Monday, February 8, 2021

Drugs or Money?


 "I fear that if the matter is beyond humanity, it is certainly beyond me"

- Arthur Conan Doyle


"All motives for murder are covered by 4 L's: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing"

- P.D. James




"By the summer of 1969, most expenses at Spahn's Ranch were financed by drug deals and auto-theft. All activity around Charles Manson and the men he trusted concerned procuring drugs, or money for drugs."

- Susan Atkins (The Myth of Helter Skelter)


I worked as a Restaurant Manager from my final year in college until my late 30's. It was brutal. 65 hours a week of nights, weekends and Holidays. It was a lonely and miserable existence. No chance of a real relationship working those kind of hours. Not even the possibility of the random hook-up either. All the girls were passed out, or asleep, by the time I got out of the building. Nope, when others were finished paying the tab and on to the real fun, I was helping the dishwashers and busboys take out the trash so I could turn off the lights, lock the doors, and get out of there as early in the middle of the night as possible. Then I would go home and watch whatever crap happened to be on television in the wee hours of the morning, while using Coors-light and shitty weed, to try and get to sleep before the sun came up. All of that great fun so that I could get some kind of, mostly passed out, rest before going back and doing it all over again. But it wasn't all bad. Sometimes it had it's moments. I met many very cool people. I got to eat and drink for free for almost 20 years. I was able to be part of the party- in fact host the party- without having to spend any money. Most importantly though, I learned lifelong people skills that would eventually serve me very well in my next career incarnation. You see, from line-cooks to servers and bartenders, office accountants to dishwashers- I had to communicate with all types of individuals. Single moms, to married dad's. College students to high-school drop-outs. Career hospitality people to kids working their very first part-time job. I met and worked with all of them. More often than not, the challenge of trying to relate to so many different types of personalities ended up leaving me feeling quite off balance. But it usually turned out alright and, believe it or not, once or twice I was even able to make a connection. One such connection came through a game I created, spur of the moment- and by accident, to play with the hostess' that I worked with. The Hostess' were often 16 to 20 year old girls. They worked two or three shifts a week after school, or on weekends. Most of the time they were consumed with school, parents, or boyfriend drama. It was tough for me to figure out a way to break through and earn the confidence of this particular younger group of people, without trying too hard and looking cheesy. That is, until the game came along. The game was called "Drugs or Money?" 


The rules were as simple as how the game itself came about. One day a couple came into the restaurant who were really ridiculously mismatched. The hostess sat them at a table and as she was walking back to the hostess stand, she passed me. As she did, she made a face at me as if the say "Why would she come in here with a guy like that?" She never said a word, but you could see the question in her eyes and facial expression. So at the exact moment she walked by me, without looking directly at her or anything else, I said "Either drugs or money." The hostess burst out laughing. She kept looking back at the couple, and giggling, her entire walk back across the restaurant. After that every time we saw a mismatched couple come into the restaurant together, we would walk by each other and venture our guess as to which of the two was the reason a particular girl was with a specific guy. Eventually the other hostess' started to ask us why we were always saying the words drugs or money to each other, and we let them in on our game. After a short time, every hostess at the restaurant knew there would be an inside joke going with me whenever we worked the same shifts. Believe it or not it made me just cool enough to be able to communicate with these young girls about other things when I needed to. It was an awesome thing at the time to break through with a group of people who otherwise made me feel very awkward and out of date lol

So, that brings us up to date. Why this matters today:

I wrote a post recently exploring the Revenge motive as a possible reason for the Tate crime. I have long studied the Helter Skelter, and Music Snub Revenge motives in much more detail than any of the others. I have written posts about both. The motive(s) I would rank next in order of probability would be "Copycat/Get a brother out of jail." I think George Stimson wrote a fine book making the best case for that motive. I couldn't do a better job than he did. That leaves the The "Bottom of the barrel" motives.  It is those two motives that I am going to take a quick look at today. Robbery or Drug burn. Or, in other words, "Drugs or Money". See where this is going? 

Could the true motive for the Cielo crimes have been attached to either Drugs or Money?




"I believe Manson went up to the house and Manson wanted sell cocaine and marajuana. He showed Jay and Wojciech the product. They were going to buy some if it, but the two of them beat him up at the gate. The next night Manson sent the Family up." 

- Jim Markham, Beauty industry Icon and close friend of Jay Sebring, speaking to Hollywood Reporter

So what the Hell was really going on in Sharon's clique of friends? Out of respect, and maybe out of deference to a career military father, much of what these people were quietly doing behind the scenes in their lives has really never been totally outed. I think it is fair to keep some of it under the rug if it is irrelevant to why they were killed. But if it played a role, then maybe not so much. I usually like to only use direct quotes from people involved, or facts that were entered and accepted as such in a court of law. I very rarely use anyone who writes rumors and uses anonymous sources- as a reference in my posts. I try to stick to trial manuscripts, parole hearing transcripts, or direct quotes from by the subjects/participants themselves. This is a little tougher to do when trying to argue these types of motives. So today I am going to mention a few people who normally. I probably wouldn't.



Bobby swears that Truman Capote is a liar. He says he was misquoted by Truman, and that he never said most of what was in the interview Truman published with him at San Quintin. Maybe that is so. But Bobby is a proven liar in my opinion, so who knows how much of the interview was legitimate, and how much was Truman making mashed potatoes? I would guess it was a little of both. So, the challenge then becomes figuring if any quotes Truman attributed to Bobby can be backed up by unrelated testimony elsewhere. Maybe this is one:

"They burned people on dope deals. Sharon Tate and that gang, They picked up kids on the Sunset Strip, and took them home and stripped them. Made movies of it. Ask the cops. They found the movies. Not that they would've told you about that"

- Bobby Beausoleil in interview with Truman Capote at San Quinten

Now that may sound like some Truman Capote sensationalism, or Bobby making some stuff up to sound interesting. Either could be true. However this next quote attributed to Actor/Director Dennis Hopper in an interview with The LA Free Press is sort of curious if you read both:

"They had fallen into sadism, machoism and bestiality. And they recorded it all on videotape too. The LA police told me this. I know 3 days before they were killed 25 people were invited to that house to a mass whipping of a dealer on the Sunset Strip who had given them bad dope."

That is a pretty interesting coincidence, Sunset Strip, Drug-burn, video-tapes. A set of people who really cant be connected to each other at all, and both came up with very similar claims about the lifestyles of the victims. Again, while intriguing, this is not really the type of testimonial evidence I normally like to offer. The problem with using this type of material is verification. What else do you have besides the word of the person saying it? Even if it is more than one person saying it. It just gets murkier and murkier when it comes to "Video-tapes."

In "One Hand Jerking: Reports from an Investigative Satirist" Paul Krasner recounts how Hal Lipsett, the legendary private investigator on whose career The Conversation was based, told him that "Elements of the LA police force were offering seven straight hours of celebrity skin flicks seized from the Polanski residence for a quarter of a million dollars". 

We know these video's kept coming up over and over, but we don't know where they are now, or how/why they never surfaced after 50 years? I prefer to stick with what we do know. We know the official record of the crime scene. We know the only video that was reported discovered by Sergeant Mike McGann was screened at the Police Academy and returned to the house after it showed only Roman and Sharon making love. In all of the years since, no other tapes have ever surfaced. That is what we know. As in the video-tapes, this is the problem you encounter over and over when it comes to the Drug Burn theory. Factual evidence of drug dealing, or even personal encounters, between the Victims and Family members are very hard to verify. Just like the videos, second-hand stories and rumors are frequent. Actual, verifiable examples are not.


