minions!

Speculator said...

In terms of the second night and the motive for the LaBiancas, I’ve always been drawn to some of the minor evidence as to why they were chosen. While others might disagree, I find it notable that the newspaper vendor was particularly struck by how shaken Mrs LaBianca seemed to be about the Tate murders. He mentioned it very specifically in his evidence. You would expect anyone to express shock upon hearing about the murders at Cielo but his evidence (to me at least) suggests that she was extraordinarily shocked/frightened. It clearly stuck in his mind from what must’ve been a very brief meeting. I know that she thought their house had been broken into previously but I’m not sure why you would associate that with such high profile murders. It does make you wonder. Was there a second witness too who said something similar?

Speculator said...

And as it’s established that Mrs LaBianca was already in what appeared to be a heightened state of anxiety, how did Manson (or Manson/Watson) manage to gain such easy access into their home without any sign of forced entry in the dead of night when both occupants were still up and about? No telephone lines cut this time either and in a much more built up area.

Unknown said...

Speculator: The LaBiancas knew they were in trouble. They knew that people had been in their home and moving things around. That alone would cause me to get a guard dog and a firearm. Leno and Rosemary were both involved with criminal activities. The walls were closing in. There is speculation that Watson knew Rosemary with drug dealing and the wig shop (Tex) and boutique (Rosemary). Senseless murders that had nothing to do with revenge or revolution. They took their time before and after the murders. No need to cut the phone lines, because no one could have saved them.

Gorodish said...

David typed:

So here is how it came down in the courtroom:

Melcher: I gave them $7 in change I dug out of my car seats..........


Holy crap this was classic!! For a minute I found myself thinking "what??" and heading to Cielodrive.com, when I realized the satire. David, you rock!

Peter said...

It's possible Manson had been in the house while at Harold True's before the LaBiancas moved in.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

I’m sure you will concede that your thoughts and theories, as much as anyone else’s, have little support in terms of hard evidence

Don't be too sure !
I don't concede that at all.
There are demonstrable solid reasons that cast great doubt on the copycat {I'm being polite}.
There are demonstrable solid reasons to kick the drug deal theory into touch.
The same cannot be said of HS. You can say you don't believe it and you can say it's a load of shit and both stances are valid ~ but in order to kick it to the kerb you have a ton of evidence to dismiss, debunk and explain, especially when in conjunction with revenge and many of the other attendant packages that make up the picture.

The problem being that there is a distinct lack of hard evidence for any one particular motive and very little that really “settles the matter”

If you're going to take that line, you need to define "hard evidence." Now, I think I have an inkling into what you mean and if we're going to take that line, then the only person against whom there is any hard evidence is Leslie. There is hard evidence she stabbed Rosemary ~ her own words and those post mortem stab wounds. There's no hard evidence that Tex committed any crime. Or Pat.

The overwhelming amount of evidence in this case comes from proven liars and criminals

Circumstantial evidence happens to be extremely common in murder cases. That's why the standard set is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
When you say "the overwhelming amount of evidence" are you talking about strictly what went on inside the two residences or are you talking about the totality of evidence from which a picture can be formed ?
If the former, are you saying you don't believe those proven liars and criminals ? In reality, if they had done a Charlie Manson and not talked of what they did or what their involvement was, a good lawyer could have got them off.

At at the heart of this is a hardcore group who were essentially a criminal enterprise

Except that none of the murderers were exactly hardcore criminals. They were pretty dozy for crooks ~ and so was Manson. The end result of every one of his periods of freedom was.....failure and prison.

The whole HS thing may simply have been a vehicle for Manson to control and manipulate his naive minions to do his will

People have been making this point for years and my feeling every time is that this is illogical. Charlie was controlling and manipulating his troupe and had been doing so since 1967. He didn't need HS to get straight girls to engage in lesbian sex. He didn't need HS to get his troupe crawling around on all fours baaa~ing like sheep. They moved where he moved. They talked like he talked. They called themselves a family and prior to that they were known as "Charlie's girls." Some of them were convinced of his deity long before HS came along. He was dosing and dispensing acid long before HS.

it’s perfectly logical to assume that it is a possibility given the manipulator that was Manson

Whether it's logical is debatable. That it's possible is not. It could of course be a possibility.

I’m sure if Manson had gotten his record deal then HS would’ve been radically revised into something a lot more benign

The record deal, or more to the point, the record Manson was to make, was integral to HS.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

I find it notable that the newspaper vendor was particularly struck by how shaken Mrs LaBianca seemed to be about the Tate murders. He mentioned it very specifically in his evidence

Well, he was asked how he recalled what the time was and he said that it was a slow period so they had a few minutes to chat. He states that he was the one that told them about the "Tate mishap" and that they'd not heard about it before he told them. He gave them a LA Times with reports about the murder at no charge because they talked about it.
If Rosemary felt someone had been in the house before, that might shake one up a bit.
But what is curious and balances John Fokianos' impression of Rosemary somewhat is that {at least, according to Charles Manson} the back door through which he {and after him, Tex} entered was unlocked.

Peter said...

I think she ran out of there pretty early in the proceedings

It would appear that the entire episode didn't take a long time so that's not inconsistent. We don't have any timing from the perps.

Certainly before people were getting chased down with upraised knives

So you're saying she lied.

But Bugliosi needed someone to put a knife in everybody's hand

So you're saying that he coached his witness, invited her to lie or say something that he wasn't certain was true and could be surprised with in court.

Linda knew what she had to do

So you're saying that she lied !

It's possible Manson had been in the house while at Harold True's before the LaBiancas moved in

That's precisely what he said. He said it openly to Rolling Stone in 2013 and he'd said it to Vanity Fair in 2011. He didn't deny it. He knew the house.
Harold True made the point to Judy Hansen in that infamous phone call back in the 90s that the murders happened in houses that Charlie knew.

Speculator said...

Grim - it is perfectly logical that HS was required by Manson in order to continue and extend his control. Every form of control wears thin on even the most gullible after a time so maybe he needed HS for that purpose - maintaining his control. Maybe he just thought “wtf these clowns will believe anything I tell them!”. Or it could be that he genuinely believed that crap himself. We don’t really know either way. But he was a very cynical and hardened manipulator who I don’t personally think would’ve believed the script that he was feeding the others. But he would’ve loved the fact they they believed it. The point about their competence as criminals is irrelevant. I wasn’t suggesting they were in any way successful but that criminality was their core function nonetheless - drugs, theft, murder. As for the record deal - are you seriously suggesting that HE would’ve gone to live in some shack in the desert and participated in murder had he achieved fame and fortune in early 69? I suppose it’s possible as he was a total fruitcake but money softens even the most ardent beliefs. The point about Kasabian lying, yes I agree with Pete that she did. To what extent only she really knows. And once her narrative was more or less accepted by the others in their evidence too (for whatever reason) I guess it became very difficult for them to row back from that. The psychology of lying is once you make up your story you stick to it. Don’t forget that it could’ve been Atkins as the star witness getting off Scot free - imagine that?? Bugliosi was purely concerned with getting his convictions. He was still controlling (or trying to) what Kasabian did and didn’t say 40 years later!!! Remember the revelation about frisking Parents pockets that she only remembered all that time later. She was the cleverest of all of them as she saw a way out for herself. And it’s striking too how her demeanour changed at Watson’s trial (when her own freedom had been secured). Much more blase and cold and none of the emotional little girl lost act. How do you explain that?

Speculator said...

Grim - the back door unlocked at the LaBiancas - precisely the point I was making. If, as you say, Manson is to be believed about that. If Rosemary was in such a heightened state of fear the first thing that you would do would surely be lock and bolt all of the doors. but It’s her reaction at the newsstand (and was there also another witness to it too?) that clearly stood out significantly. Why would a murder, however horrendous, on the other side of town in celeb land make her react that way? And I don’t buy that Manson was after the guys at Trues house. If people (and the suggestion being Manson people) had been going in and out of the LaBiancas in the recent past as claimed by Rosemary, wouldn’t Manson already know that Trues was empty?

Speculator said...

Also, when they pulled up on Waverley and Kasabian (I think) expressed concern that Manson had picked True’s house, didn’t he say no we’re not doing that one, it’s the one next door? So there was never any intention to target the True house? The whole driving around aimlessly, declining different targets and then suddenly homing in on the LaBiancas after Manson had left and returned to the car also stands out as suspicious. It’s the reading between the lines about what has been told by those involved.

Peter said...

Grim. I do think she lied. I dont think it was necessary for anyone to coach her. If Linda was good at one thing, it was looking out for Linda. It doesnt take a genius to figure out where things stood.

Peter said...

Manson chose the second house precisely because it was on the other side of town. Waverly was the copycat. How many people have said that as soon as they heard about Cielo they thought of Charlie? Maybe they are embellishing a little, but there were some that had reason to make that assumption. Waverly blurred that connection.

Peter said...

The only thing that tempers my belief that Linda lied is the belief that Manson and the girls would have raised holy hell in the courtroom. Grim, do you recall if they were even in the court room for her testimony? I can't off the top of my head but I know they were often ejected for their behavior.

Unknown said...

Waverly wasn't on "the other side of town as Cielo", it wasn't close but it wasn't anymore than a jump from Hollywood to Benedict Canyon

Speculator said...

Metaphorically it was - it wasn’t gated mansions and celebs land.

Gorodish said...

NotReallyUnknown typed:

Waverly wasn't on "the other side of town as Cielo", it wasn't close but it wasn't anymore than a jump from Hollywood to Benedict Canyon

Yes, our boy Mon Durphy from the suburbs of St. Louis, Missouri, is the expert on Los Angeles geography.....

Tragical History Tour said...

Any chance we can stop ascribing the HS theory to Bugliosi? Surely the Coroner To The Stars Noguchi thinking Bugliosi pulled it out of thin air is enough reason to give it serious weight.

Haven't we come far enough to know that it was in solid existence well before TLB.

Remember, it can be an implausible unlikely paranoia and drug fueled mess of craziness of a theory, but it only needs to exist and be viable in a few peoples vulnerable minds to inspire them to do whatever they are told. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest it WAS swirling around in enough heads at the time to be a real motive to THEM.

Self appointed experts misusing Occam's Razor doesn't alter that fact.

Every crime the Crazy Family ever committed probably has numerous motives depending who you were - revenge on the estab, sticking it to mom and dad, getting back at XYZ who rejected me, just because, to see if we can, get a dude out of jail, stealing is wealth sharing, to prove my loyalty to a cult, because it's a thrill, whatever.

TLB was no different - multiple motives.

Dark Warmer said...

Try not to commit this error: representing delayed timeframes on your feet may negatively affect the entirety of your body. Your bones should be compelled to adapt to an expanded mechanical burden, the heart should siphon more diligently, and the lungs should likewise work more enthusiastically to siphon adequate oxygen all through the body. Ever notice a consuming sensation in your legs?
Read more at:
Gel Cushioned Kitchen Mat
https://matforkitchenfloor.com/gel-kitchen-mats/

Speculator said...

Now it all makes sense - Manson was representing delayed time frames! ;-)

grimtraveller said...

Dark Warmer said...

Your bones should be compelled to adapt to an expanded mechanical burden, the heart should siphon more diligently, and the lungs should likewise work more enthusiastically to siphon adequate oxygen all through the body

Sounds like Tex all those Augusts ago.

Peter said...

If they had only had cushioned kitchen mats at Spahn, none of this would have happened.

AndyTaylor said...

According to Sanders' book, CM drove around "at random" according to those in the car with him. He occasionally left the vehicle for minutes and then returned. He could have been using payphones to call the Labiancas, waiting for them to answer. When they did he could have just hung up, knowing they were home. Passengers with CM said he eventually lost the pointless, random driving vibe and seemed to know exactly where he was going. If the family WERE involved with the Labiancas for a drug deal it would make some sense they left the door unlocked. Mrs Labianca was in an overcoat, leading credence to the idea she drove someone somewhere- maybe to get drugs/money from her or Leno's store while probably Tex stayed behind with Leno?

AndyTaylor said...

These weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer (so sorry) so base revenge motives could have been at play, but it seems pretty obvious that these seem to be drug-deal related murders with side motives of race wars and revenge. Crowe? Drugs (even though he wasn't murdered CM thought he had been). Hinman? Drugs. Assuming Tate wasn't home that leaves Frykowski, Folger and Sebring as known targets. All of them and Tex were dealing in drugs. Rosemary is alleged to have been dealing in drugs, too. It seems pretty obvious that the common denominator is drugs. Manson knew where Melcher lived and could have served a hot, fresh plate of revenge after the telescope appetizer. To kill people who used to live in Melcher's house as revenge seems pretty flimsy motive. Drugs / robbery seems motive one, with revenge and HS being distant sub-motives. There is not one thing left behind at the crimes to suggest CM was trying to blame the murders on blacks. In those racially charged times, in an attempt to blame blacks, why not write in blood something much more racially based? Die Whitey? Black Power? Whitey Will Pay? Anything other than the completely indirect messages they left. If CM did return to the Tate house after the murders, surely he would have written something in blood to point the finger of blame to the blacks. But the first conclusion the cops came to when seeing the crime scene? Drugs. If CM really wanted a record deal, there are a lot of revenge-based things he could have done to extort / blackmail a record deal out of Melcher.

Speculator said...

AndyTaylor - yes it’s those little snippets of information that make you question the official narratives. Rosemary with her coat on is a strange one as is Manson’s behaviour as they drove around as you described.

Speculator said...

And as to how they gained entry so easily to the LaBiancas, I’m wondering now if Manson simply knocked on the door and claimed to be a cushioned kitchen mat salesman!

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

Frykowski, Folger and Sebring as known targets. All of them and Tex were dealing in drugs

When you say "dealing in" do you mean selling or just taking ? If you mean the former, could we have some evidence that can at least have some corroboration ?

Rosemary is alleged to have been dealing in drugs

I also hear she used to take regular flights to NeverNever Land with Peter Pan and Tinkerbell.
Neither is credible information, though.

It seems pretty obvious that the common denominator is drugs

Um, no. Tex didn't get drugs from Lotsapoppa. The plan there all along was to get money. And he followed it up 3 days later with a $5000 bonanza courtesy of Charles Melton.
And even if you believe Bobby's Twilight Zone extravaganza, drugs are not the reason Gary Hinman died. According to Bob, it was Charlie attacking Gary with the sword that directly led to his death as he was a problem that they couldn't deal with for 2 days and Bob felt Charlie, not taking responsibility for creating the shitstorm, rather tied his hands.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

Manson knew where Melcher lived and could have served a hot, fresh plate of revenge after the telescope appetizer

Sure.....if the idea was to get Melcher. Which it clearly was not.

To kill people who used to live in Melcher's house as revenge seems pretty flimsy motive

You miss the import.....the key to both nights is that people had to be killed. It wasn't particularly important who as long as they were 'pigs'. Charlie may have had an axe to grind with the inhabitants at Cielo in March, but he didn't know they'd be there and if he was pissed at Rudi Altobelli, he wasn't sure he'd be there as he'd told him he'd be gone for a year. And the following night, it was obvious that in showing the murderers who had already done it how to do it, the idea was to show his superness by picking people at random in a display of super Charlie daringness. And when that didn't pan out after 4 attempts, he went to where he thought there would be people that he could get ~ after all, he had a gun and Tex and Clem. But it wasn't the LaBiancas he had in mind, I suspect. It was the inhabitants of the house next door. However, when he did end up at the LaBiancas, it had the net effect of establishing that which he had intended before they'd even set off ~ a random killing of random people that he didn't know and hadn't specifically planned on killing ~ until the desperation of the hour demanded it {in his mind}. And armed with that confidence, once they left, he was sufficiently buoyed to plan another killing in semi-random fashion. Harold True had a point when he identified the two murder locations as places Charlie knew and we later learned he had cause for at the very least, some angst towards both places.