"Charles, Tex Watson, who allegedly led the death squad responsible for the carnage at Cielo Drive, lived for a time on - guess where- Wonderland Avenue. During that time, curiously enough, Watson co-owned and worked in a wig shop in Beverly Hills, Crown Wigs Creations LTD., that was located near the mouth of Benedict Canyon. Meanwhile one of Jay Sebring's primary claims-to-fame was his expertise in crafting Men's hairpieces, which he did in his shop near the mouth of  Laurel Canyon. A typical day then in the late 1960's would find Watson crafting men's hairpieces for an upscale Hollywood crowd near Benedict Canyon, and then returning home to Laurel Canyon, while Sebring crafted men's hairpieces for an upscale clientele near Laurel Canyon and then returned home to Benedict Canyon. And then one crazy day, as well all know, one of them became a killer and the other his victim. But there is nothing odd about that, I suppose, so let's move on...."

- Dave McGowan (Inside the L.C.- The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation Part 1)

Once again, a very interesting coincidence. Tex and Jay were in very close proximity. BUT, who can verify that they ever met, or knew, each other? 

Think about something: 

There is no testimony from any court transcript, parole hearing, nor statement from a witness or killer, that says Jay made any statement or acknowledgment indicating he knew Tex when they were all in the living room before Tex Shot him. In all of the years, and all the times the various killers changed their stories, in no version did any of the killers and victims know each other. Why wouldn't Jay have said something if he knew Tex? If you recognize a person who has appeared in front of you with a gun in the middle of the night, wouldn't the first words out of your mouth be "Hey Tex, what are you doing here?" If Jay knew his attacker, don't you think he would have tried any way he could have to talk to him and reason his way out of the situation? I sorta do. There is no testimony anywhere that says Jay tried to do that. In fact- the one consistent story they have all told over the years is that Tex was asked who he was, which gave him the chance to utter that infamous phrase about being the Devil there to do the Devils work. Sigh. We can go on all day with rumors and speculation. Bill Scanlon Murphy has a whole story you can read about Mob connections and 40K drug deals between Jay and the Manson people at Cielo, but I am not going to recreate that garbage here, because none of it can be backed up by actual evidence or factual testimony by any of the principals or witness'. 

Is there any actual witness or victim testimony about drugs, money or either being part of motive? 

Well... there is Tex:

"There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one that Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn't have the energy or 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 motivated the drug burn and Bernard Crowe's supposed murder, the killing of Gary Hinman, and all of the proposed abductions and murders in the Chatsworth area, and also to pay $600 bail for Mary Brunner, who had been arrested earlier in the day for using a stolen Sears credit card."

"Beyond getting money, and bringing down Helter Skelter, there was a third, less important motive; to clear Bobby Beausoleil of the  Hinman slaying by committing a similar crime while he was in jail."

"I want all the money you've got here" I barked, and Abagail took Sadie into her bedroom and gave her the money in her wallet. When they came back with only 70 dollars, I shouted: "You mean that's all you've got?"  "How much do you want?" Frykowski asked. "We want thousands."

- Tex Watson (Will You die for Me)

But, if you keep reading on in Tex's story, he says he starts stabbing Jay almost immeidately after saying that. He never waited, or gave anyone a chance to get any money. Nor, did he take money he saw. Jay had already been shot at this point. He was certainly no threat. Why would Tex ask for money then start the blood-bath withought giving them a chance to produce any? Did they really go there to rob Cielo on that August night? Was that the true intent? After all, Tex gives three motives. His explanation in "Will you Die for Me" leaves me with questions. Tex is also a proven self-serving liar. 

And then there is Susan Atkins:

"An ever increasing appetite for an illegal substance that pushes Charles Manson further and further into illegal means of obtaining it. Robberies and swindles were performed, sometimes including very dangerous drug burns. And all to obtain  more money for drugs. By the summer of 1969, Family members were being encouraged to steal from their friends and even their parent's homes to help make up for this drug deficit. And the best part about all of this, as far as Charles Manson was concerned, is that they were giving him the money and he didn't have to get near the crimes. He thought he was faultless because he hadn't gone out and actually stole the money himself. This was a pattern he would try and do again later."

-Susan Atkins (Myth of  Helter Skelter) 

Susan is also a well-documented liar who has told about half a dozen different versions of the story over the years. Maybe we should review what the authorities who investigated thought when they first came upon this. To do that we must consult "The Oracle"

I know Bugs beat up the milk-man, lied to the Col about the motive, and is an all-around terrible guy. I hope he burns in hell working at a TGI Fridays 70 hours a week for all eternity to repent for his transgressions. But, Bugs could investigate. The way he took over and coordinated the early days of the investigation was genius in my opinion. I trust what he and his team found, and I believe in the evidence they ultimately presented. How Bugs used it and may have twisted it later to fit his narrative is an argument for another time. Yes, Bugs himself mocked the earliest days of the investigation, but it is still relevant to hear what the actual people investigating were thinking. Let's remember what they initially thought about "Drugs or Money" as a motive.


"Or could the murders have been the result of a drug "burn", the killer(s) arriving to make a delivery, or buy, an argument over money or bad drugs erupting into violence?" This was the second, and in many ways the most likely, of the five theories the detectives would list in their first investigative report. The third theory was a variation of  the second, the killer(s) deciding to keep both the money and the drugs. The fourth was the residential burglary theory."

"The drug theories seemed to make the most sense. In the investigation that followed, as the police interviewed acquaintances of the victims, and the victim's habits and lifestyles emerged into clearer focus, the possibility that drugs were in some way linked to the motive became in some minds such a certainty that when given a clue which could have solved the case, they ignored it."

-  Pages 44/45 Helter Skelter (Vincent Bugliosi)

Now lets be practical. What actual Drugs or Money were found at the scene?

- 1 gram cocaine ( Jay's Porsche)
- 6.3 grams Marajuana, 1 two inch roach (Jay's Porsche)
- 6.9 grams Marajuana (Living Room cabinet)
- 30 grams Hash (Gibby's nightstand in bedroom)
- 10 MDA capsules (Gibby's nightstand in bedroom)
- Marajuana residue (Ashtray by Sharons bed)
- 1 Marajuana cigarette (Desk near front door)
- 2 Marajuana cigarettes (Guest House)

"There was no indications of  ramsacking or robbery. McGann found Sebring's wallet in his jacket, which was hanging over the back of a chair in the living room. It contained $80. John Doe had $9 in his wallet, Frykowski $2.44 in his wallet and pants pocket, Folger $9.64 in her purse. On the nightstand next to Sharon's bed, in plain view, were a ten, a five, and three ones. Obviously expensive items- a videotape machine, TV sets, Stereo, Sebring's watch and Porsche- had not been taken"

Money, Jewelry, drugs, appliances, sports-cars. That is what they did NOT take. If they were really there to rob the place, they sucked at it no? Then there is the drugs. or lack of drugs really. This, to me, is the inventory of pretty heavy partiers. For the times, not even really excessive. Divided by three and separating the stuff in the car and bedroom, this looks very much like personal use to me. Not one of these drugs is in quantities that would make me think they were dealing. Take away the MDA and the rest of this stuff could have been found in my college apartment ( I shared with 3 guys) at almost any time. Again, where is there any testimony over 50 years from any of the Family members that they suddenly came into any money or drugs after August 8, or 9?  It doesn't exist. I have looked very hard lol.  Unfortunately, I can't show you what I can't find. I do not think Bugs or the investigators were able to find it back then either, which is probably one reason why they moved on to other motives. Furthermore, there is plenty of testimony about how little money, or drugs, they had when they got out to Barker and how hard life started to become out in the desert as they started to run out of drugs and money... 

"Finally, ready or not, the Family is moved to the desert. Manson could have gone much sooner on his own, but he's afraid to move without his bodyguard of followers. Supplies are sparse and conditions rough. More people try to leave."

"Money was very limited. but Manson was afraid to go back to the city. Luckily for everyone, our stay in the desert didn't last very long."