There is not one thing left behind at the crimes to suggest CM was trying to blame the murders on blacks

Apart from knives and fingerprints, they didn't leave anything behind !
Oh, except messages in blood that did actually have the police investigating the Black killer angle.

In those racially charged times, in an attempt to blame blacks, why not write in blood something much more racially based? Die Whitey? Black Power? Whitey Will Pay? Anything other than the completely indirect messages they left

Susan and Pat had never killed before and didn't consider that they'd actually dealt the murder blows to any of the victims, what with Tex working overtime, but were nevertheless shaken at having stabbed people. I think that may have accounted for them not thinking about a slogan appropriate enough to satisfy you 50 years on.
It could have been a clever stroke to do it the Charlie way which was to leave credit cards and a wallet in an area where they'd seen lots of Black people in the hope one would find the cards, use them and get nabbed. It was as clever as Charlie got.
Except that it didn't work !
By the way, Bobby tried to lay the blame on Black people when he murdered Gary Hinman and guess what ?
He lasted 11 days and is still inside.

the first conclusion the cops came to when seeing the crime scene? Drugs

Because they were cops. And they found drugs on or about 3 of the victims. And they believed that drug takers would lose control on their drugs at some point and freak out. They were so entrenched in their view that even when, 2 days later they were given a mighty clue that could have broken the case by August 11, it was dismissed by one of them {the infamously anonymous Jess Buckles}.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

If the family WERE involved with the Labiancas for a drug deal it would make some sense they left the door unlocked

If a group as unable to keep their mouths shut as the Family were involved with the LaBiancas in a drug deal, it is unlikely that after 51 years it has not leaked out.
Certain of the Family and Charles Manson are among the most wonderful cases one will ever see of folk that just can't take responsibility for what they did, can't admit they got "catched" and will deny to their dying day that actually, as shitty as straight society and LE may be, they were not smarter than either and can be seen through quite easily by anyone that really wants to actually look.
The drug deal theories, in my estimation, are clung to by those who enjoy swimming in Egyptian rivers.
And while I'm at it, why would it make sense for someone about to sell a huge cache of illegal drugs to leave their front door open in the dead of night {or even conduct a huge deal immediately after a 4 hour journey in which they'd expected their son to be returning home with them} ? I don't know what drug dealers you've ever known but I've known plenty and each one could easily have run a security firm, so hot were they on security. Open flouting of their wares or property are not in the drug dealer's remit.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Grim,
You're right and it's quite true:
it wasn't about drug dealing, the murders that is.
To say that Rosemary LaBianca was a drug dealer has as much validity as saying good guy Hinman was-none.
It's an insult to poor Rosemary and to Hinman to say that they were.
So, you also know that none of 'em said any such thing, the three girls on trial with Charlie, nor did he, or they.
But they all, including Tex,said the same thing, the truth- "go there...destroy/kill everyone there," and, to continue down the road and steal...blah blah...
Did Susan, Patricia and Linda and Tex lie about such? Why, no cause that's what easy life Charlie told 'em to do.
When Charlie went into the LaBianca house, where was the drug angle?
It's a joke, there was no drug angle. He admitted (he had to anyway) to going into the house, terrorizing the poor couple and tying at least one of 'em up.
Then he told Tex to go in and for what? It was tea time?

grimtraveller said...

Unknown said:

I still can't understand why Linda gets a big excuse for BOTH nights

I don't think she gets excused. It's just that she didn't kill anyone that first night, indeed, she ran away and on the second night she prevented a murder. No reason to give her any props !

why were Manson and Linda arguing before getting to the LaBiancas?

People didn't argue with Charlie. Well, not unless they wanted a rifle butt to the face.

if I had witnessed what she had the Tate murder nights, I'd have RUN that night and got the fuck out of there

Yeah, terrible that she only ran off a couple of nights later and not right away. That 2~3 day gap makes her obvious guilt all the more lamentable.

ColScott said:

his own fucking wife thought he was mentally ill

She wouldn't be the first person to think their spouse was a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Yet she stayed with him for a further 40+ years which kind of balances that out, think ye not ?

Unknown said:

The women of the family probably had more to do with the crimes then anyone has talked about

I presume you mean the planning and orchestration of them.
Those murders were entirely consistent with Charlie's penchant for impulsive behaviour, the kind that landed him in jail all his adult life.

THEY were pushing Charlie’s record career

Oh do tell. They were backing singers. Or to put it another way, they were the monkeys, not the organ grinder.

THEY were hooking all the bikers and Hollywood types

At Charlie's behest. And when Leslie & Pat went off with bikers and sought to be with them permanently, it was Charlie that brought them back, wouldn't let them go and breathed out the threats. Even before the end of 1969 Susan was privately telling her lawyer about Charlie's threats, some in conjunction with Tex.

THEY were spouting Charlie’s gospel

Yes, but whose gospel was it ? You said it.

THEY were far from the brainwashed zombies that everyone believes

I agree. They were neither brainwashed nor zombies. They were believers and contrary to many people's suppositions, believers think about what they are giving themselves over to. They may ignore things that they don't want to grapple with, but let's face it, that happens everywhere, even here.

Manson wasn’t even at the ranch until a day or so before the murders

Which all the more emphasizes his power. Nothing happened until he was back, even if you believe the copycat ~ which I most assuredly do not.

According to Tom O’ Neil, Melcher visited the family after the murders

Something not a single Family member attests to. Interesting, that.

While some of O’Neils’ theories are crazy

It's not that O'Neill's theories are crazy. None of them are crazy. They're all actually plausible. But therein lies their greatest and major weakness ~ they're all plausible. So obviously they cannot all be correct. Yet they all carry equal weight of plausibility. Their other great weakness is that he set out to debunk Bugliosi, a man that is generally not particularly liked, by other branches of LE, his own branch, the criminals and as Col would tell you, his own wife ! Finding stuff about Bugliosi that could be painted as dodgy is like finding stuff about any one of the presidents of the US that could be construed as dodgy. It goes with the territory.
But none of that stuff has any bearing on whether Charles Manson ordered the deaths of 11 people {even if one didn't die} and had some straightforward and bizarre reasons for doing so.

AndyTaylor said...

Saint, you make some fine points. But the drug connection is hard for me to ignore. Sure, Tex wanted money (and got it from Lotsapoppa) but he got it based on a premise of a drug deal, even if it was bogus. It may have been Manson's involvement that caused Bobby to kill Hinman, but the scenario started because of drugs. Frykowski, Sebring and Watson were all drug dealers. It seems Manson et al were quite desperate for money so they may have gone into a drug-burn-for-money frenzy. I appreciate your clever alliterations and references to Egyptian rivers and all, but you are making a few assumptions that I never presented. I never referred to a huge cache of illegal drugs. If Manson or Tex knew the Labiancas, there's reason to believe that in the hipster-world of 1969 L.A. people would be more inclined to leave their doors unlocked if they expected familiar guests stopping by. Why else would they leave their door unlocked at such a late hour? Expecting their son? Maybe. Perhaps the contemporary drug dealers you know are hip to security in a way their 1969 counterparts were not.

AndyTaylor said...

grimtraveller said:

If a group as unable to keep their mouths shut as the Family were involved with the LaBiancas in a drug deal, it is unlikely that after 51 years it has not leaked out.

Killers up for parole are not likely to change the narrative that's officially accepted by the parole board. To do so may appear to challenge the verdict, their involvement and rehabilitaion. Any information they may have that would change the narrative would not be in their best interest to disclose.

AndyTaylor said...

Grimtraveller:

I think that may have accounted for them not thinking about a slogan appropriate enough to satisfy you 50 years on.

Without a doubt. But if CM sent people to commit murders that were to spark off a race war, and with these killers having been indoctrinated with the racism needed for this view, wouldn't those slogans be really prominent in their minds? Moreso than just PIG, DEATH TO PIGS, RISE and HEALTER SKELTER. And if CM sent people into a home, say on Waverly Drive in Los Feliz, with the intention to kill the inhabitants, wouldn't he send them with murder weapons? Assuming the victims have knives available in their homes isn't that far-fetched, but is CM et al clever enough to think of that beforehand? These people were definitely on the lower rung of the intelligence ladder so assuming they operated anywhere close to “normal” is a big leap.

I appreciate your research and thought-provoking take on the revenge motive. And I think it's certainly possible that it played a role in these murders. It makes more sense to me than the HS motive, but so does the drug motive. According to Schreck, CM told him he went directly to the Straight Satans clubhouse in Venice directly after the Labianca house to give them money he owed them. Maybe this was tied more to money than anything else. No doubt CM believed in HS (or at least preached it) but that doesn't mean he believed it enough to think he could actually jumpstart a WAR with a couple of nights of murder. He may have told some of the killers that, but I really don't think Tex was in it for any other reason than to get money/drugs to then turn over to CM, in the hopes that he would move up the ladder of acceptance within the Family.

beauders said...

If revenge against Melcher and the beautiful people was the motive, for Manson not getting a record deal then Esalen must have added a lot of fuel for Manson's anger.

Doug said...

Off topic here...buuuuut...

For those (like myself) who were unable to view episodes of "Helter Skelter - An American Myth" the person who uploaded Episodes 01 and 03 to Youtube month ago (I posted links) has uploaded Episodes 02 and 04 in the last couple of days. Here are those links -

S01 E02

https://youtu.be/pzfaS90HtvQ

S01 E04

https://youtu.be/7N3XYuvO_0M


Enjoy

Doug said...

S01 E05 is uploaded now also

https://youtu.be/lCZ_6Sp2irg

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

the drug connection is hard for me to ignore

There is without a doubt a drug connection. But there's also a "murderer with dark hair" connection. There's a "walking on the streets" connection at all of the murders. And none of them have anything to do with why the murders occurred.

Sure, Tex wanted money (and got it from Lotsapoppa) but he got it based on a premise of a drug deal, even if it was bogus

But that makes a drug "connection" not even a tenuous one. When we say there is a drug connection, people generally take this to mean that drugs are the central reason {or at least a significant one} these murders happened, not that some of the people involved took or sold drugs. The Lotsapoppa event had as much to do with drugs as it had to do with a car being involved as they were all in a car at one point. No, it was a money thing. Charlie shot to kill because he wanted to keep the money, $2700. And three days later, with not a whiff of a drug in sight, Tex cajoled Linda into stealing $5000.
On CieloDrive.com there's some interesting interviews with some of the drug dealers thought to be connected with the murders, like Billy Doyle.

It may have been Manson's involvement that caused Bobby to kill Hinman, but the scenario started because of drugs

If one believes Bobby's tale. I don't. In 1970 he told the jury that Charlie murdered Gary. By 1976 he was spinning a different tale, which, notably has found him distancing himself more and more from Charles Manson.
The Straight Satans drug deal thing is, in a word, "improbable."

Frykowski, Sebring and Watson were all drug dealers

Watson we know. Strictly small time, but OK. Sebring we don't know. Frykowski we don't know but it looks like he was planning on going in that direction. The dealers spoken to were open about him buying drugs.

I never referred to a huge cache of illegal drugs

I know. I did. In answer to the point about the LaBiancas being dealers leaving their door open at 2am. If you're selling drugs to the Family, it'd hardly likely to be a couple of dime bags of weed. Therefore, implicit in your assumption of them being dealers to a group numbering as many as the Family, is the built in assumption that they would be carrying a sizeable amount.

If Manson or Tex knew the Labiancas, there's reason to believe that in the hipster-world of 1969 L.A. people would be more inclined to leave their doors unlocked if they expected familiar guests stopping by

The LaBiancas were hardly hipsters.

Why else would they leave their door unlocked at such a late hour?

Well, Leno was up, reading his racing paper and the dogs were able to go in and out. There could be 100 reasons why they left the door unlocked but it at least indicates that Leno wasn't worried about some prowler making their way into his house.

Perhaps the contemporary drug dealers you know are hip to security in a way their 1969 counterparts were not

Some things in life and history do not change. People selling illegal wares, whether it was bootleg booze during prohibition or drugs during the 60s or guns at other times did and do so covertly, not calling attention to themselves.


Welcome to the blog, by the way. I enjoy the spirited debate.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Killers up for parole are not likely to change the narrative that's officially accepted by the parole board. To do so may appear to challenge the verdict, their involvement and rehabilitaion. Any information they may have that would change the narrative would not be in their best interest to disclose

And yet every single one of the convicted killers has done precisely that. Bobby, Susan, Bruce, Leslie, Pat, Tex, every one of them has said, of some of the accepted findings, "that is not the case." And has continued to do so. And it was noticeable after a while, that the various parole boards were asking the perps if they disagreed with any of the official findings and what should be the correct version. At some point they all did. And haven't gone back on their changes.

if CM sent people to commit murders that were to spark off a race war, and with these killers having been indoctrinated with the racism needed for this view, wouldn't those slogans be really prominent in their minds? Moreso than just PIG, DEATH TO PIGS, RISE and HEALTER SKELTER

The killers were in thrall to Charlie. It was his words and concepts that bolstered and shaped their lives. Like Bobby at Gary's house, they thought they were throwing suspicion on Black people while shocking the world into being so outraged that the White Americans with an axe to grind would start taking it out on Black people. Susan told Virginia Graham that she was at peace because she knew this was the beginning of HS and the world would listen.

And if CM sent people into a home, say on Waverly Drive in Los Feliz, with the intention to kill the inhabitants, wouldn't he send them with murder weapons?

a]The victims were tied up. They weren't going anywhere and they weren't offering any resistance.
b]Tex had a bayonet.

assuming they operated anywhere close to “normal” is a big leap

The paradox of this case is that we see both pretty straightforward and normal behaviour from the perps mixed in with bizarre elements. They stand together side by side and are key, in my opinion, to understanding this case and avoiding just throwing one's own suppositions in, outside of what is actually there to build on.

According to Schreck, CM told him he went directly to the Straight Satans clubhouse in Venice directly after the Labianca house to give them money he owed them

Of course, in supposedly stating this, Charlie was admitting his guilt in the LaBianca murders ~ something he went to the grave denying.
Take your pick. Either way someone's theory is getting popped.
But we have potential lies galore on this. For example, Bobby told Michael Moynihan "Eventually I picked up one of the cars we'd taken from Gary's, the Fiat with the Toyota engine. The bike club hadn't wanted that one, they took the VW bus" which also happens to be untrue. It was given to Mark Arneson who was told, if stopped by cops, to say he'd been sold it by a Black guy called Gary Hinman.
When people who are supposed to corroborate each others tales actually end up contradicting them in an attempt to shift the blame, a pattern emerges that calls into question almost anything they say that looks like it is going the opposite way to the collective prosecution analysis.
I enjoyed Shreck's 900+ page book. It's excellent in many ways. It's also packed with demonstrable holes, some of which have been covered over a number of years on this blog as well as some I've pointed out myself and stuff that has clashed with all of Charlie's recent heavyweight supporters Stimson, Squeaky and Aldag.

grimtraveller said...

Unknown said:

According to Tom O’ Neil, Melcher visited the family after the murders

In a way, O'Neill's book is the most HS-like of all the books that have come out since 1969 in its ability to cause or bring about almost instantaneous, uncritical believability. It does have the advantage of over 20 years of 2 very important sources of the pouring of doubt on the case's findings ~ firstly the rash of readable anti HS/Bugliosi books by very capable authors {Nick Shreck, George Stimson, Michael White, Ghostdancer, Robert Hendrickson ~ plus doubt tomes by ex members Lynette Fromme and Susan Atkins} and secondly the tremendous minds and thoughts of many contributors over the last 16 years on the various internet forums. But it utilizes its advantage well, aligned with interesting and sometimes solid research. The authors mentioned above just did not inspire instant believability in their stories. Few come out in actual wholehearted support of what any of them say in total.
But "Chaos," once the dust has settled and one gets back to critical thinking, has many flaws and doesn't actually make a case other than "I'm sure I'm onto something beyond what we've been told and the prosecution was dodgy."
The handling of the "Melcher at Spahn after the murders" is a case in point. A big deal was made of it and interestingly, Bugliosi doesn't duck the issue. Sometimes though, one's critical faculties are important. I find it hard to believe that someone on trial for his life could hear someone tell a barefaced lie in court and knowing that getting caught out in the lie would knock his opponent's credibility right out of the park and pour more than uncomfortable doubt on the tactics of the prosecution, would not make gold out of that straw. Yet we are to believe that Manson did this with Melcher ~ if you believe what Tommy O says.
And ultimately, none of the Family ever spoke of Melcher being at Spahn post-TLB, even in their lying period, let alone the truthful interludes. One of the killers, Leslie, was actually adamant {and this was before she was known to be one of the killers} that Melcher only came up to Spahn to hear Charlie and the group sing.
"Chaos" is a good book. It reminds me of a tiger, suddenly leaping out from behind some bush and standing on its hind legs. It's huge and scares the shit out of anything it encounters. But once you get over the initial shock and remember that you have a rifle to hand, it becomes a lot easier to breathe calmly, think rationally and answer initially difficult puzzles.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"And ultimately, none of the Family ever spoke of Melcher being at Spahn post-TLB, even in their lying period, let alone the truthful interludes."

Huh? O'Neill got his info from written transcripts of interviews of DeCarlo and Watkins.

starviego said...

Thanks for the links, Doug!

Doug said...

No problem. I wish she'd upload Episode 6 (complete with Charity Shane snippet in soundtrack)!

Cheers

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Huh? O'Neill got his info from written transcripts of interviews of DeCarlo and Watkins

Which, when checked out obviously went nowhere.
How many Family members have you ever heard or read make such a statement ~ as opposed to the opposite of which there is stuff on the record ? Paul Watkins spoke at huge length with Ivor Davis and Robert Hendrickson and is quoted extensively in their books. And he wrote a huge autobiography. And said nothing .........
And Danny who by his own admission was smashed 90% of the time and couldn't tell a Tuesday from a tubes day and didn't think any of the women would commit murder ?
Be careful what you sign......

grimtraveller said...

Unknown said...

I think the women may have come up with the copycat motive with Bobby, Sandy and Lynette locked up. Hence the words in blood at all three locations

Bear in mind that no one at the ranch could have known that Mary and Sandy had been arrested. Check the time on Mary's mugshot.
Bear also in mind that Leslie, when privately talking with her lawyer landed Charlie, Tex, Bobby, Mary, Susan, Pat, Clem and Linda in the shit as regards murder. She admitted guilt and told about all their guilt too. She would have had nothing to lose by saying it was actually a copycat, not any cult murder rubbish or race war nonsense.
But she didn't.
And when she did, during the trial's penalty phase, it was at the cost of implicating herself in the Hinman murder which everyone and their Grandma knows she had nothing to do with.

Gorodish said...

grim.....
.....you do know that Andy Taylor is "unknown", who is also "Mon Durphy", who is also "Lou Gehrig", who is also "rudywebershose", who is also "susanatkinsgonorrhea", who is also "dave1971"....you've been down this road many times, my friend:-)

Gorodish said...

grim.....
.....you do know that Andy Taylor is "unknown", who is also "Mon Durphy", who is also "Lou Gehrig", who is also "rudywebershose", who is also "susanatkinsgonorrhea", who is also "dave1971"....you've been down this road many times, my friend:-)

Speculator said...

Grim - Andy Taylor is quite right in highlighting various anomalies in the stories behind the murders. And your questioning of the drug connection in the Crowe shooting is flawed. As I’ve said before, Manson’s hardcore were essentially a criminal enterprise. Their knowledge of and connection with Crowe was drug based. They appear to have moved in the same criminal circles as he did and their meeting was drugs related. Now whether you can extend that same kind of connection to one or more of the Cielo victims is a moot point. But it’s not too far a stretch of the imagination to see that some of the elements of the world that Frykowski and Sebring moved in may have touched indirectly or maybe even directly with Watson/Manson. Of course there is no primary evidence for that but there is a lot that points towards it.

AndyTaylor said...

I'm not convinced connecting drugs / drug dealing to some of the Cielo victims is a moot point. While I agree the HS motive has the most evidence (most of it circumstantial) the drug motive is as loud as a Deep Purple concert and equally impossible to ignore. While DP may demand your attention without rewarding it, not the same can be said of the drug motive. It's not loud, but more subtle like Mingus and definitely rewards your attention.

Tex seemed to be on the inner fringes of the Family – a position he no doubt couldn't get out of with his repeated coming and going. After turning over $2,750 to CM, he probably felt elated and a rush of acceptance to and by a group of people who seemed to be in dire need of cash to get to the desert which seems to be CM's biggest goal. I've read/heard that CM was being extorted by the Straight Satans to keep quiet about his involvement in the Crowe incident and the Hinman murder. It was their sword, after all, used to hack Hinman at CM's hands. CM allegedly told Schreck that he went to the Venice headquarters of the SS after leaving the Labianca house to pay them what he owed them. This doesn't prove that he was involved in the Labianca murder, just that he could have received the money that was stolen from them, if that indeed happened. And no, Grim, CM has not REALLY denied his Labianca connection. When asked, he always changed the subject – danced around it. One time (the Kennedy or Reagan interview?) he says “he went into the house and there was some dude sitting on his couch.” And that's all he says about it. As “headline-ready” as the HS motive seems, I wonder if Schreck isn't onto something in his book and the drug connections. If he DID owe money to SS and wanted to get out to the desert, he needed money, not dead bodies.

AndyTaylor said...

Bug said HS is just the motive for which they have the most evidence, but not the only potential motive. It was so obvious and easier to collect evidence for HS and was more tantalizing than an everyday drug burn. Bug did an excellent job getting these creeps off the street and that may have been his primary motive. But he could have also wanted the spot light and big book sales he knew this would generate. Why else would he install his co-author in the courtroom? There's another motive that is certainly plausible. Drug burns don't sell books no matter how almost-famous the victims are but race wars and bottomless pits in the desert? Jackpot.

Maybe Tex hoped that handing over bags of $ to CM would result in a promotion seating him next to Bruce, Paul, etc. According to Sanders' book, Tex and Dean Moorehouse were frequently at the Cielo Drive house and if Tex was chumy with Frykowski (a fellow drug dealer) he may have been privy to impending drug deals going down at the house. Or just being a drug dealer may have availed him of drug deals going on in several places. And if Tex had burned Lotsapoppa (in a bogus drug deal) and gotten away with it, why would his young, stupid self not think he could get away with it again? The whole “Sharon wasn't supposed to be there” thing is so curious to me, especially given that she was supposed to be spending the night at a friend's and her car wasn't in the driveway, being in the shop after an accident. That leaves Frykowski, Sebring and Folger at Cielo. Two drug dealers and a financer of drug dealers. Curious that Jay Sebring shows up a little before midnight. Curious that Frykowski had beaten some competing drug dealers not too long before the murders. Curious Tex shows up around midnight. Curious that Frykowski says “what time is it” when Tex wakes him up. Not “who are you? Who the fuck are you? Tell me who are you?” If there was a drug deal going down, perhaps the source hadn't shown up yet and Sebring and Frykowski objected to Tex crashing their drug deal with death (and speed) in his eyes. Then it all went to hell.

AndyTaylor said...

The Family was wrapped up in illegal activity: drug deals, car theft, etc. Why would CM all of a sudden be concerned with a valid driver's license and require the newly-arrived Kasabian to drive the killers around L.A? She went to visit Beausoleil in jail but they wouldn't let her in because she didn't have valid I.D. She (at Tex's goading) delivered $5,000 to the Wizard so she seemed to know enough about robberty and was now an asset and Tex was her pal. They had become very close according to Tex's first book.

Grim makes the assertion that the girls only had CM's words in their heads so all they could think of to scribble in blood were PIG, HEALTER SKELTER, RISE and DEATH TO PIGS. Does anyone think Charlie told Tex to say “I'm the devil, here to do the devil's business” or did Tex think of that himself? If he DID, why not assume the girls would write more racially-charged words in blood to point the finger of blame to black people? Things they thought of themselves. Tex's “devil” line just seems too perfectly timed and worded to have actually happened. Something tells me that little gem was fabricated. It's just too Hollywood-screenplay ready.

I'll admit the Labianca drug connection is really far-reaching. I haven't read Schreck's latest version of his book which allegedly presents all kinds of information supporting that theory. It IS curious that Rosemary was in her overcoat, under which was her pajamas. Her and Leno had just returned from a vacation and they were both dressed for bed. Why was the car with the boat attached in the street? I lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years and it has ALWAYS been illegal to park a towed vehicle in the street. Whether trailer or boat, you get a ticket if you do it. When their son returned the next day the first thing he noticed was the boat attached to the car in the street. Leo never did that according to him. So much so that it caught his attention immediately. Maybe CM or Tex drove that vehicle with the trailer to Leno or Rosemary's stores (or both) to get money from a safe? It was the weekend and cash could still be in a safe before being taken to the bank on Monday. They return to the house and CM takes the $ to Venice, leaving Tex et al to do whatever they were going to do.

So curious also is who CM sent to commit these crimes. These were people, like Tex, whom he may have viewed as expendable. LVH says CM frequently referred to her as “what's-her-name.” Sadie was always causing trouble and she came and went. Tex came and went. He wouldn't have dared to send Bruce, Mary, Sandy, Paul, Squeaky or any of the other hardcore inner circle. They were proven loyalists. But Sadie? Tex? New girl Kasabian? These were all flight-risks or unknowns. Van Houten and Krenwinkle were maybe just throwaways in his mind. Desperate, like Tex, to be accepted into the inner circle and he may have sensed their desperation for acceptance and knew they would do anything to move up the ranks. Who know. Like I said – curious.

I'll end it as I began it. The drug motive is too big to ignore. In my mind, it's has at least as much credibility as HS and more than the revenge angle, but that has some great points also which Grim wonderfully detailed in his initial post.

Sincerely, Andy Taylor / unknown / Mon Durphy / Lou Gehrig / rudywebershose / susanatkinsgonorrhea / dave1971

Peter said...

If they were there to rob the LaBiancas why did they leave behind the coin collection and other valuables ?

Peter said...

I think it's perfectly natural for Rosemary to put on her overcoat to cover her night gown when someone came to the door. She was a lady.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

Andy Taylor is quite right in highlighting various anomalies in the stories behind the murders

I never said he wasn't. I happen to disagree with him on the drug angle and it is my custom, if I disagree with a person's speculation or conclusion, to say why.

And your questioning of the drug connection in the Crowe shooting is flawed

No it isn't.
If I say to a big sugar importer that I can get them a huge quantity of cheap sugar for $60,000 and they hand over the money to me and I abscond with the money and they want their money back and call my house and my brother happens to be at home and they talk and agree to meet and my brother ends up shooting the sugar importer and we keep the money ~ is that a sugar related crime ? In a way, yes it is. But in reality we all know it's got jack to do with sugar !

Their knowledge of and connection with Crowe was drug based.....and their meeting was drugs related

I don't recall anyone denying that.
However, drugs were not what this was about. Money was. There's little point in endlessly going round in circles on this. Essentially, the three people involved {Crowe, Manson, Watson} have all spoken about it and all three, despite coming from totally different places and angles, are unanimous on one thing ¬> it was a money scam.

They appear to have moved in the same criminal circles as he did

See, the way you put that is rather misleading. Tex knew Rosina. Crowe knew Rosina. That's the extent of the connection. So while technically, without explanation, your statement is true, once one examines the nuances it's as close to true as the moon is from Neptune.


But it’s not too far a stretch of the imagination to see that some of the elements of the world that Frykowski and Sebring moved in may have touched indirectly or maybe even directly with Watson/Manson

It's not too far a stretch of the imagination.......and that's ultimately, 52 years on, all one has on this, imagination. The imagination can take one to all kinds of wonderful places that have no basis in reality. I prefer something a little more solid to go on. I'm not going to draw case changing conclusions based on the fact that convicted killers and their victims lived in the same city and drank the same kind of tea.

Of course there is no primary evidence for that

There's no primary, secondary, tertiary or any kind of evidence for it. All there is is desperation for it to be so. Obviously, that's the best kind of evidence there is, right ?

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

there is a lot that points towards it

The killers all took drugs. And obviously knew dealers.

One of the killers was a sometime, extremely small time dealer in drugs. Drug dealing was so lucrative to him that he left drug dealing and went back to the Family and worked on dune buggies for nothing and ate out of dumpsters......

Four of the victims took drugs {at least at some point}.

The police initially thought the murders were drug related.

Some decades later, a probation officer, William Cavanaugh wrote a book about his life in crime {a clever catchy title} in which he states as fact that Steven Parent was in the system for drug dealing and speculates that he got murdered as part of a turf war.

But any thoughts of drug connections were dead and buried long before the crimes were connected with Charles Manson and Charles Watson and did not again rear their heads until well into the penalty phase of the trial when Linda Kasabian was suddenly thrust into the limelight as the mastermind behind the killings by Susan and Gypsy and in order to lend legitimacy to the notion, was said to be dealing drugs to personages at Cielo and was burned in a deal on MDA by "someone" {maybe they couldn't remember the names of some of the people they'd murdered}.
Pure speculation on my part ~ I suspect none of the Family had even heard of MDA before 1970 when the defence started getting evidence that had to be turned over to them, like the toxicology reports. Oh, Susan knew at least one of the victims {Abigail} was into drugs, same way I've watched interviews on TV with people and knew they were or had been turning on ~ because when you move among those roaming the universe or hell and do so yourself, you recognize your fellow travellers.
You don't need to be a doctor specializing in addiction to know that Keith Richards and Ozzy Osbourne have some kind of a drug history !
Drugs played a huge role in the lives of the Family and they played a huge role in the murders. As did a host of other factors. But playing a role in is not the same, by a long stretch, as being the cause of. Leslie's abortion played a role in the murders but that's not why she wanted to be like Pat and kill....