- Susan Atkins ( Myth of Helter Skelter)

"When we were in the desert, we were busy trying to find an indication of where the hole would be that would lead us to the center of the Earth. We were learning how to live off the land which, you know, there's no food. So we were basically down to surviving."

-Leslie Van Houten ( 6/5/13 Parole Hearing transcript- stolen as always from Ceilodrive.com)


Do you think this sounds like the voices of people who had just become flush with cash? I sorta don't.



I believe Tex sold pot. He says so himself.  I believe some of the Family Members probably dabbled a little as well in making moves with one drug or another. I believe that Jay sold coke to celebrity friends, and other friends. I believe that Gibby and Wojciech were doing drugs pretty heavily, and certainly were associated with several dealers (including Jay) both in and outside of California. You can read about that in Helter Skelter if you haven't already. I believe it was serious use, but I do not believe they were dealers themselves. What you will not read in Helter Skelter, or anywhere else, is documented evidence that anyone in the Family was related to any of this in any way. While the friends and families of the victims would certainly never publicly stain their memories, you can hear the truth about what Sharon's co-victims were doing around her if you listen carefully. Plenty of important people all worked together to make sure that the story stayed as clean as possible, but it was a party time and they were living party lives. Until it all ended in tragedy. I wonder if the people who cared about the victims could have done such an amazing job of keeping certain things so hushed in the world we live in today?

I will not pursue it any further than that because...

I do not believe that Sharon's clique and Charlie's Family were doing drugs with, or selling drugs to, each other. I do not believe that "Drugs or Money" were the reason Sharon and the others were killed. I have found nothing that connects the two groups of people in any way that can be proven factually. I do not believe that Tex and the others went to Cielo that night to rob anyone either. Outside of a book Tex wrote decades after the fact where he is clearly trying to pass himself off as fair and reasonable, there is even less proof of that. The killers blatantly ignored money and items of value that would have been easy to grab. Cash and joints were laying out in plain view. The killers did not seem no notice these things at all.  I think they must have had some other motivation to be there. Robbery or Drug deal gone bad are much easier to understand as motives in general, but just do not really fit here. Sometimes the easier answer to understand is not the correct one. And let's face it- this would all be much more simple to comprehend if the motive could be as basic as drug-burn or robbery. We all want so badly to comprehend how something like this could have happened? Then again lol, it wouldn't be the same case if we could- would it? Isn't the not knowing what really makes this case so unique to some of us at the end of the day? All we know for sure about the motive after 50 years is that we really don't know the motive for sure. 

Why did these murders happen? As much as I despise Roman Polanski, maybe he had it right all along. 

"If I'm looking for a motive, I'd look for something which doesn't fit your habitual standard, with which you used to work as police- something much more far out...."

Whatever the answer to the motive question for the Tate ( and Labianca) crimes is, It is not going to end up being one of the easy, obvious, or "habitual" answers such as drugs or money. Sometimes you have to really dig deep to get at the real answer to a question. Its not always as easy as making the typical assumptions about things. And, I started learning that lesson going all the way back to that game I created in the Restaurant so many years ago.  Sometimes it is not Drugs or Money...

Sometimes its just the hot girls older cousin visiting from Cleveland. 




- Your Favorite Saint








152 comments:

Robert C said...

Once again nice write-up, St C. You took us thru a lot but landed us safely back to ground zero. BTW, who's the long haired guy with the blond, or am I looking at an ad ?

Robert C said...

I had to look up 'lucre'. ;-)

orwhut said...

Exactly what Robert C. said Saint. Right down to the question at the end.

Gene Aquamarine said...

Nice to see McGowan's research referenced here. I realize that many of the 'way out' MK-Ultra -fueled theories can be distasteful to sober-minded researchers, but they remain compelling in many ways. I keep thinking about Paul Watkins' eagerness to want to reference Scientology and Manson's interest in that topic during the TV interview that was posted here awhile back.

starviego said...

Saint said:
"I have long studied the Helter Skelter, and Music Snub Revenge motives... The motive(s) I would rank next in order of probability would be "Copycat/Get a brother out of jail.""

The copycat motive needs to be put to bed. It's too stupid to even contemplate.

Helter Skelter(paperback edition), pg610
--Linda Kasabian testified during the penalty trial that she had never heard anyone discuss committing these murders to free Bobby Beausoleil.

Peter said...

I think the LaBiancas were the copycat to try and divert suspicion from the obvious connection between Manson and Cielo.

ColScott said...

Sorry to rain on your parade but you called my name Beetlejuice style so here I am. George Hodel was cleared from being the Dahlia killer. Richard Jewell was cleared from the bombing. The cops cleared the drug motive. There is no going back. Fetch is not gonna happen. You are an interesting cat just wrong so many times!

Tragical History Tour said...

Neither. Both incidental.

Bad karma was accumulating on the Wooly Hophead like flies on a turd and he snapped on August 8.

Too many valuables left behind both nights.

They would have taken even the small amount of drugs if that was the objective.

You don't cut a screen and enter through a window for a drug burn.

You don't need a change of clothes for a robbery or a drug burn. You DO need one if you know how messy it get when you take a dodgy gun and 3 knives to kill people.

The one that makes sense - to kill whoever was there.

TabOrFresca said...

Nice article St C.
I see one “nit”.
Helter Skelter has a typo in regards to the amount of marijuana that was found in the cabinet. It is not 6.9 grams but 76.9 grams.
See McGann’s testimony in the trial transcripts and BUGs stipulation.
Both amounts are still personal use amounts. 6.9 grams would only be enough for a week if you only consumed a couple of Js a day. Drinking Coors-Lite, that would not be hard.

starviego said...

Peter said...
"I think the LaBiancas were the copycat to try and divert suspicion from the obvious connection between Manson and Cielo."

That was Noguchi's theory too:

Coroner, by Thomas Noguchi, c.1983 pg137of252
And after he had turned his worshipping 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


Dan S said...

It's obvious. I've commented the motive a couple times already. Charlie's diarrhea mouth and tex wanting to impress his peer group. A moronic musunderstsnding

Dan S said...

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.

Dan S said...

17 typewriters. The scavenger hunt only asked for 2

Tragical History Tour said...

If you answered D) Loathing, please move forward 3 spaces.

Peter said...

They drove around looking for someone, but killing out on the street or in a strange surrounding lacked the control that Manson needed. So he drove to a place he knew, the house next to Harrold's that I'm sure he had probably cased on an earlier visit.

orwhut said...

Saint seems to have gone on a secret mission and not read his fan mail. Does anyone recognize the seemingly tall blond and long haired man in the second photo?

Tragical History Tour said...

Blogger orwhut said...
Saint seems to have gone on a secret mission and not read his fan mail. Does anyone recognize the seemingly tall blond and long haired man in the second photo?

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

I took it to be a reverential nod to the Col and Supermodel Wife.

Objects displayed may not be actual size.

orwhut said...

Thanks Tragical,
Thinking the Col. Is taller than that, I looked at the photo and read the surrounding text again and now believe the pair to be an example of a mismatched couple.

Gorodish said...

orwhut typed:

Does anyone recognize the seemingly tall blond and long haired man in the second photo?

As an FYI, the couple in the photo in question is Russian rock singer Alexander Gradsky, who is 71, and his beautiful 30-something wife. It is just as you thought, the post author using the picture as an example of a mismatched couple.

orwhut said...

Thank you Gorodish.
Alexander must have become popular in the 70s. I was under the impression that decadent western music was banned in Russia, before that time.

Doug said...

79.6g = approx 2.8 ounces

Definitely personal useage

ColScott said...

John Douglas is an expert ONLY in being a fucking idiot

Dan S said...

Love the vitriol. But the man is an fbi legend

Tony said...

Manson was testing their loyalty, i don't think he really thought they would go through with it and was shocked when they did. Why would he send just one man and 3 fragile women to kill everyone in that house and to keep on killing people in the next house if he thought they would go through with it?