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

I agree the HS motive has the most evidence (most of it circumstantial)

I note the doubt-incurring inclusion of the word 'circumstantial' ~ in England, we call that damning with faint praise.
Forget motives for a moment ~ there is absolutely no evidence that Tex was at the LaBiancas. It is purely circumstantial evidence that has him guilty of those murders.
There is absolutely no evidence that Pat was even at Cielo while the murders were in commission or at the LaBiancas at all. It is purely circumstantial evidence that has had her sitting in jail for 52 years.
But circumstantial evidence has immense power, sometimes way more than just eyewitness testimony. Why ? Because it works in conjunction with all the other evidence available. Astrocreep described the prosecution method beautifully ~ "Death by 1000 cuts." Despite what many have said about the Kasabian testimony, I can't see that any one piece of evidence on its own could have been decisive. It was as brilliant an example of all the moving parts working together to achieve motion as one is likely to see. Circumstantial evidence played its part in that because as we know, establishment of one fact often gives rise to and connects with another and the defence were left very few places to turn. Even if one utterly disputes the prosecution case and verdicts and thinks there was all kinds of muckin' abaaaahhht afoot, to give credit where credit is due, one would have to at least admit that the prosecution case was comprehensive and cogently presented, if wrong.

the drug motive is as loud as a Deep Purple concert and equally impossible to ignore

Even at their heights in any one of their first 4 incarnations, their studio albums would be superior to me than any one of their gigs {"Highway star" and "Smoke on the water" on "Made in Japan" notwithstanding}.
There's a lesson in that, somewhere.

grimtraveller said...

Gorodish said:

you do know that Andy Taylor is "unknown", who is also "Mon Durphy", who is also "Lou Gehrig", who is also "rudywebershose", who is also "susanatkinsgonorrhea", who is also "dave1971"

If so, I totally missed it this time round. Mon, Lou and rwh were easy to spot but Andy's writing has a reasonableness about it that has been very un~Dave like. There again, there hasn't been any heated debate that get usually gets Dave to shed his latest skin and reveal himself. Maybe the preponderance of the drug motive should have tipped me off.

you've been down this road many times, my friend

You're right. Despite all things though, Dave and his various alter egos have always brought up lots of good talking points. Even at his nastiest, I kind of liked sparring with him.
Of course, as St pointed out a couple of years back, there's only so far one can keep going down that road for something that doesn't essentially matter.

starviego said:

O'Neill got his info from written transcripts of interviews of DeCarlo and Watkins

From unnamed officers and no apparent date {I'm ready to stand corrected on the date issue}. That in itself is dodgy.
Paul Watkins is kind of interesting because he had very poor command of dates. He said on Aug 9th he, Brooks and Paul Crockett were watching a thing on the moon landings when news of the murders came on and that Crockett had said 'wouldn't it be something if Charlie {whom he'd not met} had done it'. But that's not what I find eyebrow raising. It's what he said about the moon landings. He mentioned that they had taken place "the week before." 20th or 21st July is not the week before. It's 20 or so days before which is a far cry from 7 or even 12.
Furthermore, he speaks of going to Spahn in the sort of immediate aftermath of the murders and Charlie was not there. He caught up with Charlie at Barker so how he could have seen Terry Melcher there begging forgiveness from Charlie on acid is a wonder. I'm not surprised Bugliosi had lines going through the supposed interviews with Danny & Paul. One has to remember that Bugliosi, by his own admission, was obsessive. It occurs to me that one of the reasons few of the cops or his colleagues spoke well of him was that he didn't just let sleeping dogs lie. He checked and double checked and triple checked and if he found some discrepancy in what had previously been just accepted, he'd later make the original finder of what was just accepted look kind of stupid. I mean, Jess Buckles looks stupid 52 years on.
Aaron Stovitz was happy to prosecute a simple murder case without all the extra-curricular activity.
LAPD were content with not doing ¼ of the digging Bugliosi insisted they do. He added so much to the case and he was, in his and Gentry's book, highly critical of LAPD as a whole and some individual officers in particular.
The DA's office were content to give Susan Atkins immunity but he wasn't and he pushed for her immunity to be revoked when no one else did after she recanted. In fact he was making noises about her Grand jury testimony being dodgy and incomplete even before she recanted.
His "Death by 1000 cuts" was pretty thorough but it did make enemies. And that isn't surprising either.

ColScott said...

mentally ill DAs

What's interesting about this is that Bugliosi admitted that it was his wife's opinion, that she thought he might have a psychiatric disorder.

starviego said...

There are two big reasons I don't believe in the 'drug burn' theory:

--That was the entire focus of the police investigation for the first six weeks at least. The cops traveled all over the place pursuing leads but it all came to naught. So either the cops were incompetent, or they got paid off to keep quiet. Either seems unlikely.

--In 50 years, the theory hasn't evolved at all from what was being speculated in the first week. Who exactly ripped who off? Was it drugs or was it money? What kind of drugs, and in what quantity? How much money are we talking about?

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

not the same can be said of the drug motive. It's not loud, but more subtle like Mingus and definitely rewards your attention

The drug theory/motive is as subtle as Ritchie Blackmore's strat sounds at the end of the thrilling chase that is "Hard lovin' man" but it's not as cleverly constructed or controlled, nor does it hold together anywhere near as well after a day, let alone a half a century.

I've read/heard that CM was being extorted by the Straight Satans to keep quiet about his involvement in the Crowe incident and the Hinman murder

Oh, you mean that group that shits on and disowns Danny DeCarlo for giving evidence against Manson ?

CM allegedly told Schreck that he went to the Venice headquarters of the SS after leaving the Labianca house to pay them what he owed them. This doesn't prove that he was involved in the Labianca murder, just that he could have received the money that was stolen from them

Which, if he went to Venice from the LaBianca house makes him involved !.


And no, Grim, CM has not REALLY denied his Labianca connection

Well, I tell you what. Make the case for what he's said in regards to there being some sort of connection to the LaBiancas and I'll listen. I have quite a bit of stuff from the mouth of one Charles {5 to die, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Goodbye HS....} in which he's clear that his connection was to their house, not them and that their murders were random in the sense that they were not in particular targetted.

I wonder if Schreck isn't onto something in his book and the drug connections

I wonder if the same heavyweight gravitas that worked on straight laced girls in the late 50s, the Family in the 60s and the underground press in the 70s wasn't at work in his supporters in the 90s and early 2000s because the same sort of thing is at work ~ believing him while being in a certain measure of disagreement and contradiction with those that believe him.

If...seemed...probably...I've heard...could have...if that...I wonder...if he did...

Sometimes, what is presented as circumstantial isn't circumstantial at all. Just balloons with lots of air to be let out.

If he DID owe money to SS and wanted to get out to the desert, he needed money, not dead bodies

I'm sure Lotsapoppa and Shorty would concur with you !

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Bug said HS is just the motive for which they have the most evidence, but not the only potential motive

He presented 4 motives at the trial, only one of which was HS.

It was so obvious and easier to collect evidence for HS and was more tantalizing than an everyday drug burn

Yes, it was so obvious that HS would be easy to present as one of the motives for murder, despite his own office and the lead prosecutor being at loggerheads with him about it, despite the cops thinking it was nonsense, despite the entire legal community of LA believing Charlie would walk, despite Bugliosi himself not having a clue as to a motive for months.
And no, it really was not and is not more tantalizing than a drug burn. One didn't need to be a Hippy or countercultural to understand drug dealing and the underworld. On the other hand, a bunch of longhairs committing murder in the hopes that White people would turn against Black people and start killing them in order to trigger a civil war among Whites that would eventually so decimate them that Blacks that had been in hiding would come out and finish them off and rule the world only to find out they couldn't hack it so they would hand over the reins of power to the only Whites who had escaped the carnage, who just happened to be hiding under the desert in a subterranean paradise, while cheerfully accepting once again the slave status that the American civil war was partly fought to end while the longhairs that initially committed the killings ran the world......
A drug burn, if true, would have been a walk in a park on a sunny day to prosecute in comparison.
But it wasn't and isn't true. Besides, how can you easily collect evidence for something that you don't know exists ?

getting these creeps off the street...may have been his primary motive

If getting them off the creeps was his primary motive, he was risking a most embarrassing death in court by presenting HS if it wasn't true. The thing with HS is that it not only walks in step with the evidence, it gells with the other motives presented and the subsequent actions of the perps right up to when they were incarcerated.
The drug burn does neither.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

But he could have also wanted the spotlight and big book sales he knew this would generate

You overlook one very important reality in your cynical take there ¬> what if the perps had walked ?
He was going to be in the spotlight whatever happened. HS, copycat, drug burn, Linda rape revenge; the case made such a huge media splash that, particularly with the gag order, it was going to make heroes or villains of a host of characters. He couldn't guarantee winning and he couldn't guarantee book sales. How many of the other Manson related books are huge sellers ?

Why else would he install his co-author in the courtroom?

Because he wanted to write a book. It was always going to be a trial worth writing about.

Drug burns don't sell books no matter how almost-famous the victims

Are you kidding ? You don't think that if such a high profile murder of Hollywood types with big time Hollywood contacts really had been the result of a drug burn, it wouldn't have merited enough interest to sell at least some copies ?
Even Capote's "In cold blood" sold some copies !

race wars and bottomless pits in the desert? Jackpot

Yet race wars, bottomless pits in the desert and the naughty goings on the convicting jury a year before didn't even merit a drop in the ocean. Such are the paradoxes of the literary world.

Tex and Dean Moorehouse were frequently at the Cielo Drive house and if Tex was chumy with Frykowski (a fellow drug dealer) he may have been privy to impending drug deals going down at the house

Frykowski was never at Cielo when Melcher lived there, which is when Tex & Dean would visit the house. He frequented the house precisely because of Roman Polanski moving in.

if Tex had burned Lotsapoppa (in a bogus drug deal) and gotten away with it, why would his young, stupid self not think he could get away with it again?

Oh I don't know, maybe the shooting and assumed death of the burnee may have given him pause. In any case, that is the only record in 52 years that has ever been presented of a Texan drug burn. Name one other drug burn Tex did. Just one will suffice.

Curious that Jay Sebring shows up a little before midnight

Well, if 7.30pm constitutes a little before midnight {remember the bike salesman}......
In addition, there are photos of him there on other days, Roman Polanski, Mrs Chapman, Sharokh Hatami and Rudi Altobelli all confirm that. He wasn't exactly a stranger.

Curious that Frykowski says “what time is it” when Tex wakes him up. Not “who are you? Who the fuck are you? Tell me who are you?”

I think you need to actually clue yourself up on the facts of the case because that is precisely what Wojiciech did ask. Yes, his first question was what's the time ? {a common question that many, many people would ask on being awoken} and his next two were who are you ? and what do you want ? which in itself torpedoes any notion of any kind of prior connection between Tex and his victim.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said...
If they were there to rob the LaBiancas why did they leave behind the coin collection and other valuables ?

Maybe they didn't see them? If they're looking for quick cash and/or drugs, those kinds of things would be of little interest especially if a fence / pawn is needed to dispose of them.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said...
I think it's perfectly natural for Rosemary to put on her overcoat to cover her night gown when someone came to the door. She was a lady.

If someone was at the door, late at night, wouldn't Leno answer the door? As much as we can assume Rosemary to be a lady, we can equally assume Leno was a gentleman.

AndyTaylor said...

starviego said...
There are two big reasons I don't believe in the 'drug burn' theory:

--That was the entire focus of the police investigation for the first six weeks at least. The cops traveled all over the place pursuing leads but it all came to naught. So either the cops were incompetent, or they got paid off to keep quiet. Either seems unlikely.

For sure either are unlikely. But once the HS motive appeared with more evidence, the investigation was likely steered towards HS. I'm not doubting HS or revenge, but the idea of a drug burn is hard to resist. Sure, HS is more camera-ready, but the drug-burn idea has a lot of lose threads that could be tied together to create another secondary or even primary motive. CM says he barely knew Kasabian and she confirms this in her trial testimony, stating that they never had a private moment together or private conversation. If CM had such control over these people, why and how could he send Sadie and Tex? Both of whom were mavericks, coming and going from the family many times, even taking speed, something forbidden in the family. And Kasabian? She's been on the ranch 3 or 4 weeks. How could CM so quickly control her mind to even get her to drive a car on the way to murder?

--In 50 years, the theory hasn't evolved at all from what was being speculated in the first week. Who exactly ripped who off?

Hasn't evolved at all? Perhaps you should check out Shreck's latest edition of The Manson File to see how much it has evolved.

Well - Tex ripped off Lotsapoppa. Linda ripped-off her husband. If there was a burn at Cielo, obviously Tex ripped off someone there.

Was it drugs or was it money? It could have been both.

What kind of drugs, and in what quantity? How much money are we talking about?
No way to know the first two except for speculation. For the third: Lotsapoppa it was $2,750. For Linda's husband, $5,000 - although that seems to have been just plain robbery with no drugs attached. Cielo / Labianca? No way to know. Whatever the details, it does appear that the family entered into a world of robbery / drug burns with the arrival of Kasabian and her alignment with Tex, who had burned before. With CM's firm control over the weaker ones like LVH & Krenwinkle, it would be easy to send them as assistants to help someone with a drug burn / robbery motive, even if that plan was somebody else's.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

Why would CM all of a sudden be concerned with a valid driver's license and require the newly-arrived Kasabian to drive the killers around L.A?

The day before the murders, he was stopped and ticketed in San Diego for....not having a valid driving licence.

She went to visit Beausoleil in jail but they wouldn't let her in because she didn't have valid I.D

You assume she had her licence with her. But even if she had, it obviously wasn't seen as a problem because she was instructed to go the next day. Not only that, her ID wasn't rejected at the women's jail because she got in there and was told that Sandy and Mary were in court.

and was now an asset and Tex was her pal. They had become very close according to Tex's first book

Where in his book does he say that ? I can't such a statement anywhere in it. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place so can you guide me to the right one ?

why not assume the girls would write more racially-charged words in blood to point the finger of blame to black people?

The words they wrote were supposed to be racially charged in their minds. But the Family didn't hang out with Black people so they knew very little about how Black people would talk among themselves, let alone if they had just committed murder. If, in reality, the Panthers had committed those murders, writing the kind of stuff you suggest would be way too obvious because they wouldn't want it so obviously clear they were guilty as they'd know what would come down on their communities. They knew the shit that came down on their communities when the cops weren't looking for murderers, when minor things like stolen cars were in the frame. The Family, when it came to Black people were as ignorant as many other White people in the country at the time and they were equally ignorant of how to successfully navigate crimes of serious magnitude. Look how quickly Bobby was snapped up. And he did leave a more obvious "Black person" sign.

I'll admit the Labianca drug connection is really far-reaching

I think I will, too.

I lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years and it has ALWAYS been illegal to park a towed vehicle in the street. Whether trailer or boat, you get a ticket if you do it

Dang, where were those ticket touting cops at 2am when the LaBiancas were being slaughtered ?

curious also is who CM sent to commit these crimes. These were people, like Tex, whom he may have viewed as expendable

The expendable theory makes even less sense than the drug burn. If you want evidence of that, just look into how hard Charlie tried to reach the women once they were all caught and blabbing away.

He wouldn't have dared to send Bruce, Mary, Sandy, Paul, Squeaky

Bruce claims he refused. Sandy was 8 months pregnant and in jail with Mary. Paul was hundreds of miles away at Barker and had left the Family. And you're wrong about Mary. Hinman ? You're also wrong about Bruce. Shorty ?

But Sadie? Tex? New girl Kasabian? These were all flight-risks or unknowns

If true, surely that would be the very reason you wouldn't send them. The irony being that Sadie got CM indicted and the new girl Kasabian's evidence played a huge part in getting him finally to land in jail to walk free no more till his dying day.

The drug motive is too big to ignore

It wasn't ignored. It was, as Starviego points out, investigated by cops flying all over the USA and parts of the Caribbean.

it has at least as much credibility as HS and more than the revenge angle

But unlike those two, it has no evidence to support it which puts the kibosh on its cred.

Speculator said...

Starviego - there’s every possibility that the Police either looked the other way or simply ignored certain lines of enquiry. Corruption was rife in the 60s. There were plenty of people in the establishment with agendas against the counter culture of the time. And there were massive vested interests in Hollywood too with plenty of money and influence available. None of it provable of course and you may be right that the original story is the right one. But so many things just don’t fit and so many questions were either ignored or sidestepped.

Doug said...

Maybe she'd just finishrf taking the dog out...Leno was absorbed into the sports page so, Rosemary was left to get the dog sorted before calling it a night?!

AndyTaylor said...

Which, if he went to Venice from the LaBianca house makes him involved !.

I don't doubt he was involved. I am just questioning to what extent a potential drug burn played in these crimes. If the Family needed money, drug burns would be a way to raise some cash quickly. Tex committing a drug burn against Crowe for money is evidence that he could do such a thing. Just because that's the only one we know of, doesn't mean it's the only one that he committed. If a person receives a speeding ticket one time, does that mean they've only sped once? Probably not. That's just the one time they got caught and ticketed.

 I have quite a bit of stuff from the mouth of one Charles {5 to die, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Goodbye HS....} in which he's clear that his connection was to their house, not them and that their murders were random in the sense that they were not in particular targetted.

I can't and won't argue with that. I'm just curious about the theory of the drug burn as being one of a few possible motives. The drug connection to the Labiancas is the weakest. CM and company went to Venice after the Labianca house and IF what he allegedly told NS about paying the SS (based in Venice) is true, this highlights a suspicious timing in relation to the events of the whole night. CM, like so many in this case, changes stories or details thereof enough that it's easy to question everything they say.

I'm sure Lotsapoppa and Shorty would concur with you !

Ok, well that doesn't really add anything to what I'm saying. The motives could simultaneously be a drug burn to raise money to get to the desert to avoid the imminent (in CM's mind) race war while the crimes themselves would help escalate the arrival of said race war and CM could get a little revenge at the same time. If the motive was ONLY to start HS, why stop after Labianca? Even if Tex and all involved at Cielo/Waverly couldn't / wouldn't obey, there was apparently no shortage of brain-washed zombies to keep killing and further pointing blame to black people. Or perhaps enough money had been raised to pay off the SS and finance a final move the Death Valley. I don't doubt HS or revenge as motives, I suspect they're not the only things at play. The Family needed cash so committing drug burns could be a fast way to raise cash as history had proven.

Why else would he install his co-author in the courtroom?

Because he wanted to write a book. It was always going to be a trial worth writing about.

Of course. But the race war / cult leader as Jesus Christ / end-of-the-world / Beatles-as-gods-and-prophets / etc. etc.? That's publishing gold. Drug burns with celebrities would sell some books temporarily, but this story as published turned into a cash cow for decades. Perhaps Bugliosi sensed what a gold-mine he was sitting on.

AndyTaylor said...

Drug burns don't sell books no matter how almost-famous the victims

Are you kidding ? You don't think that if such a high profile murder of Hollywood types with big time Hollywood contacts really had been the result of a drug burn, it wouldn't have merited enough interest to sell at least some copies ?
Even Capote's "In cold blood" sold some copies !

“In Cold Blood” sold a lot more than “some” and continued to do so for years after it was published. I didn't say it wouldn't sell “some” copies. Celebrities and drugs make good copy. But THIS story with all it's angles?

Yet race wars, bottomless pits in the desert and the naughty goings on the convicting jury a year before didn't even merit a drop in the ocean. Such are the paradoxes of the literary world.

You're going to have to unpack that one. In what ocean did these crimes and their circumstances not make a drop? They were all over the news in all forms for months. If it were in today's world, there would be a separate website just for the news about this story.


if Tex had burned Lotsapoppa (in a bogus drug deal) and gotten away with it, why would his young, stupid self not think he could get away with it again?

Oh I don't know, maybe the shooting and assumed death of the burnee may have given him pause. In any case, that is the only record in 52 years that has ever been presented of a Texan drug burn. Name one other drug burn Tex did. Just one will suffice.

That shooting and assumed death of the burnee did nothing to steer Tex away from crime and murder as history and his prison sentence bear out. If these people REALLY believed that HS was coming down any day now and the world as they knew it was about to be incinerated while they were hiding out in the desert, only to emerge as kings then it would make sense that they would operate in a way as to never be called to account for their actions. The world's ending, why not do whatever you want to do?

I think Tex's one verified drug burn is enough to make the point. See “speeding ticket” example above.

I think you need to actually clue yourself up on the facts of the case because that is precisely what Wojiciech did ask. Yes, his first question was what's the time ? {a common question that many, many people would ask on being awoken} and his next two were who are you ? and what do you want ? which in itself torpedoes any notion of any kind of prior connection between Tex and his victim.

Point taken. I was wrong and stand corrected.

The day before the murders, he was stopped and ticketed in San Diego for....not having a valid driving licence.

I understand. But I question that CM is suddenly so concerned for a trivial legality like a valid driver's license. At this point CM's life is a HUGE example of a man who never learned or profited positively from his errors. There's no reason to think he would start now.

AndyTaylor said...

Where in his book does he say that ? I can't such a statement anywhere in it. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place so can you guide me to the right one ?

Please see page 63 (pdf version) of “Will You Die For Me?” It's more implied than stated outright, but the point seems clear to me.

Page 67 of this book (pdf version) has a very interesting statement about motives. I would refer you to search out the text yourself, but this is just too relevant to leave out:

There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn't have the energy or the smarts to do — ignite Helter Skelter and bring in Charlie's kingdom. There was also the need for more cash, first of all to finance our preparations for Armageddon — the same thing that had motivated the drug burn and Bernard Crowe's supposed murder, the killing of Gary Hinman, and all the proposed abductions and murders in the Chatsworth area — and also to pay $600 bail for Mary Brunner, who had been arrested earlier that day for using a stolen Sears' credit card. If she had not been in custody, Mary would most likely have been the one sent with us that night, instead of Linda, since Mary had the other valid driver's license in the Family and had already proven herself at Gary Hinman's. Beyond getting money and bringing down Helter Skelter, there was a third, less important purpose: to clear Bobby Beausoleil of the Hinman slaying by committing a similar crime while he was in jail.

In this book, Tex gives no motive for the Labianca murders but according to him, Charlie told Leno on page 74: “Charlie's voice remained low, soothing: 'It's okay; I'm your friend. We don't want anything but money.'

Not that CM would tell Leno about a race war, etc. But it's all we get from Tex in his book.

AndyTaylor said...

Dang, where were those ticket touting cops at 2am when the LaBiancas were being slaughtered ?

They were home sleeping. Parking tickets are issued only on certain days based on violations on certain days and certain hours. In L.A., anyway.

The expendable theory makes even less sense than the drug burn. If you want evidence of that, just look into how hard Charlie tried to reach the women once they were all caught and blabbing away.

If CM wanted HS to start at all costs, he would certainly throw his most expendable followers under the bus. Although in light of Tex's comments as shown above (Mary would have been involved if she weren't in jail) maybe I'm wrong in assuming ANY of them were expendable. But given the inconsistent presence of Tex and Sadie in the Family and Linda's late arrival, it makes sense he would view them as disposable.

Bruce claims he refused. Sandy was 8 months pregnant and in jail with Mary. Paul was hundreds of miles away at Barker and had left the Family. And you're wrong about Mary. Hinman ? You're also wrong about Bruce. Shorty ?

Point taken again and I can admit error again. Although if Bruce refused that sheds some light on how much control CM had over some people. Maybe he had more control over some than others.

But Sadie? Tex? New girl Kasabian? These were all flight-risks or unknowns

If true, surely that would be the very reason you wouldn't send them. The irony being that Sadie got CM indicted and the new girl Kasabian's evidence played a huge part in getting him finally to land in jail to walk free no more till his dying day.

Again, true. But why would CM send people to commit murder if they were known flight-risks? Tex and Sadie were in and out of the Family, not to mention they ignored CM's rule of no hard drugs. If Tex was working a drug burn, perhaps CM wasn't involved in the organizing of the crime, just in sending some who were desperate for belonging as helpers. At least CM knew Tex and Sadie after living with them on-and-off for months. But Linda? She was there 4 weeks! Seriously – a valid driver's license bumps you up the ladder to go commit murder even though others in the Family are engaged in car-theft, drug deals, robbery etc? Unless CM didn't give a damn about these people and was willing to sacrifice them to get what he wanted.

AndyTaylor said...

RE: The girls not writing more racially-themed statements in blood. I maintain that they would have been given more direct things to write on the walls. Even if they weren't told what to write, I find it hard to believe that a group of people who had adopted such an idealogy that is soaked in racism couldn't do “better” than that. But in the rush of murder, speed and LSD, who know what someone will do? The words they used were so generic and even universal for the time. Pigs? Many people used that to refer to cops or the rich. It wasn't a “black only” term. “Healter Skelter?” Nobody knew what the hell that was except Beatle fans and Brits. “Rise?” Nothing. Is that a suggestion to the blacks? Again, I'm not saying HS wasn't ONE of the motives, it just seems to be a secondary motive along with revenge.

 In any case, that is the only record in 52 years that has ever been presented of a Texan drug burn.

I know you don't mean what you typed because it sounds like you're saying a Texan has never committed a drug burn in 52 years which can't be true. It may be the only record but that certainly doesn't mean it couldn't have happened more than once.

believing him while being in a certain measure of disagreement and contradiction with those that believe him.

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. It can be both in varying degrees on each side.

If...seemed...probably...I've heard...could have...if that...I wonder...if he did...

Well that's all any of us are doing here. I don't know for sure. We're all grasping at straws. Dealing with multiple instances of one person having conflicting accounts. Missing trial transcripts. Rumours, lies, innuendo, circumstantial evidence etc. Even with hard evidence it's possible for two people to see different conclusions. I won't apologize for using those inconclusive, doubtful terms and words because I don't know everything about the case, nor what was in people's minds 51 years ago, especially when those minds were repeatedly abused not only by CM but by drugs, peer pressure and the individual's awful choices.

AndyTaylor said...

Starviego, I agree about the corruption angle. Historically, L.A. had been up to this point a haven for corruption especially among law enforcement. Steve Hodel has written several books about the Black Dahlia murders in Los Angeles and the portrait he paints of corrupt LAPD is astounding in it's depth. A lot of things don't fit with the drug burn motive, but the same could be said in the HS or revenge motive. If HS became the prosecution's pet theory they may have steered away from the other theories if HS had so much more evidence. As crazy as it sounded at the time (and still does) it may have been the only thing they had that had a chance of getting convictions. Lack of evidence for revenge and drugs may have been a good cause to ignore them, but it doesn't mean they both didn't play a role in the crimes. Keep in mind that at the time of trial, the general consensus among the legal community is that CM was going to walk. Smelling a failure, the HS theory may have been the only hope the prosecution had, even though it appeared weak. As Grim has pointed out, there is no evidence Tex was even at Waverly. There's missing evidence that those convicted were involved or present but circumstantial evidence saved the day. Plus that whole confession thing the girls seemed to love to use. And since this WAS the fantasy-industrial complex of the 60s with allegations of mob-money propping up studios, nightclubs, record labels etc, there were many who may have sought to steer the investigation away from another business the mob profited from: drugs. All conjecture on my part, but points worth thinking about.

AndyTaylor said...

Doug...certainly possible. Or maybe as Tex says in his book on page 74, they just walked in. Maybe the door was left unlocked so the dog could let himself in and out one last time before bed. Maybe they didn't know they were having company until the company walked in their house, uninvited.

Speculator said...

Grim - it’s quite apt that you should mention Bugliosi’s attention to detail in the case and how much he “added to it” in the same breath as mentioning his book!!! I wonder how those two link together given that he clearly his plans for the trial was surely influenced by his plans for his book!!! One could be left to wonder whether the outcome of the case was potentially jeopardised by his thirst for good material to go into the book! Was his priority to feed the book or the case?! And was Stovitz wrong in wanting to simply prosecute a murder case!! What Bugliosi did successfully do was to elevate Manson as the monster for his book whilst underplaying the equal monster that was Watson. I guess it all depends on perspective.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said:

If getting them off the creeps

That should have said "If getting them off the streets".
Mind you, "If getting them off the creeps" would make a great album title for a sophomore effort from some new band !

Speculator said...

Grim - you minimise the parking of the car/boat trailer as a non-issue ie no chance of a ticket at 2 in the morning. Yet you stress the importance you perceive Manson having to not having a licenced driver - at 2 in the morning. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I’d be more inclined to think the LaBiancas wouldn’t leave the car/trailer out on the street (without due cause) than Manson being worried about the risk of being stopped. The very act of being stopped by the Police, licenced driver or not, would have been the problem for a potentially suspicious group driving around late at night. It’s a soft narrative that helped minimise Kasabian’s involvement. Furthermore it flies in the face of what many on here see as a crazy, incompetent bunch. If they were so crazy and incompetent would they really care about a driving licence?

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Tex committing a drug burn against Crowe for money is evidence that he could do such a thing. Just because that's the only one we know of, doesn't mean it's the only one that he committed. If a person receives a speeding ticket one time, does that mean they've only sped once? Probably not

We're talking about something infinitely more risky and substantial than speeding which one can do inadvertently without even realizing.
My point is simply that if Tex was committing drug burns as opposed to the one burn that turned out disastrously, that would have come up at some point. Interestingly, neither Tex, nor Charlie was ever brought to book for the Crowe incident. So what has Tex to lose by admitting it ?
It was pointed out that the Family were a criminal enterprise. So much detail of their schtick has emerged. But we're to believe that their multiple drug burns are the best kept secret in all of modern history ?
Shreck in his book ascribes a burn to Tex and Bruce on Joel Rostau. He makes a great case with all kinds of supposition and detail and how one of the thieves had a southern accent and one called the other 'Charles'. Very convincing. But it stunk to high heaven the instant I read of it because it was well known Bruce was out of the country at the time.

You're going to have to unpack that one. In what ocean did these crimes and their circumstances not make a drop?

I was referring to William Zamora's "Trial by your peers." Lots of trial transcript and barely sold a bean. It was out a full year before Bugliosi & Gentry's. He was writing the book during the trial. No one accuses him of anything untoward. The same with the very upright Herman Tubick on the jury. His memoirs of the trial came out last year. I personally think it's very informative and a good book. But clearly, a few people around the time that had some connection with the case were thinking about sharing their memories and later it occurred to the coroner and Roman Polanski.
I don't see the big deal. Cops have shared their experiences of a big case before.

If CM wanted HS to start at all costs, he would certainly throw his most expendable followers under the bus

Not if it meant it could get back to him, hence his instructions to them to say nothing and not even talk about it at Spahn. According to Sadie before the grand jury, he threatened to kill her if she talked. And imagine what was going through his head when Joe Sage phoned him and asked him if what Linda had said was true.