Tragical History Tour said...

Blogger Tony said...
Manson was testing their loyalty, i don't think he really thought they would go through with it and was shocked when they did. Why would he send just one man and 3 fragile women to kill everyone in that house and to keep on killing people in the next house if he thought they would go through with it?

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

Fragile? Krenwinkel?

I have no words.

Matthew said...

I think that the drugs or money motives needs to be put to rest. There is much more evidence debunking than promoting those theories. I also think that these theories walk a fine line of victim blaming. How many of us did not smoke weed in the late 60's? I am 100% convinced that the motive for Manson was revenge and anger to a social group that banned him. Whatever reason the killers acted is based on each individual. Some helter and some to fit in etc.

Dan S said...

Tex committed the murders. I agree with what blogger Tony said. The 2nd night is what makes manson really guilty

Dan S said...

And shorty and Gary

Tragical History Tour said...

What evidence is there that Manson was shocked by what happened at Cielo?

If anything, he was disappointed at how messy it all got and went the next night to show them how to do it a lot more smoothly.

Shocked, my ass.

Tony said...

What evidence is there that Manson was disappointed at how messy it all got?

prefeteria said...

I believe that Cielo was a targeted hit, for something drug related.

My theory is that the incident with Bernard Crowe put Manson in a position where he’d face retribution unless he performed a service in return…and Cielo was that service for some drug-related business. Probably whomever Crowe was working for was the one who called that in on Manson. Manson skipped town, went up the coast, and probably realized he had no choice. He came back and gave Watson the word. Whether any of the killers knew those details is questionable. Manson went to his grave without giving up the true story.

Good points made about Labianca being a copycat, but it’s also possible that they were another point of forced retribution. Although the drug angle doesn’t quite fit as far as I know.

Peter said...

He didnt even know who Crow was, he thought he was a Panther. Also he disnt show anyone how to do anything at Waverly because he cut out. And it was just as messy except maybe they weren't running around on the front lawn.

Peter said...

Bruce was probably the least culpable in Gary's murder.

ColScott said...

Dan= a legend in his own mind

prefeteria said...

Crowe knew enough to call Spahn Ranch beforehand, and so ultimately Crowe’s associates would know where to find these guys. The only reason they *might* have thought Crowe was a Panther was because of a news report of a Panther body dumped at UCLA. The Crowe shooting was no secret, as indicated from Gregg Jakobson’s contribution to the Rolling Stone 1970 article:

‘The police were looking for him. Also, he supposedly shot a spade in the stomach in Topanga. A friend called me up and said, “You know that crazy guy Charlie? He shot some spade in the stomach, then took his jacket, bent over, kissed his feet and said, ‘I love you, brother.'” And I said, “That sounds like Charlie, all right.” None of this was reported to the police. This guy was a dealer, a big syndicate dealer, a real out and out criminal dealer who dealt everything. So these people wouldn’t report it to the police; they just take care of it themselves. Charlie figured these people would be after him immediately. The spade lived, incidentally. This was early in the summer of ’69, when Charlie was collecting weapons and hanging out with the motorcycle people.’

Anyway, presenting the threat to his friends as Black Panthers fit Manson’s presentation better than angry drug dealers.

starviego said...

Peter said...
"He didnt even know who Crow was, he thought he was a Panther."

Ed Sanders, author of The Family, claimed there was very much a pre-existing relationship with Crowe. This was one of the few differences with Bugliosi's Helter Skelter, which claimed that Manson and Crowe had never met before the shooting.

I suspect Sanders got most of that info from his investigator Larry Larson, who was simultaneously the investigator for defense attorney Paul Fitzgerald, who would have received all the evidence from the prosecution as part of 'discovery.' So the part about Charlie knowing Lostsapoppa could have come straight out of police files.

And the LAPD's Lt. Deemer had Crowe on a list of Family associates, and explicitly identified him as a Black Panther.

Peter said...

"So the part about Charlie knowing Lostsapoppa could have come straight out of police files."

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.


Deemer's list also explicitly identified Crow as a "victim."

Peter said...

Deemer's unabridged list simply says:

CROW, Bernard
Member of Black Panthers
Shot by member(s) of Family

M N
LAPD# 838 334 C

Dan S said...

The Watson murders just doesn't have that same alliterative ring, does it? Admittedly, Charlie was the cult leader stabby Tex was trying to impress and Charlie was the direct leader on the second night. Kasabian was probably loving her new man's vitality too. Charlie also slashed Gary, starting the final act of his murder, and I'm sure he directed his newfound blob killing machine at Shorty (I guess Grogan said he started it with a wrench to the head but I'm sure the peer pressure was cuz of Watson

Crow called the ranch asking for "Charles," trying to reach Charles Watson...

Regardless of John Douglas's expertise, Watson being the true murderer has long been your bone to pick, nes pas, Col?

Maybe it went like this: Charlie just got back from Esalan; he's kind of pissed they didn't like him. Tex and the girls are blubbering: Mary and Blue are arrested; Bobby's arrested; we're broke; maybe we can copycat Gary's murder and get Bobby out. Charlie says, "Dang, maybe now's the time for Helter Skelter. Tex, get a rope and string 'em up from the rafters. Write some witchy shit." Maybe he didn't say all that that night but had been talking about the scenario for weeks or months so just the implication was enough to get Tex going.
More likely Charlie probably lit into him for Lotsapoppa and diarrhea mouthed about helter skelter and stringing pigs up without any specific orders and speed addled Tex, Sadie and the 2 people they were most comfortable with went on a mission. Maybe Charlie didn't say, "Now's the time for helter skelter," until they came back from the grisly murders. I believe he did "show them how it's done" the second night. He did this because Tex forced his hand, not because it was some sort of overarching plan or a planned "hit". He had been talking up this pig killing for so long that he had to prove himself now that he was put on the spot.

If it was some sort of true plan, wouldn't the murders have continued somewhat apace? Wouldn't framing blacks have had some effort behind it? I believe the bathroom LK left the wallet in wasn't even in a black part of town.

Most importantly, they were idiots, not rational people with a proper motive. And don't forget the typewriters!!! So indicative of Tex's personality

Tony said...

Show them how to do it a lot more smoothly? he wasn't even there when the killing started

orwhut said...

Tony said...
Show them how to do it a lot more smoothly? he wasn't even there when the killing started

Charlie tied them up and got out of there very just as smooth as silk.

orwhut said...

Then stab happy Tex went in and all Hell broke loose.

AndyTaylor said...

Why did they stop after Labianca? If they really wanted to start a race war, why not keep going and going night after night or day after day? Drive up to Fresno? Go to Phoenix? Or maybe they were just trying to raise a certain amount of money and then get out of the city because they TRULY BELIEVED the end was near and physical isolation was the only hope of survival. We know a lot about this case but there's a lot we still don't know. There's a drug angle to Crowe and Hinman so it can be reasonably assumed that the possibility exists with Cielo (Sebring-drugs, Frykowski-drugs, Tate-Collateral, Parent-Collateral, Folger-drug funding). Maybe Labianca was random, but all the passengers in the car that CM drove that night said that he drove aimlessly for hours and then suddenly seemed to know EXACTLY where to go. Because he was comfortable and knew the house of LaBianca? Maybe like Tex was comfortable with the Cielo house and knew there would be drugs / money there? How many houses had CM been in and was comfortable with? Dozens probably. Why Waverly?

It's the possibilities of other motives that keep this case alive in a discussion forum. Even during the trial it was widely believed in the legal community that Manson was going to walk because the case of HS was so unbelievably thin. And it's easier to get a conviction when the defense NEVER offers a counter-narrative, provide counter-evidence or calls one witness. Dig Bugs win by default because the defense never put up a case? That's a good question and one we'll never know the answer to. But it doesn't matter. Don't think about it. Bugs solved it for us all.