Page 67 of this book has a very interesting statement about motives. I would refer you to search out the text yourself, but this is just too relevant to leave out

And Tex is lying his balls off. Proof ? Just look at the time stamped on Mary Brunner's mugshot. There was no motive to get money for bail because they didn't even know she'd been arrested, let alone needed bail if she did need it. That throws that whole statement into question. I'm being rather generous !
And isn't it significant that he has never once brought up the copycat {or the bail} in any of his parole hearings even though he's been having them since the same year his book came out ~ 1978.
Even more interesting and too relevant to leave out is that in the segment you quote Tex says nothing about a drug burn.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

If the motive was ONLY to start HS, why stop after Labianca?

Increased police activity and the disappearance without explanation of Linda Kasabian in addition to the difficulties of finding victims the second night plus the guy that traced Leslie to Spahn the same morning after having given the killers a lift back plus the murder at Ocean Front Walk that didn't happen, despite Charlie's direct order ~ none of that "go with Tex and do what he tells you" plus the fact that twice, Susan and Linda were shown to be weak links in the murder stakes {it wasn't known to the Family the extent, exact location or significance of Frykowski's stab wounds at that time} plus the Straight Satans coming to get Decarlo back followed hours later by the Spahn raid on the 16th......pressures.
And it has never been said that HS was the only motive. As has been said repeatedly by me and others over the years, 4 motives were presented by the prosecution.

Perhaps Bugliosi sensed what a gold-mine he was sitting on

Ironically, that was more in keeping with Daye Shinn and Ira Reiner.

I know you don't mean what you typed because it sounds like you're saying a Texan has never committed a drug burn in 52 years which can't be true

Sure. It's a reference to Tex and Tex alone.

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

AndyTaylor said:

Ok, well that doesn't really add anything to what I'm saying

It wasn't meant to !

“In Cold Blood” sold a lot more than “some” and continued to do so for years after it was published

My point was that if the story of a murder of a rural family in a remote part of the country sold copies like "In cold blood" did, drug burn murders among Hollywood connected types certainly would.

That shooting and assumed death of the burnee did nothing to steer Tex away from crime and murder as history and his prison sentence bear out

Yes, but there's a huge difference between a burn and a deliberate murder. The fact that his burn went so wrong and led to Charlie "killing" Lotsapoppa with the resultant "blackie" paranioa at Spahn {armed guards and all} could have been more than enough to steer Tex away from trying that again. Not to mention, it gave Charlie a hold over him which led to him committing murder. His next attempt to get money was via Linda. It succeeded but once again, brought an angry Bob Kasabian and Charles Melton up to the ranch breathing fire. Tex had the Midas touch in its truest sense ~ disaster when he tried to operate like his master, Charlie.

I question that CM is suddenly so concerned for a trivial legality like a valid driver's license

If you're sending a troupe off to commit murder, that's a high pressure situation and you don't want them to get stopped under any pretext, but if they are stopped, you don't want the cops to have any reason to ticket them, take down a name etc, especially in the light of what they were going to do or might have done.
Of course, Bugliosi always said it was speculation on his part and his part alone that that was why Linda was selected. I think it may have formed part of the reason. My own speculation is that up until then, she had shown herself a person willing to do anything demanded of her to fit in and be accepted.

It's more implied than stated outright, but the point seems clear to me

Everything he says there about Linda pertains to the night he met and shagged her. He says nothing or even implies anything about any future relationship.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Again, I'm not saying HS wasn't ONE of the motives, it just seems to be a secondary motive along with revenge

You know, I wouldn't hang my life on HS being the primary motive in the sense that Charlie could have been seething with resentment and had other things swirling around in his head that helped take him over the edge and because the Blacks weren't getting their schtick on, this was as good a time to kick things off as any. It's certainly possible. Being the primary motive is also possible. I don't actually think it matters what the primary motive was because all the motives presented had evidence to back them up. Any one of them could be the primary one. Or two of them. Or all three could weigh equally heavy. When I argue in favour of HS it's not for its primacy but for its veracity.

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. It can be both in varying degrees on each side

What I'm saying is that it was a recognizable and consistent pattern with Charlie Manson, that he would claim something as the truth to different people, but those different people would be contradicting each other. If it was only with the killers or even the Family, one could dismiss this because it wouldn't mean a great deal....but it went beyond them and has significantly extended to his modern day supporters Nicholas Shreck, George Stimson and AC Fisher-Aldag.
That tells me something very pertinent about Charlie's capacity for truth. I probably wouldn't even think about it had George not emphasized how truthful Charlie always was. That made me look deep. And it is not true. He lied with the best of them, including in his own trial testimony.

As crazy as it sounded at the time (and still does) it may have been the only thing they had that had a chance of getting convictions

None of the perps were convicted because of HS. HS was the aspect that presented the conspiracy but with Linda's testimony {partially buttressed by Juan Flynn}, Charlie was in the shit for the LaBianca killings. HS played its part but it could be argued that the gun, the rope and Manson's HS philosophy added to Pat writing it at Waverly played as large a role evidentially. Manson was indicted on the strength of Susan Atkins' testimony.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

clearly his plans for the trial was surely influenced by his plans for his book!!! Was his priority to feed the book or the case?!

I'd say, the case. He saw those death photos. Any prosecutor worth their salt would want the perpetrators of that put away. He really did not like Susan Atkins.
The book is incidental. And are we not glad he had someone in court getting the right stuff down ? Look at some of the errors that found their way into the book. That he was thinking in terms of a book isn't unusual. As was said earlier,he wasn't the only one. And being obsessive, I wouldn't mind betting that all the other books that were out but which were kind of incomplete in his view would have stuck in his craw and he felt that he and he alone could give the definitive version of events, being in the eye of the storm, as it were. Even in the way he describes his heated debates with Aaron Stovitz, one can see into his psyche. He seemed to see himself as the supreme defender of not so much that which was good and right {although he did too} but of this story that he had been providentially placed in.
I also think that some of his emphasis in writing the book was to show the 1969/early '70 doubters in the press and legal communities that he was Vincent T, the man, that guy in the sharp suits that came through in spite of their doubts and carping. Much of the book "Helter Skelter" comes across as a big middle finger to the LA law fraternity ~ whereas the trial does not. The trial comes across as someone trying to have convicted some very dangerous people whose influence among the young dissatisfied was growing.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

And was Stovitz wrong in wanting to simply prosecute a murder case

No, of course not. But Stovitz wasn't interested in why these killings had occurred. Bugliosi on the other hand knew that if a jury could be shown why, it could heavily influence their verdict, same way that if you heard a woman had chopped off her Dad's hardware, you'd maybe want the book thrown at her but if you heard she did it because she'd been continually raped by her Dad over a 18 year period, you might think somewhat differently about it and see her in a different light.
Also, Stovitz was kind of ignoring the evidence that kept coming the prosecution's way.

What Bugliosi did successfully do was to elevate Manson as the monster for his book whilst underplaying the equal monster that was Watson

There's truth in that but all Bugliosi did was report what he found. Charlie elevated himself to that position. He tried to attack the judge. He threatened to have Kanarek killed. He warned of the bloodletting that would accompany him getting the death sentence. He told the press he'd told "his people" to start killing them. He told the judge that he chopped off Shorty's head. He watched as Charlie's loves threatened people {including himself}, openly carried knives, shot at cops, robbed gun stores, stole grenades from army facilities, planned hi-jackings, helped convicts escape from jail, were involved in suspicious deaths and he surmised that they were doing these things to please Charlie which emphasized his controlling influence. He saw Charlie persuade Pat, Leslie and Susan, from their positions of relative safety, to jettison it all and land themselves in the gas chamber while trying to exonerate him at the expense of implicating themselves in murders they had nothing to do with and he listened as Charlie tried to persuade him to give him time with Tex as he felt he could straighten him out.
These are the things that made him a monster.
He was in equal turns charismatic and disruptive.
But Tex didn't do any of that or have anyone do things on his behalf. He was quiet and polite. And Bugliosi's emphasis with Tex was not HS or revenge or lust for death, he concentrated on what Tex did. And convicted him and netted him the death sentence. Whose fault is it if the world's media didn't pick up on Tex being, as Bugliosi described him, "the chief Tate~LaBianca killer" ? Charlie was more interesting than Tex in the same way Hitler was more interesting than any of the soldiers that did the actual killing. You could execute a Tex but that wouldn't be the end of the problem.....

AndyTaylor said...

"Off the creeps" being a great name for a band with a short career!

AndyTaylor said...

GRIM says:
TURNED OUT DISASTOUSLY?

From our perspective, yes. But at the time with damaged mental faculties and believing that they were soon moving to the desert and escape the consequences of their actions because soon the world would be engulfed in race-war flames? Sure, CM didn't NEED dead bodies as much as he needed money. But he obviously didn't mind dead bodies piling up in the wake of their escaping to the desert to wait out the war. If he DID owe the SS money and was able to pay them off because of these crimes and get enough money to escape, in his mind it wasn't a disaster.

SO WHAT HAS TEX TO LOSE BY ADMITTING IT?

Living under what appears to be permanent delusion, Tex for years assumed he was going to be paroled one day. Maybe he still does. But bringing up crimes for which he was never charged and/or denied a role in will do nothing to convince a parole board that you are suitable. Parole is what he has to lose, even though it will never happen.

BEST KEPT SECRET?

It's not kept THAT well if we're talking about it and Scheck has published THREE books making the case.

ONE OF THE THIEVES HAD A SOUTHERN ACCENT

Maybe the names involved are inaccurate. Manson spent much of his time in the south as a child and even listening to interviews (most notably Snyder) you can occasionally hear a southern twang in CM's voice. Charles Watson also had a southern accent. A southern accent is easy to fake, especially if you've lived in the south.

WILLIAM ZAMORA'S “TRIAL BY YOUR PEERS.

It's the media world and more often than not, things don't sell well that should. With proper marketing, crap can outsell gold. Bruce Cockburn being a perfect example. While a superior songwriter and storyteller than most of his more famous contemporaries, he has never cracked “the big time” for any extended period.

NOT IF IT MEANT IT COULD GET BACK TO HIM

Maybe CM wasn't too concerned about the future. Believing that the current world structure would end and he would emerge as ruler of the world could have made him disinterested in repurcussions. You would think he would be steering clear of ANY crime since he was set to be released from parole supervision in December of 69. I think he 100% believed in HS which would mean he would not have to answer for his deeds. While he didn't want people to talk and even threatened them, they still did – without consequence. Among themselves, among cellmates and among guys in New Mexico. His control over these people was slipping away & may not have been that strong to begin with for some of them. Sadie's so controlled by CM that she kills for him but she ignores his threats to KILL her if she talks?

THE DIFFICULTIES OF FINDING VICTIMS

Difficult to find victims. In Los Angeles. It's interesting that Tex (and others) said CM seemed to be driving aimlessly around for hours on the second night. Occasionally leaving the car and then coming back later. Without evidence, I suggest perhaps CM was calling the Labianca house from payphones to see if they were home yet. Finally, they answer and he heads there. Tex said at some point CM became very determined and seemed to know EXACTLY where he was headed: the Labianca house. They seemed to know exactly where they were going for all of these murders. Random they weren't. Maybe because they knew exactly what they could get from these victims.

starviego said...

AndyTaylor said:
"If the motive was ONLY to start HS, why stop after Labianca?"

Because he was only ordered to do the two.

Gorodish said...

dave1972 typed:

I lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years

OK, the bullshit is really getting deep here....

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

you minimise the parking of the car/boat trailer as a non-issue ie no chance of a ticket at 2 in the morning. Yet you stress the importance you perceive Manson having to not having a licenced driver - at 2 in the morning. You can’t have your cake and eat it

Depends on the cake !
There's a clear difference between on the one hand, a {generally speaking, as the cops would see it, you get me ?} law abiding guy who has been driving for hours who gets home around 2am, is too tired to put the boat away and takes the risk of leaving it on the street outside his house with every intention of putting it away the next morning and the con on release sending a group out to murder that was ticketed the day before for driving without a licence and who was perhaps wondering where the two women he'd sent out for supplies some 9 hours previous had got to.
Make mine a marble cake padre !!

Peter said...

Yeah. Nothing.

Speculator said...

It still sounds a bit weak to me. It’s the very act of being stopped (bunch of freaks in a car at that time of the night/morning) that would cause them a problem - licence or not. And it’s more the point too that Leno apparently NEVER left the boat trailer out in the street like that. Coupled with Rosemary wearing the coat, the potential witnesses who picked up the killers hitchhiking back to Spahn never coming forward/being found despite the publicity of the murders. Doesn’t au of that strike you as odd? And if the story is that LaBiancas were random victims and an afterthought when first target (True house) was empty then why wasn’t a second random target chosen after Kasabian supposedly “saved” the actor guy. Like I say, you can’t have your cake and eat it - even if it’s marble!

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

It still sounds a bit weak to me

I'm not denying the weakness thereof. Manson's paranoia however, could explain that. Having been done for not having a licence the day before, he may well have been a little more 'aware' than usual.
Frankly, when it comes down to it, I haven't a clue why he chose any of them to go that first night. Maybe he simply selected a crop that he didn't think would say 'no'. Bruce apparently did. Sunshine Pirece had said 'no'. Ella Jo had said 'no' in regards to the Hinman affair. TJ had said 'no'. But Susan had been involved in a murder, Pat wouldn't dare say no to Charlie whom she loved a little too dangerously, Linda had shown she was up for everything proposed thus far {stealing, creepy crawls, sex with the guys [and women] on demand, giving up care for her daughter, garbage runs, panhandling, taking drugs, listening to HS philosophy, not questioning Charlie's violence etc} and Tex owed Charlie for the hassles he had brought via Lotsapoppa and Charles Melton's $5000.
Linda having a licence was a bonus !

It’s the very act of being stopped (bunch of freaks in a car at that time of the night/morning) that would cause them a problem - licence or not

There was no crime involved in driving around in the early hours. But there might be if the driver didn't have a valid licence. It would only take one bored cop.....
But you're right, the very act of driving around at such a time might get them stopped. Which is precisely why you may not want to give the cops any further reason to give your projected murderers any hassle, no reason to search the car, no reason to take an address.....

And it’s more the point too that Leno apparently NEVER left the boat trailer out in the street like that

How often did he drive for close to 9 hours and arrive home at 2am ? They moved into that home in November '68. How many opportunities did they have to go boating between then and early August '69 ? You make it sound like he was in the boat a few times a week, every week !

the potential witnesses who picked up the killers hitchhiking back to Spahn never coming forward/being found despite the publicity of the murders...Doesn’t any of that strike you as odd?

Not really. Dianne Lake saw the guy that brought Leslie back and corroborated that. She didn't know the significance of it. The prosecution acknowledged that it was problematic that there was very little corroboration for the whereabouts of the Family on that second night ~ but between Juan Flynn, Linda, Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham, John Swartz and Dianne Lake, there was partial corroboration that added up to a guilt that the killers didn't dispute in the end.
And also, let's not forget, people may not have remembered {I mean, look at Rudy Weber} or associated the people they picked up {one was a Black man} with the much less publicized LaBianca murders.

And if the story is that LaBiancas were random victims and an afterthought when first target (True house) was empty then why wasn’t a second random target chosen after Kasabian supposedly “saved” the actor guy

Because as soon as Charlie gave the order, he split the scene and neither Clem, Susan nor Linda were of the ilk to go looking for victims on their own. Hunting for victims was Charlie's bag, not his minions.
Also, bear in mind that Charlie had told them that if anything went wrong and they weren't able to do it, to just forget the whole thing, hitch-hike back to the ranch. It seems they were only too glad to do so.

you can’t have your cake and eat it - even if it’s marble!

I can, I do, I will and it's lovely !

Speculator said...

Grim - the problem that you have is that you are trying to explain away a whole bunch of anomalies and holes in the story to suit a very particular narrative - one which was given to you by a bunch of known liars! I’m not attempting to illustrate a different narrative, simply to challenge the story that has been told with what are clear holes in it. And running through your list of witnesses/corroborators, I suggest you watch the YouTube video on the latest post on here, of DeCarlo and the other freak and if you’re inclined to believe every word that the grinning pair say (in between their knowing glances) I’d have to say more the fool you. They’re all from the same ilk i’m afraid and I wouldn’t believe half of what any of the “Family” said. They say what they think fits and avoid going anywhere they don’t want to.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

the problem that you have is that you are trying to explain away a whole bunch of anomalies and holes in the story to suit a very particular narrative

It's not actually a problem. Laying my cards on the table ¬> I think the drug burn theory is bollocks. I do not think any of the murders had anything whatsoever to do with drugs in the sense of either stealing them or intending to steal them or intending to steal them and the money generated by their sales. The case against that theory is so overwhelming.
Having said that, sometimes, so many minor objections to the case as is are levied in support of the theory that it's actually quite useful to try to explain what may be problematic about it. For each of the objections, there's a plausible explanation. Not to say that each of those explanations is what happened, but, unlike trying to say that "this" anomaly plus "that" anomaly gives weight to the drug theory, I accept that there are all kinds of anomalies that can't be gotten around ~ because that is what happens every day in human life !
But they do not change the overall thrust of the case.
Unless one wants them to. And then, that person has to clearly show how.

one which was given to you by a bunch of known liars

Funny thing here, every single one of the alternatives was given by a bunch of known liars ~ and after the prosecution case had taken some semblance of shape.
To me, that speaketh volumes.

I’m not attempting to illustrate a different narrative, simply to challenge the story that has been told with what are clear holes in it

And in doing so, illustrate that a different narrative is possible and that of course is the prelude to.....a different narrative.
Holes........
There is no event that has ever occurred in human history that, when being told by its participants, will not have what you call holes. Some of these things aren't holes at all. In this particular instance what you call holes may be legit questions but I ask this: to what extent do they actually change the narrative ? Many of the holes are posed with the specific intention to get away from the narrative and it doesn't matter what explanation is given to answer the questions, they won't be accepted because the actual intention is not to have plausible explanations. It's to not accept the so called established narrative.

if you’re inclined to believe every word that the grinning pair say I’d have to say more the fool you

I don't believe every word of any person ~ even you. But with every person, I'm constantly sifting and cross referencing and using my nous to try to work out what is actually being said as well as trying to determine its veracity. And I think it is naive to take the view that everything a known liar says must be untrue.

I wouldn’t believe half of what any of the “Family” said

Which, by logical deduction, means that you would believe half of what any of the “Family” said !

They say what they think fits and avoid going anywhere they don’t want to

You say this as if it makes them somehow different from the rest of the human race.
You also, in saying that, present yourself yourself as the arbiter of what is and what isn't.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

But bringing up crimes for which he was never charged and/or denied a role in will do nothing to convince a parole board that you are suitable. Parole is what he has to lose

Tex talks about crimes for which he was never charged !
And is a drug burn actually a crime ? I mean, who is the dealer going to report to for legal justice ?

CM didn't NEED dead bodies as much as he needed money

To get HS kickied off, bodies piling up {and Whites being angry about it} was exactly what he needed.

If he DID owe the SS money

Where has it ever come up anywhere that Charlie owed the Straight Satans money ?

It's not kept THAT well if we're talking about it and Scheck has published THREE books making the case

We are not talking about events that happened. We're talking about someone speculating that events happened.
Have you read any of Shreck's books ? In his 991 pager he does not make the case of Tex drug burning. He does not introduce known examples. He doesn't introduce any examples. He just states that that is what Tex was doing and later on in the book states that much of what he's written is his own opinion. He shows no evidence, let alone proof.
I was being sarcastic when I said Tex's drug burns are the best kept secret in history. But they must be, given that no one has yet come up with one other than Lotsapoppa.

Bruce Cockburn...While a superior songwriter and storyteller than most of his more famous contemporaries, he has never cracked “the big time” for any extended period

I love Bruce's stuff of a certain period and have 11 of his albums but even I can see why he never cracked the big time. I'm afraid he's just not that interesting on a wider level, to millions of people at any one time and the truth is that many uncompromising artists aren't.

Maybe CM wasn't too concerned about the future. Believing that the current world structure would end and he would emerge as ruler of the world could have made him disinterested in repurcussions

A simple look at his instructions to say nothing kind of run against that. Even a criminal believing in HS is a criminal and criminals aren't in the profession to get caught.

You would think he would be steering clear of ANY crime since he was set to be released from parole supervision in December of 69

Well, criminals rarely engage in any crime thinking that they will actually get nabbed.

Sadie's so controlled by CM that she kills for him but she ignores his threats to KILL her if she talks?

Well, she was in jail and did not expect those she told to say anything to LE.

Tex (and others) said CM seemed to be driving aimlessly around for hours on the 2nd night. Occasionally leaving the car and then coming back later

And in each instance of him leaving the car, they explained why he'd left ~ he was casing the joints, be it houses or a church building. He didn't just leave in the middle of a street full of call boxes ~ he left where there were houses {except for the sports car incident}. He told them why he was leaving and when he returned, explained why those places weren't suitable.
That's actually a good example of what I meant earlier when I said that things for which there are explanations get turned into possible case breakers in order to lend weight to the drug theory but in order to do so, one has to make up an entire scenario for which there is, by your own acknowledgement, no evidence. So really, your theory is an earth in search of a sun as opposed to a sun shining on the earth.

Speculator said...

Grim - I just think that you’re so wedded to the HS narrative that you’re blind to the flaws in it and the gaps in the story that undermine it. Consider for a minute that Bugliosi et al decided to set the narrative to suit their various purposes (1) ensure a murder conviction for Manson (2) deflect away from any POSSIBLE awkward/potentially unsavoury (or even criminal)prior activities or associations of one or more of the victims, and (3) thereby protect the reputations of all of the victims and (4) satisfy vested interests of the various families (Folgers for example) and/or the Hollywood elite. Oh and (5) have material for a juicy best selling book! Now you always ask for evidence for such theories but you clearly know that in truth the ship on that one likely sailed a long time ago. And that would be part of the original intention of Bugliosi and other interested parties ie bury the dirt, deviate from any uncomfortable lines of enquiry and leave you and the rest of us with the narrative as told today. And in truth, why is there any motive for anyone, whether that be the perps or others around them at the time to deviate from that narrative at this late stage. You saw how quickly Bugliosi jumped
In on Kasabian in that tv interview a few years back when she drifted from the official account with her frisking Parent after he was shot. He was paranoid about keeping the story straight. And what about Dennis Wilsons’s statement about one day I’ll reveal the true reason for the murders? Questions arise all along the way.

AndyTaylor said...


TEX TALKS ABOUT CRIMES FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED !

Perhaps I should have specified “in parole hearings” and “of which may incriminate him.” Has he done so in parole hearings? If so, do tell.

AND IS A DRUG BURN ACTUALLY A CRIME ?

I guess if you were burned it is, but seeking justice from the system is not an option so the burned party would seek justice on their own terms. Unless you run into a man who acts absolutely bonkers and dangerous and you decide to escape with your life and deal with it later or not at all.

TO GET HS KICKIED OFF, BODIES PILING UP {AND WHITES BEING ANGRY ABOUT IT} WAS EXACTLY WHAT HE NEEDED.

I didn't say he didn't need them, I said he they weren't needed as much as money, IF he was seeking to pay a debt with the SS and finance a move to the desert to escape the impending apocalypse.

WHERE HAS IT EVER COME UP ANYWHERE THAT CHARLIE OWED THE STRAIGHT SATANS MONEY ?

In interviews with NS and his forthcoming book.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVENTS THAT HAPPENED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE SPECULATING THAT EVENTS HAPPENED.

Yes and no. I'm talking about some events that happened and some that are speculated to have happened. The rest is a giant “what if.” Much of what is discussed on this blog is speculation.

I've read the first 2 editions of NS's Manson File books and heard numerous interviews given after edition 2 with topics to be covered in the forthcoming 3rd and “final” edition. He leans pretty heavily on the drug burn motive and presents quite a good case in interview. I can only imagine the book will be even more detailed.

I'M AFRAID HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTERESTING ON A WIDER LEVEL, TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT ANY ONE TIME AND THE TRUTH IS THAT MANY UNCOMPROMISING ARTISTS AREN'T.

I would argue that BC has remained more interesting than his contemporaries for most or his career. With very few exceptions millions of records are not sold from interesting artists. U2 has not become stadium-filling rock stars because their records are interesting. The more popular they become, the less interesting their records were. Not always of course (like Miles Davis for instance) but usually.

WELL, SHE WAS IN JAIL AND DID NOT EXPECT THOSE SHE TOLD TO SAY ANYTHING TO LE.

Sadie had perhaps achieved a Family goal of being totally “dead in the head” so I don't think she expected very much at that point.

AND IN EACH INSTANCE OF HIM LEAVING THE CAR, THEY EXPLAINED WHY HE'D LEFT

They're just repeating what CM told them. They stayed in the car. How would they know? I'm not sure about where you were before cell phones, but I remember payphones being everywhere in L.A. Every street corner – sometimes in the middle of city blocks and in neighborhoods. Hell – I remember going out to Death Valley and other desert haunts multiple times in the late 70s and throughout the 80s and seeing payphones in the middle of nowhere.

SO REALLY, YOUR THEORY IS AN EARTH IN SEARCH OF A SUN AS OPPOSED TO A SUN SHINING ON THE EARTH.

It could be. It's just a theory. Just thinking out loud. While I have little to no supporting hard evidence, it does warrant some curiosity. Especially since it was the first theory detectives focused on until Bug steered the investigation to sexier, more headline-worthy topics. Maybe it's neither planet nor sun but a distant orbiting moon. Or maybe "that's no moon."

Doug said...

Bruce Cockburn...While a superior songwriter and storyteller than most of his more famous contemporaries, he has never cracked “the big time” for any extended period...

1. Bruce played in the Vancouver band 3's A Crowd once they moved their base to Toronto/LA

2. 3's A Crowd were co-produced by Cass Elliot

3. Although not "officially" credited on the releases that Cass (and, Steve Barri) produced for 3's A Crowd...Billy Doyle was involved with the sessions until he and Cass got bored and, bailed.

4. The band had a strong Topanga/Neil Young connection too...their bassist (Jen Koblum) playing with both the Buffalo Springfield and The Doors at various times.

5. This is a good account of the band's history. It also includes a band photo taken at Mama Cass's place...on her couch.

Thry undoubtedly ran in similar circles as the MF...talk about 6 Degrees of Seperation!

No hugr conspiracy theory...but, kinda interesting how Manson and Cockburn connect.

https://garagehangover.com/3s-a-crowd/

Cheers

Doug said...

Jen Koblum s/b KEN Koblum

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

And what about Dennis Wilsons’s statement about one day I’ll reveal the true reason for the murders?

What about it ?
This wouldn't be the same Dennis Wilson that Mike Love claims told him he saw Charlie gun down someone would it ?
Or the same Dennis Wilson that Nick Shreck claims was Charlie's sex punk ?

Questions arise all along the way

Questions are rarely, in and of themselves the issue. It's the conclusions concocted simply because of the presence of those questions. All the questions in the universe don't actually change anything substantial in this case. They don't change Charlie Manson planning the murders. They don't change Tex, Pat, Susan and Leslie being guilty of them. They don't don't change Bobby, Bruce and Clem being guilty of theirs. They don't change the fact that before 1969 was out all the female killers had rolled on Charlie at some point {significantly, all privately} and that HS was at the centre of all of their stories ~ except Linda.
Oh, but Rosemary LaBianca was wearing a coat and Leno parked his boat on the road at 2am so there has to be something wrong with the entire prosecution line !

I just think that you’re so wedded to the HS narrative that you’re blind to the flaws in it and the gaps in the story that undermine it

If I hadn't written so extensively and expansively on this and other blogs over the last 5 years, that would almost be funny.
There comes a point I guess, where the sheer weight of evidence for something counts for nothing to some people. Is it a perfect case ? Of course not.
I leave you with the words of your favourite author and prosecutor, Vincent T and his mate Curt Gentry:
In literature a murder scene is often likened to a picture puzzle. If one is patient and keeps trying, eventually all the pieces will fit into place.
Veteran policemen know otherwise. A much better analogy would be two picture puzzles or three or more, no one of which is in itself complete. Even after a solution emerges ~ if one does ~ there will be leftover pieces, evidence that just doesn't fit.And some pieces will always be missing.


I just think that you’re so wedded to the HS narrative

Yeah, we've been in love and happily wed for a long time. We're about to celebrate our diamond anniversary ~ which is quite a feat for me considering I'm not yet 60 !
And yes, we will be having our marble cake and eating it........

Speculator said...

Grim - I love your Bugliosi/Gentry quote - from their book no less - a book from which they significantly profited - a book.born entirely out of the HS theory - it’s almost as if they’re setting the scene for you - and explaining away all of the discrepancies before little old you or me need to even think about them. I’ll leave you with another (anon) quote - THEY WOULD SAY THAT WOULDNT THEY!!!

AndyTaylor said...

QUESTIONS ARE RARELY, IN AND OF THEMSELVES THE ISSUE. IT'S THE CONCLUSIONS CONCOCTED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

Truer words were never spoken, especially in modern times, especially in America. There are MILLIONS of people in the USA who have adopted a political and worldview narrative based entirely on questions. Questions they can't answer – questions no one can answer. Even when there are answers, questions persist and answers aren't offered to counter the official narrative. Just having questions gives many a cause to rally around. Invade government buildings. Kill a cop with a fire extinguisher. Suspicion has become wisdom. Questions become dogma. Doubt becomes creed.

ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THE UNIVERSE DON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL IN THIS CASE. 

No they don't. But who IS questioning the things you've declared substantial? No doubt, they are substantial to this case, but it's the things surrounding those substantials that we discuss.

OH, BUT ROSEMARY LABIANCA WAS WEARING A COAT AND LENO PARKED HIS BOAT ON THE ROAD AT 2AM SO THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION LINE !

The ENTIRE prosecution line? Who's doing that? I've seen lots of people questioning elements of the prosecution – some submitted and other omitted. But I, for one, don't claim the entire prosecution line to be wrong. It's interesting to discuss things they didn't focus on that much. I think you may be getting too close to fundamentalism here. It doesn't have to be black-and-white and this case is certainly not that. Except for one of the motives. Coat and boat issues are curious and interesting to discuss, but who's throwing out the whole prosecution line based on them? (The Coat and the Boat is officially trademarked by AndyTaylor, LLC so don't get any wise ideas you're gonna name your band after that.)

THERE WILL BE LEFTOVER PIECES, EVIDENCE THAT JUST DOESN'T FIT.AND SOME PIECES WILL ALWAYS BE MISSING.