The easiest thing to do is believe the Bugliosi account. Why? That's the only one we have that has MONTHS of testimony and evidence to support it. The trial transcripts and official narrative are the ONLY ones we have that are considered “authoritative.” The defense never presented their case. We know all about what the prosecution believed regarding means and motives, but we know scant little about the defense. They never called a witness, presented evidence or presented a case – the defendants were never defended. All we have from their side of the story is breadcrumbs here and there. Statements from over-drugged late teens who change their stories frequently. People who were living off of garbage at Spahn's and candy at Barker's. Rumours, innuendos, lies and hunches are all we have to go on to draw a conclusion that is different than Bugliosi's. The only thing more noteworthy than freakery is mystery and that's what we have here. Jim Jones caused 900+ deaths but he is hardly ever discussed. How many books or movies about him? A small fraction of the same created for CM. Why? Mystery. We don't know. There's no way to know. Trial transcripts won't tell us. First hand accounts with those who were in the house killing the victims won't tell us. Those who lived with Manson and his people won't tell us. The only version different than the Bugs is the one we piece together – clutching at straws.

It is the way of the fundamentalist that never leaves open the option for a counter-narrative when only one side of the story is definitively known.

AndyTaylor said...

Perhaps the family was poor and hungry in the desert because they didn't plan this thing through all the way. If you're living on someone else's property, shoveling horseshit to pay the rent and then living for free at a desert ranch, perhaps you haven't given attention to your course in life as closely as you should have. These weren't the brightest of people so it makes sense they got to Barker's and then ran out of supplies. They thought they were going to find underground habitats with fruits that would feed them so needing money or supplies was ridiculous in their minds. They TRULY BELIEVED they were going to find this stuff.

Why would people storm the capitol knowing there would be certain judicial consequences but doing it anyway without disguising or hiding themselves and posting about it on social media? Why would a hippie like Adam Johnson risk his family's well-being with 5 children for whom he is the caregiver? Maybe because they TRULY BELIEVED they would be pardoned by their leader and maybe even heralded as heroes. "It's a revolution" so nothing else matters. The world is going to change and no one will even care about stealing a lectern or gouging out the eye of a cop with your thumb. Or killing some people in Bel Air and Silverlake because the whole world will be engulfed in violence and death while the family is safely hidden underground in Death Valley. Maybe they were just looking to get out and find the fruit-bearing trees that would feed them underground so who needs a ton of money? These are mostly young, inexperienced, drug-soaked early-20s hippies who had spent too much time under the glare of bad ideas and a ridiculous belief system that had its' roots in an even older ridiculous belief system. And CM's interaction with the non-prison world was virtually non-existent. So how could any of these people be counted on to make rational decisions about anything that would make sense to anyone other than themselves? Of COURSE they're going to run out of food and supplies. But they don't care because they'll be underground in a world where everything is provided for them. Except LSD. You need the government to make that.


ColScott said...

If you think the BUG account has validity you can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut

AndyTaylor said...

IT IS NOT GOING TO END UP BEING ONE OF THE EASY, OBVIOUS, OR "HABITUAL" ANSWERS SUCH AS DRUGS OR MONEY. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO REALLY DIG DEEP TO GET AT THE REAL ANSWER TO A QUESTION. ITS NOT ALWAYS AS EASY AS MAKING THE TYPICAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THINGS

It is not? How can Saint speak so authoritatively and with such finality about something that we will likely never know? On what authority does he make such claims? Because he's ready HS a hundred times and pursued that which supports it? If “digging deep” brings you to the most obvious, most commonly stated answer, how is that “digging deep” at all? I appreciate all those words and photos and quotes as I'm sure everyone else does. But for some reason, Saint feels the need to keep coming back and being the loudest cheerleader for Bugs since Steven Kay. Why? Why keep coming back again and again and again regurgitating the HS motive? This is like reading a Cliff's Notes or Blinkist version of the Bug book. With religious (scratch, scratch) fervor he seems to posess this need to obliterate any possible discussion of the drugs / money motive even though Tex said this was one of the motives. But about THAT – Tex is lying. Saint speaks with such absolute authority but his primary source seems to HS and the prosecution narrative while ignoring the fact that we have never heard the defense narrative because there isn't one. Not officially. We keep scratching to find some sense in the side that was never represented in court. Certainly not to the extent the prosecution was. Not even close. Sometimes scratching just leads you back to your own belief system and – more importantly – the mindset required to get there and stay there.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Again: unbelievably absolute talk from someone who wasn't there but who keeps alternately believing and not believing the people who WERE there. One of the ideas is that Tex or Linda knew about a drug deal going down at Cielo that night. IF they were able to get money and / or drugs, do you really think they would have deposited the money into a bank account so we can see it? Or suddenly have new clothes and cars? Buying a house in Simi? Where's the evidence that Tex gave $ to CM from the Crowe burn? Where's the evidence that Kasabian gave $5,000 to CM? Where's the evidence that Juanita Wildebush gave $X,XXX to CM? It doesn't exist. Wait – where did I hear THAT before? If this was the final push to move to the desert and outfitting dune buggies, buying supplies etc how can we tell HOW the money was spent? If - as Schreck has maintained - CM owed money to the Straight Satans it is very curious that CM et al headed down to Venice which was – oh my – the headquarters of the SS.

While I appreciate the effort Saint injects into these posts, there seems to be a desperation to believe at all costs the narrative from the prosecution's side while – again – ignoring the fact that there is virtually no case presented from the defense. We're left with shreds of accounts from family members, hangers-on, friends, accomplices, acquantances, neighbors, cellmates etc etc to piece together what the defense might have been but never was. There is an absolute refusal to accept any other possibility for motives other than what Bug presented.

If the Bug narrative is the final word, why is Tex and the LAPD so anxious to keep those tapes from being heard? If there's anything in those 20 hours to counter the official (Bug) narrative, they would be among the most negatively affected. If they supported the official narrative, there would be no issue in their release. And they would CERTAINLY have shown up at the Pasadena City College Flea Market the first Sunday of every month in Aes-Nihil's deep, dark booth of curiosities. Maybe they have.

starviego said...

AndyTaylor said...
"Where's the evidence that Kasabian gave $5,000 to CM? Where's the evidence that Juanita Wildebush gave $X,XXX to CM? It doesn't exist."

Both those people have confirmed they gave the money to Charlie. Others in the family have backed those statements up.

Peter said...

The defense had the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses in the penalty phase and they did. Alternative theories are all well and good, but they need to be backed up by evidence. And lack of evidence of one thing doesn't necessarily constitute evidence of another. There are many instances were I personally don't believe the official narrative. For instance, I have always said that I don't believe Kasabian saw as much as she testified to. I also don't believe that Helter Skelter was Manson's true motive, but neither do I believe that a drug burn, a CIA plot, or a "get-a-brother-out-of-jail" motive is the true motive. I don't understand why everyone gets so hung up on Bugliosi's use of Helter Skelter. Manson preached that theory to no-end in the months leading up to the murders, a dozen Family members and non-Family members testified to it. Bugliosi used it as the story by which he would introduce all the evidence, both physical and testimonial, and keep a jury interested every day for nine months. He got his conviction. And its not like he got the wrong guy, or they fabricated evidence or caused witnesses to commit perjury (that went to trial and was dismissed). Helter Skelter is insignificant.

ColScott said...