That's what some of us are doing here. Listening to the outtakes, the alternate takes and the rehearsal tapes. Some people are content with the White Album. More than most albums, parts of it sound unfinished and one could be forgiven for thinking there is more to the story than those 2 CDs. As it is, it is a brilliant piece of work. But some want to delve a little deeper and read the books about how it was made. Some go further and listen to the officially released 4 CD Sessions Box Set. Some go even further and grab the 12 disc bootleg Sessions Box Set and anything else they can get their hands on. I think a lot of people here are the 12 disc type. The leftover pieces, evidence that just doesn't fit and some pieces that will always be missing. That's what keeps this discussion and this blog alive. If we're just going to accept the official narrative without question, why discuss it at all?

Doug said...

"Turn me on, dead man!"

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

a book from which they significantly profited

But from which they couldn't have known that at the time the quote was included.
Just out of interest and all debates aside for a moment ~ do you think they had a point ? Personally speaking, I've found that to be true ~ sometimes. And other times, it's not been the case at all. Some cases or matters have been open and shut and on other occasions, the questions raised, the pieces that appear not to fit were actually evidence of some serious muckin' abaaaahhhtt.

it’s almost as if they’re setting the scene for you - and explaining away all of the discrepancies before little old you or me need to even think about them

They were most definitely setting the scene ~ but it depends on which scene one supposes they were setting. The quote itself was in reference to particular things, some of which were later resolved, some of which never have been. But I think the foundation was being laid to demonstrate how what the police surmised from what they initially found actually had little to do with what eventually was shown to have gone down.

AndyTaylor said:

Suspicion has become wisdom. Questions become dogma. Doubt becomes creed

That's how it has sometimes felt with some of the books written about and some of the conversations on the blogs pertaining to the case.

but it's the things surrounding those substantials that we discuss

Sure. And most discussions need at least two sides. When points are raised I'll contribute to the discussion. That may take a variety of forms.

The ENTIRE prosecution line? Who's doing that? I've seen lots of people questioning elements of the prosecution

I was being somewhat sarcastic there but it has been my experience in a number of the debates that the presence of small discrepancies is virtually equated to a conclusion of wrongdoing by the prosecution that completely undermines the case and whenever that happens, what inevitably follows is revisiting and ultimately re-concluding the case. Two examples of that are the revelation of Linda Kasabian looking in Steve Parent's wallet {and not taking the money or anything from it, for that matter} or in Tom O'Neill's book, Steven Kay talking about how the case changes with the discovery of papers with Bugliosi's crossing out of what Danny DeCarlo supposedly said about Terry Melcher being up at Spahn after the murders ~ without even stopping to ask why it might be crossed out.
Little matters that might otherwise be discussed as interesting oddities start to take on the mantle of notion changing smoking guns.

I think you may be getting too close to fundamentalism here

Hmmm.......
My initial instinct was to fight that and reject such an idea. But actually, I don't entirely dismiss it because I don't see any problem with reaching a conclusion and in the absence of anything substantial to alter that conclusion, sticking with it. Bear in mind that if I am a little fundamentalist about the case overall, it's not blind fundamentalism that by default rejects any problematic issues or aspects {because in this entire subject of Manson, Bugliosi and co, there are many} or won't look at uncomfortable findings, but rather, a robustly and vigorously arrived at conclusion that has taken into account lots of stuff from as many angles as are presented. I can see paradoxes and nuances all over the place and there is no conflict for me in seeing for example, how someone like Charlie or Susan could be partly the result of actions by others in their lives who bear a measure of responsibility for how they turned out as well as them being fully responsible for their own actions. Or how Bugliosi's obsessions, going further than the police would in investigating, his desire for glory in the eyes of his peers {especially the doubters} and his wife thinking he needed psychiatric help mesh with how things turned out.
It's all part of the soup.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Some people are content with the White Album

I'm one of them. Although I can't stand "Revolution 9." I tried, from 1977 right through till about 2000 to like it and I just couldn't. No one can say I didn't give it a good run. "Good night" is also pushing it.
The rest of it is pure gold to me. I even count "Don't pass me by" and "Savoy Truffle" {as prophetic a song about Eric Clapton's addictive nature as any observation ever made afterwards} as among my top echelon on the album.

parts of it sound unfinished

I've never felt that way. I always look at albums as complete works, even though songs which later came out on other albums or as singles or not at all were recorded during the same sessions.

some want to delve a little deeper and read the books about how it was made

That's definitely me. I'd love to have the book that comes with the boxed set that came out a couple of years back but I'm not buying a set of CDs I don't want just to have it. I love reading about how albums were made.

Some go further and listen to the officially released 4 CD Sessions Box Set. Some go even further and grab the 12 disc bootleg Sessions Box Set and anything else they can get their hands on

I've found the outtakes, alternative versions and bootlegs boring for the most part. They're like cover versions to me in most cases. Interesting to hear once, but the versions on the album proper to me are the ones I've lived with and loved for 43 years. To me, the outtakes are more interesting to read about than actually hear. They're like photos of the wallpaper you were going to have before you settled on the one you've had for 30 years. That said, I do quite like "What's the new Mary Jane" before it descends into "Revolution 9" type Yoko noise {their avant-garde noise was awful, unlike much free jazz which, at least sometimes, has a method to its madness and some point or the brilliant anarchy of some of "Tomorrow never knows" or "A day in the life" or "Only a northern song" or "It's all too much"}. "Not guilty" is also interesting enough to not cast into the wilderness although what's more interesting is that after 102 takes they still never got it to that point where it's an album worthy song.
I like your analogy though, it's a good one.
I might steal that one day if I can't have The Coat and the boat !

Or maybe "that's no moon."

Ah, one of my favourite parts of any movie I've seen.

They're just repeating what CM told them. They stayed in the car. How would they know? I'm not sure about where you were before cell phones, but I remember payphones being everywhere in L.A.

Not disputing that, but I've seen photos of some of those locations {Two are somewhere on this site}.
No phone boxes.
It also begs the question, if a drug collection, sale or deal was going down, wouldn't the people in the car know about it ? They were going to be going to the house eventually, theoretically. Why would they rather plump for Charlie looking for a house or church in which to kill someone than just say "he went to make a phone call" which takes murder right out of any equation ? Questions may be important, but only where answers make sense and can stand a vigorous shaking.
Besides which, Tex went with Charlie to one of the locations stopped at.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

I would argue that BC has remained more interesting than his contemporaries for most or his career

I guess it depends which contemporaries you have in mind. He definitely has had inventive staying power over a serious stretch of time that few can rival, in my opinion.

With very few exceptions millions of records are not sold from interesting artists. U2 has not become stadium-filling rock stars because their records are interesting

Debatable, but on a wider level, large numbers of people like their music, they used to gig a lot, all over the world and they worked really hard to reach people. Their music wasn't anywhere near as wide ranging or versatile as Bruce's, they stayed within a fairly narrow range that appealed on a mass level, as much for its simplicity and energy as the other factors. But that made it interesting for those that went out and actually bought their stuff. I like both and have done for 33-34 years but they're both very different. U2 are one of those bands that married what they did on record with their ability to play it live and largely unchanged, anywhere.

The Coat and the Boat is officially trademarked by AndyTaylor, LLC so don't get any wise ideas you're gonna name your band after that

Dang !
That is though, an absolutely superb name for a band. Somehow sounds better than The Boat and the coat
On an unrelated & obscure note, I was always fascinated by Duran Duran having three Taylors {John, Roger [interestingly also a drummer like the one in Queen] and, um, ah, Andy} in the band ~ and none of them were related. I mean, Wishbone Ash had 2 unrelated Turners but 3 ? As the kids of Ladbroke Grove used to say back in the early 90s, that's mishin' !

That's what keeps this discussion and this blog alive. If we're just going to accept the official narrative without question, why discuss it at all?

The term "official narrative" clearly means different things to different people ~ at different times but one can discuss things to the nth degree while still holding to the official narrative, although I'm not advocating that it be uncritically accepted. Or even accepted. But if one is going to discuss, legitimate points may well be raised in countering what is put forth and for me, all points have to be based on something other than "this doesn't sit right with me" which by their own admission is largely the approach taken by George Stimson and Tom O'Neill.
It might also surprise some people for me to say that I don't actually ascribe to an "official narrative" for the very reason that there are a number of them {the prosecution's, the court record, each of the Killers', Linda Kasabian's, and us on the blogs that cobble together varying combos of them} and they all have a certain incompleteness about them.

grimtraveller said...

Doug said...

"Turn me on, dead man!"

Turn me on ~ I'm a radio !

Doug said...

https://youtu.be/Ukbu9dmmzJg

Help! I'm a Rock!

Speculator said...

Grim - your question about do I think Bugliosi/Gentry had a point about some pieces of a crime scene/crime never being explained. No, I don’t think they had a point. But they were clearly sensitive to the issue in the Manson case hence them going out of their way to stress the point in the book!! Like I said before, why bother setting the scene in such a way in the book. In your reply to Andy you also refer to “little matters” being oddities not game changers. Whilst they may not be game changers in terms of motive they do cast doubt on the veracity of what we know. For instance, Bugliosi was clearly intent on casting Kasabian as whiter than white so he either knew and suppressed her evidence about frisking Parent or she lied to him in the first place. Either way it leads you to wonder if Bugliosi and/or Kasabian withheld one piece of information then what else might they have? And re. Melcher I’d say statements about his visits to Spahn are far from minor issues?

grimtraveller said...

1/3

Bono of U2 said:

What I have to say is so important that I'd only trust a song or personal conversation

John Lennon in 1967 said:

Talking is the slowest form of communicating anyway. Music is much better. We're communicating to the outside world through our music. The office in America say they listen to "Sergeant Pepper" over and over so that they know what we're thinking in London

Charlie said:

The music speaks to you every day, but you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to even listen to the music....It is not my conspiracy. It is not my music. I hear what it relates. It says, "Rise!" It says, "Kill!" Why blame it on me? I didn't write the music. I am not the person who projected it into your social consciousness

Paul McCartney said:

We were interested in winking to our friends and comrades in arms, putting in references that we knew our friends would get...the mums and dads didn't get it but the kids did...the lyrics might have been personal. It is often a good way to talk to someone

AndyTaylor said:

the White Album

The White album has a surprising amount of vengeful material on it from the three main songwriting Beatles. It's not so much that they hadn't covered such territory before {"You can't do that," "You won't see me," "Norwegian wood," "Run for your life"} it's just that the earlier stuff came before the words of their songs and interviews were being taken as almost holy writ, in the days when they were seen and still paraded as the lovable moptops. And then came the Revolver/Pepper/MMT period where any apparent thoughts of hitback were tempered very much by "love" {"the word is love ~ it's so fine, it's sunshine" "all you need is love" "all together now" "with our love we could save the world" "man I was mean but I'm changing my scene" "I could wait forever ~ I've got time" "love is all and love is everyone...." etc, etc}. Because of all the love talk of the early days and then the love talk of the psychedelic period, some of the stuff on the White album comes across as quite jarring.

Lennon, McCartney & Harrison all exhibited a certain degree of hitback in song {eg, Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, Piggies, I’m so tired, Sexy Sadie, Glass onion, The continuing story of Bungalow Bill,} and both the recording atmosphere of much of the album {producers left, band members quit or just disappeared in mid session, engineers quit} as well as the year it chronicles was drenched in rancour. This comes across in some of the music. They were even hitting back at each other ~ "Everybody's got something to hide except for me & my monkey," "Not guilty"/"While my guitar gently weeps," "Why don't we do it in the road ?" to name but 4. They were hitting back at George Martin and Dick James and even EMI with their own label. Even the title of the album contained a certain amount of hitback, hitting back against psychedelic expectations of long winded titles and band alter egos and colourful sleeves. No longer were they "the Beatles for sale," with so many outside parties having control over and shares in their lives, crying for "Help." They were the Beatles, pure and simple, unadorned, putting out the music they wanted to, take it or leave it. In songs like "Glass onion" {the lyrical successor to "I am the walrus"} they were even hitting back at their fans and their interpretations. The irony there is that it gave rise to even wilder interpretations through 1969 as is seen in the "Paul is dead" thing ~ and the Family and TLB.

Hitback saturates both the making and the music of the White album.

grimtraveller said...

2/2

Charles Manson was a perceptive guy ~ the violent close quarters living of the prison environment makes you perceptive of friend and foe alike. I've long felt that the tragedy of his life is that he could have done so much to help people straighten themselves out, drawing on his own experiences and understanding {instead of contributing to messed up people getting more messed up} for whatever one wants to say about him, he had perception that most people one encounters just don’t seem to have. Family members as well as friends and associates of his all seem to remark on this. Bugliosi in his dealings with him noted it. And he tended to pick up on nuances that would evade many people which is partly why he seemed so amazing to the Family ~ he could point out certain things that hadn’t occurred to them and they’d see something in it and think ‘wow !’ And in the music he listened to, he picked up on some of the moods and attitudes that came across from the makers of the music, partly because he was a musician and lyricist, partly because that was the climate of the times. Artists were communicating through their songs and would often invite the listener to generate their own meaning and interpretation of what they were hearing.

Because the Beatles in their songs openly espoused a certain form of hitback {a better word than revenge or vengeance} throughout the White album, in a real sense they unwittingly legitimized revenge in the minds of the kind and the kooky alike and so in some ways it’s no great surprise that hitback should ferment in Charlie’s mind and play a role in the murders that occurred in the summer of ‘69. Whether or not he was correct to point to it in connection with the murders, the fact is that he picked up on what was there in the music so far as he was concerned. Whether the Beatles meant it to be taken that way or not isn’t really relevant. The infamous line from “Piggies” about the establishment needing a ‘damned good whacking’ didn’t even come from George Harrison ~ it came from his Mum because he couldn’t think of a line to rhyme with “something lacking.” But remember, these were writers that were communicating with the outside world through their music. Throwing forth thoughts, suggestions, resentments, recommendations, observations and more besides ~ without any great thought as to where such may lead or how such might be taken.

grimtraveller said...

3/3
AndyTaylor said:

“Healter Skelter?” Nobody knew what the hell that was except Beatle fans and Brits

Maybe, but I’d say that was debatable.
Charlie certainly formed an idea in his mind as to what that was all about ~ and when one hears Paul McCartney’s explanation of what the song was about, Manson’s interpretation is amazingly accurate. And he’s the only person I’ve ever heard of that ever picked up on the revolutionary aspect of that song. Even McCartney’s fellow Beatles didn’t pick up on it. Lennon said it was all just a noise to him and he didn’t know what it had to do with knifing anybody. But the song uses the helter skelter as a metaphor for the fall of the Roman empire, an empire that fell through a serious of interconnected happenings, some violent, some economic, some natural but in ordinary terms, the big ruling empire falls at the collective hands of the smaller elements it no longer has any power over. Confusion reigned.
One thing I've long found interesting is Charlie's seeming assumption that anyone should be able to see the messages he saw in the music young people were listening to. He intimates such during his trial testimony. In his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, he also assumes that anyone should be able to name all the songs on the White album. When the interviewer asks him about stuff he sees in the album, he asks the interviewer to name any 4 songs. That’s a major assumption on his part, to suppose the journalist would know the White album as well as him. But the Family seemed to assume a lot about what other people should think, as Pat so aptly demonstrated.