Peter


BUG stated correctly that motive was not required to affirm guilt. But he noted correctly a jury wanted to know WHY. We all do. On my third of four meals with Aaron Stovitz, he pointed out the obvious- a drug infused home invasion even with hippies and movie stars doesn't get the attention this case still gets decades later. Stovitz at one point favored letting Charlie WALK. And there is an alt universe wherein Charlie DOES walk. Because telling someone to do something doesn't mean they are going to fucking do it. People came and went from Spahn all day long. Charlie didn't control Bobby. Charlie said you know what to do and Bobby killed Gary. This is on Bobby. Here is how easy it is for Charlie to walk
1- Get a real fucking lawyer
2- sever the trial go solo
3- Delay till after the girls
4- Linda hangs the girls
5- In your solo trial point out that you are a 5 foot tall punk who has no education and was not withing 20 miles of Cielo Drive ever. You knocked on the door of the True house, no LaBianca house for you.
6- get a fair jury
7- one fucker will EASILY decide how can you go down when you were not on the premises when any person died
8- Dress in a suit and shut the fuck up


BUG had ambitions. He wanted to be DA and more. He had to be the mastermind who got the conviction in the crime of the Century. It could only be that if they GOT CHARLIE. And to get Charlie you needed a motivation that benefited him. Helter Skelter is stupid. It is moronic. It makes no sense. HELL, if HS was the motive it would confirm a strong case for an Insanity Plea.

If you defend BUG's case you reveal yourself as ignorant of true human relations

Dan S said...

Charlie preached helter skelter and tex wanted to impress his fraternity president. It's that simple. Diarrhea mouth and Diarrhea brain

Peter said...

Col. I agree with you 100 percent. But Charlie was guilty. He WAS the mastermind. He put those kids up to it one way or the other and no doubt about it. He got Bobby to kill, Bruce to kill, Sadie, Patty, Tex, Leslie. And somehow innocent Charlie just happens to be involved every time? Maybe HS wasn't Charlie's motive, I dont think it was, but I do think it was the tool by which he held the family together and, when it suited him, to put the conspiracy in motion And it's a lot easier for a jury to follow that than all the ins and outs of the Family's dynamics. I credit Bugliosi for making it stick. You yourself point out how easy it would have been for Charlie to walk away. He conned the conman with his own game, his own words. I give him credit for that.It's a dirty game, as you said, one best not played. Bugluosi put them away for life REAL life as it turns out. And the price was that he had to let one walk - fortunately it turned out to be Linda, a selfish scam artist but at least the least culpable of the bunch. Nothing wrong with having ambitions. I have them and so do you and so does everybody else.

AndyTaylor said...

StarViego said:

BOTH THOSE PEOPLE HAVE CONFIRMED THEY GAVE THE MONEY TO CHARLIE. OTHERS IN THE FAMILY HAVE BACKED THOSE STATEMENTS UP.

Fine. But what about other robberies the family were involved in? According to Sadie they were doing a lot of robberies. Where's the evidence of this money showing up? Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. And because there's evidence of the cash infusions from Tex, Kasabian and Wildebush does that mean that there were no other ones because there's no proof they existed? Of course not. And just because they left behind valuables doesn't mean that they're interested in fencing this stuff at a pawn shop for pennies on the dollar. To quote Tex “we want thousands.”

Peter said:

THE DEFENSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES IN THE PENALTY PHASE AND THEY DID.

How much of it, though? Seriously minimal – especially when compared to what the prosecution presented over months of evidence presentation. How much time did the prosecution spend presenting their case? Months. The defense? Days.

MANSON PREACHED THAT THEORY TO NO-END IN THE MONTHS LEADING UP TO THE MURDERS, A DOZEN FAMILY MEMBERS AND NON-FAMILY MEMBERS TESTIFIED TO IT. BUGLIOSI USED IT AS THE STORY BY WHICH HE WOULD INTRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCE, BOTH PHYSICAL AND TESTIMONIAL, AND KEEP A JURY INTERESTED EVERY DAY FOR NINE MONTHS. HE GOT HIS CONVICTION. AND ITS NOT LIKE HE GOT THE WRONG GUY, OR THEY FABRICATED EVIDENCE OR CAUSED WITNESSES TO COMMIT PERJURY (THAT WENT TO TRIAL AND WAS DISMISSED). HELTER SKELTER IS INSIGNIFICANT.

I have never stated otherwise. Based on the evidence presented in court, it was a landslide of testimony that CM preached in and (by inference) believed in HS. And I've never heard ANYONE say the Bug didn't have the right people. This is a question of motive which is the basis for Saint's original posting. If the only point of this blog is to gather around the sacred text of HS and quote different passages to reinforce the idea of the narrative in that book, that's fine. That sounds like church to me. But I prefer to discuss other possibilities since we know so little of what the defense had to say about this. By “know” I mean in comparison to what we know about the prosecution side.

AndyTaylor said...

Another thing I question is the idea these crimes were committed because the perps “knew the house.” That sounds like pure BugShit to me. Say what we will about CM, but the guy really got around. If a low-talented, ex-con at the age of 33/34 can arrive at Gold Star Studios funded by Universal six months after he was released from spending half his life in federal custody, he must have had some way with people. The rock music biz is really youth-centered so why in the HELL would ANYONE want to sign a 33 year old (who looked every bit of 33) to a record deal to sell records to kids? This was the age of “don't trust anyone over 30,” after all. My point is that Manson was probably familiar with a LOT of homes because he really seemed to get really far in Hollywood in an unbelievably short amount of time. I know people who have lived in LA for 30 years who haven't got as close to a record deal as CM was. At what point is Charlie telling Tex, Lulu and Patty about the layout of the house? Why would CM care about a house he's familiar with if he's just sending in his minions to do his bidding? “Hey watch out for that post in the living room because it's load-bearing.” “There's two bedrooms to the east and a bathroom between them.” When is Tex schooling Sadie and Patty on the layout of Cielo? If you're starting a race war would you really only choose houses you were familiar with? What about the Dennis Wilson house? Did they ever attempt to “do” that house? DW had moved out over a year before so surely there was someone living there in August of 69. There's probably no house with which they (especially CM) were more familiar with. And if revenge is the goal, you couldn't ask for a better one-two punch than the former Melcher home and the former Wilson home back-to-back. No – there's got to be a solid reason CM chose the Cielo house and the Waverly house. And random doesn't count. Bug's theories develop holes over time and the more I read about these events, the more I'm inclined to believe that Bugs saw a great opportunity to make a legendary name for himself and to get rich as hell off of his book. Hollywood drug deal books sell in the first couple of weeks and then disappear, rarely even recouping the author's advance. Bugs smelled a good cash cow and jumped on it. Not that there aren't elements of truth to his historical narrative. But as Deep Throat said on X-Files: “a lie is most easily believed when sandwiched between two truths.”

Peter said...

If they had murdered everyone in Melcher's old house and then everyone in Dennis's old house the next day, the cops would have been at Spahn that afternoon - and not looking for stolen cars. That's why they chose Waverly. Anyplace not connected to Manson.

If Bugliosi had ambitions, I don't think it was to write a book. More likely his ambitions were within the District Attorneys Office and ultimately politics. He was a zealot. You don't go to law school and then become an A.D.A because you want to write a book.

The defendants put on witnesses for over a month and a half, including the defendants, a half dozen members of the Family, former Family lawyers, and psychologists. In my practice, complicated delayed generic antitrust trials involving dozens of economic experts and issues of cross-price elasticity, the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme, causation involving multiple generics, and thousands of exhibits can be tried in half that time - both sides. They had their opportunity, they raised the drug theory and the copycat theory. If they did a shit job because there was no such thing and they were all lying through their teeth ... Not Bugs Problem.

Vera Dreiser said...

Peter: If Bugliosi had ambitions, I don't think it was to write a book

Wrong brother, Bugliosi WAS writing a book on the Perverler case (from the year before) with Jerry Cohen when he was assigned Tate-LaBianca. Cohen, of course, is the one Bug and Schiller snuck into Atkins jail cell to steal and sell her story to the LA Times. Is Vera the only bitch who actually read CHAOS on this godforsaken site? Maybe y'all should while Vera has some gin.

Speculator said...

Andy Taylor - spot on about the perps knew the house nonsense. I made the same point in a previous thread and that notion has always seemed contrived nonsense to me. Did they “know” all of the other houses that they creepy-crawled? I very much doubt it. Wasn’t the whole idea of creepy crawl to get them used to breaking and entering unfamiliar properties. Why would they need to know the layout of a targeted house. Surely the more important thing was to know how many people a house contained if you’re intending to subdue and kill them. Not how many rooms it has, where the front door is etc etc. choosing somewhere because it was secluded I can understand but the whole familiarity thing is ludicrous and seems so badly concocted just to fit a narrative imho.

Speculator said...

Vera - agree totally about Bugliosi’s book writing ambitions. A slave to his own ego and the book was one sure fire way of upping his status.

Matthew said...

Totally off topic. I reread Paul Watkins book. At one point he goes to Barker with a family member he calls Bo. Bo is a nickname for Barbara Rosenberg. In the book Helter Skelter, Bugs says that is an alias for Barbara Hoyt. But is two different people. Bo was actually at Spahn ranch before the family. There is so little written about her in any books about the family. The only place I could find her was in Paul's book. She also went by Rainbow. Any insight from anyone out there?

starviego said...

"Barbara later married another family member named Thomas Walleman or “TJ” as he was known to the group; they had two children Yana Mani and Domani." (source unk)

Matthew said...

Thanks Starviego
I wonder if she was still with him when is died. I know he was killed in a head on.

orwhut said...

Someone said TJ and Bo had split and he was married to Lori Mardesich aka Ansom 13 when he crashed and burned. Ansom 13 is the one who appeared with him in Geraldo's reunion. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rLgAemP3PcE

D. said...

Beausoleil got busted and on top of needing money for a lawyer or to pay somebody off, The Straight Satan's were on Charlie's ass about money and making sure Beausoleil didn't open his mouth about DeCarlo's involvement. At the same time, Watson was pissed Frykowski burned him and Linda on MDA and mistreated her. So it's obvious what happened. The girls (Susan to be exact) presented the idea of a copycat murder, but Manson never demanded that. All he did was tell Watson to stop talking and take action like a man because he owed the group for dragging the ranch into chaos with his dope burn on Crowe and he sent Pat as a reminder to Watson about that.

That is what happened. Period.

That is the reason why Watson places Helter Skelter above all over motives whereas Susan and Charlie always claimed getting Bobby out was the main motive. Pat has even danced around Helter Skelter with a sarcastic grin, claiming to the best of her knowledge it was a robbery.

Why hasn't Tex just say getting Bobby out was the motive rather than place it was a marginalized third motive? Because Watson holds the primary motive.

Susan during the trial and blurted it out at the trial and then revealed it at her last parole hearing in the 90s before her husband took over for her.

Even Bruce Davis hinted at it in recent years.

It's possible Charlie assumed or knew Watson would kill Frykowski and didn't give a single fuck about it. But a house full of people, no. He had so many worries already the night of the murders. That was the last thing he needed.

There of course is a lot more that through fuel on the fire. I've come to find out Melcher was hanging with Dean Morehouse and Watson not just to get drugs supplied to him, but that he was actively involved in sales himself because he was broke due to his mother's ex-husband and I fully believe the anger at Melcher was due to a broken promise made to Watson about subletting the house to him, which never happened and caused him to end up on Spahn and bringing his trouble there. Obviously seeing his friendly rivals dealing drugs out of that house all summer hurt his ego.

Proteus said...

That is what happened. Period.

I tend to get wound up by asseverations like this. It's so easy to be dogmatic and definitive when you don't have to provide any supporting evidence. Maybe contributor D would like to validate some of his contentions with some source material?

Speculator said...

Proteus - I agree that your point is a valid one and no one should make assertions without evidence to support. I do enjoy listening to plausible theories though if they are supported at least by intimations by some of the killers and/or those who were around them. As Andy Taylor pointed out, if you want primary evidence to support any motive then the discussion is likely over as that ship has probably sailed. I have always thought that Watson was the key player behind the Cielo murders and as D intimates why wouldn’t he want to keep himself out of the hot seat.

D. said...

First and foremost, a great deal of the official narrative wasn't even concocted by Bugliosi. It was concocted by Atkins along with her attorney's Richard Caberello and Paul Caruso, which is the first big red flag. Why was such a promenant attorney like Caruso playing second fiddle to a court appointed public defender? Publicity? No. He was largely in the background and for an attorney of his stature, representing Atkins wasn't a plus on his resume. There is such a thing as bad publicity, despite the age old saying. That he was out of the picture once great efforts were made to establish key "facts" like the victims not knowing the peeps from a hole in the wall, no drug dealing involvement and a kooky motive was made public record...and assured that with a book deal and leaked news piece should be proof enough that a lot of people wanted the truth buried.

The naysayers here still scratch their heads about the involvement of Caruso with willful ignorance.

The Sebring documentary btw does more than hint about Sebrings dope dealing, complete with inside jokes. Like Dominck Dunn adding "he didn't charge me!" With a hardy laugh about Sebring giving him his first hit of acid. Who hires bodyguards and carries a gun because he is in debt to hair care supply companies? Nobody.

I also funny believe that Tex admits in a round about way that he got his hair cut by Sebring in his book when he mentions his dope dealing with Rosina in Hollywood and how he started to get expensive haircuts and styles.

orwhut said...

I have a new theory. Once Jay saw what an awful job he did with Tex's hair, he killed himself.

Speculator said...

Orwhut - I like your theory - I think it has legs! Maybe even Watson’s famous words at Cielo weren’t original. It could be that Sebring turned up at Spahn one time to do his hair and announced his arrival with the words “I’m the barber and I’m here to do the barber’s work!!!!! Or maybe when Sebring first entered the living room at Cielo and saw the cut of Watson he said “hold on there fella, before you do anything we need to do something about that fringe”!!!!! Good enough reason for Watson to shoot!!! ;-)

orwhut said...

Speculator,
I'm glad you like my theory. I said that because someone once commented on Watson's bad haircut. If a picture of him with one done by Jay Sebring exists, I'd like to see it.

Richard Cranium said...

I've been a Mansonphile for decades. I'm far from an expert but I've read thousands of articles about the case. The most feasible theory to me is the copycat killing to clear Bobby Beausoleil theory. Especially since the killings took place within days of Beausoleil's arrest. The house on Cielo Drive was picked because Manson knew the layout and knew rich and or famous people lived there. Manson was also aware of the layout of the house on Waverley Drive and it's also possible Tex Watson's connection with Rosemary's daughter factored in.

Peter said...

Caballero and Carusso were associated, shared an office, and often referred each other case. There is a post on this site detailing their relationship. I also dont eversee Carusso ever actually representing any of the defendants in court.

Peter said...

Why would you copycat a high profile mansion full of celebreties to copycat the killing of a broke Buddhist music teacher on the other side of the city three weeks earlier. And then a day later copy cat again. Without giving the police any time to connect the first and second.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said:

IF THEY HAD MURDERED EVERYONE IN MELCHER'S OLD HOUSE AND THEN EVERYONE IN DENNIS'S OLD HOUSE THE NEXT DAY, THE COPS WOULD HAVE BEEN AT SPAHN THAT AFTERNOON - THAT'S WHY THEY CHOSE WAVERLY. ANYPLACE NOT CONNECTED TO MANSON.

Melcher and Wilson probably knew hundreds of people several of whom were rejected for a bid at stardom. CM et al would have been in a long line of suspects if being a suspect meant that you knew BOTH of these two famous people. DW was certainly more famous than TM, but TM was probably more famous than Sharon Tate so their circle of acquaintances, friends and business associates was huge and likely had dozens of overlapping suspects.

If the goal is to have no connection to these murders – the deliberate stranger idea – why would they choose houses they WERE familiar with? You would think they would choose houses that had absolutely no connection to the perps at all.

IF BUGLIOSI HAD AMBITIONS, I DON'T THINK IT WAS TO WRITE A BOOK. MORE LIKELY HIS AMBITIONS WERE WITHIN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY POLITICS. HE WAS A ZEALOT. YOU DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL AND THEN BECOME AN A.D.A BECAUSE YOU WANT TO WRITE A BOOK.

Indeed you don't. But when an opportunity like this presents itself, a whole new ambition comes to life: best-selling author. VB knew EXACTLY what he was doing – he just didn't realize how legendary it would become and remain. His lack of foresight is especially evident in the epilogue of HS where he predicted Manson could “possibly” be released after the turn of the century, but no time sooner. That was wildly optimistic. He even speculates that all of the murderers could one day be released. Beatles, movie stars, hippies, sex, drugs, end-of-the-world, racism, violence, murder, mind control...the Bug knew a good story which is likely why he installed his co-author in the courtroom during the trial. You can pursue the District Attorney's Office & Politics & still cash those quarterly writer's royalty checks. He thought his fame would eclipse milkmen and mistresses and help him achieve those other dreams, but not so fast, BugMan. When those royalities are = or > than your annual salary in either of those positions, you may tend to lose the desire to achieve those gigs.

THE DEFENDANTS PUT ON WITNESSES FOR OVER A MONTH AND A HALF

Does it count as much or at all when those are done during the penalty phase? The verdict is in. Some testimony but how much actual evidence. The defense rested immediately after the prosecution did. What case for the defendants? Does anyone care about alternative motives during the penalty phase?

Richard Cranium said:

THE MOST FEASIBLE THEORY TO ME IS THE COPYCAT KILLING TO CLEAR BOBBY BEAUSOLEIL.

That definitely has some legs, maybe more than the drug theory. But I wonder why they chose houses they were familiar with? Having a connection to a crime scene increases your chances of being a suspect. Why wouldn't they keep going night after night? Why stop at 2 nights at houses you knew? Surely the family knew the layout of lots of houses. But that “familiar with the layout” thing seems like utter BugShit to me, anyway. Maybe they needed a certain amount of money and if they were getting money from drug burns and robberies the goal may have been met so they stopped with the next step: the underground world.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said:

IF THEY HAD MURDERED EVERYONE IN MELCHER'S OLD HOUSE AND THEN EVERYONE IN DENNIS'S OLD HOUSE THE NEXT DAY, THE COPS WOULD HAVE BEEN AT SPAHN THAT AFTERNOON - THAT'S WHY THEY CHOSE WAVERLY. ANYPLACE NOT CONNECTED TO MANSON.

Melcher and Wilson probably knew hundreds of people several of whom were rejected for a bid at stardom. CM et al would have been in a long line of suspects if being a suspect meant that you knew BOTH of these two famous people. DW was certainly more famous than TM, but TM was probably more famous than Sharon Tate so their circle of acquaintances, friends and business associates was huge and likely had dozens of overlapping suspects.

If the goal is to have no connection to these murders – the deliberate stranger idea – why would they choose houses they WERE familiar with? You would think they would choose houses that had absolutely no connection to the perps at all.

IF BUGLIOSI HAD AMBITIONS, I DON'T THINK IT WAS TO WRITE A BOOK. MORE LIKELY HIS AMBITIONS WERE WITHIN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY POLITICS. HE WAS A ZEALOT. YOU DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL AND THEN BECOME AN A.D.A BECAUSE YOU WANT TO WRITE A BOOK.

Indeed you don't. But when an opportunity like this presents itself, a whole new ambition comes to life: best-selling author. VB knew EXACTLY what he was doing – he just didn't realize how legendary it would become and remain. His lack of foresight is especially evident in the epilogue of HS where he predicted Manson could “possibly” be released after the turn of the century, but no time sooner. That was wildly optimistic. He even speculates that all of the murderers could one day be released. Beatles, movie stars, hippies, sex, drugs, end-of-the-world, racism, violence, murder, mind control...the Bug knew a good story which is likely why he installed his co-author in the courtroom during the trial. You can pursue the District Attorney's Office & Politics & still cash those quarterly writer's royalty checks. He thought his fame would eclipse milkmen and mistresses and help him achieve those other dreams, but not so fast, BugMan. When those royalities are = or > than your annual salary in either of those positions, you may tend to lose the desire to achieve those gigs.

THE DEFENDANTS PUT ON WITNESSES FOR OVER A MONTH AND A HALF

Does it count as much or at all when those are done during the penalty phase? The verdict is in. Some testimony but how much actual evidence. The defense rested immediately after the prosecution did. What case for the defendants? Does anyone care about alternative motives during the penalty phase?

Richard Cranium said:

THE MOST FEASIBLE THEORY TO ME IS THE COPYCAT KILLING TO CLEAR BOBBY BEAUSOLEIL.

That definitely has some legs, maybe more than the drug theory. But I wonder why they chose houses they were familiar with? Having a connection to a crime scene increases your chances of being a suspect. Why wouldn't they keep going night after night? Why stop at 2 nights at houses you knew? Surely the family knew the layout of lots of houses. But that “familiar with the layout” thing seems like utter BugShit to me, anyway. Maybe they needed a certain amount of money and if they were getting money from drug burns and robberies the goal may have been met so they stopped with the next step: the underground world.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said:

IF THEY HAD MURDERED EVERYONE IN MELCHER'S OLD HOUSE AND THEN EVERYONE IN DENNIS'S OLD HOUSE THE NEXT DAY, THE COPS WOULD HAVE BEEN AT SPAHN THAT AFTERNOON - THAT'S WHY THEY CHOSE WAVERLY. ANYPLACE NOT CONNECTED TO MANSON.

Melcher and Wilson probably knew hundreds of people several of whom were rejected for a bid at stardom. CM et al would have been in a long line of suspects if being a suspect meant that you knew BOTH of these two famous people. DW was certainly more famous than TM, but TM was probably more famous than Sharon Tate so their circle of acquaintances, friends and business associates was huge and likely had dozens of overlapping suspects.

If the goal is to have no connection to these murders – the deliberate stranger idea – why would they choose houses they WERE familiar with? You would think they would choose houses that had absolutely no connection to the perps at all.

IF BUGLIOSI HAD AMBITIONS, I DON'T THINK IT WAS TO WRITE A BOOK. MORE LIKELY HIS AMBITIONS WERE WITHIN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY POLITICS. HE WAS A ZEALOT. YOU DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL AND THEN BECOME AN A.D.A BECAUSE YOU WANT TO WRITE A BOOK.

Indeed you don't. But when an opportunity like this presents itself, a whole new ambition comes to life: best-selling author. VB knew EXACTLY what he was doing – he just didn't realize how legendary it would become and remain. His lack of foresight is especially evident in the epilogue of HS where he predicted Manson could “possibly” be released after the turn of the century, but no time sooner. That was wildly optimistic. He even speculates that all of the murderers could one day be released. Beatles, movie stars, hippies, sex, drugs, end-of-the-world, racism, violence, murder, mind control...the Bug knew a good story which is likely why he installed his co-author in the courtroom during the trial. You can pursue the District Attorney's Office & Politics & still cash those quarterly writer's royalty checks. He thought his fame would eclipse milkmen and mistresses and help him achieve those other dreams, but not so fast, BugMan. When those royalities are = or > than your annual salary in either of those positions, you may tend to lose the desire to achieve those gigs.

THE DEFENDANTS PUT ON WITNESSES FOR OVER A MONTH AND A HALF

Does it count as much or at all when those are done during the penalty phase? The verdict is in. Some testimony but how much actual evidence. The defense rested immediately after the prosecution did. What case for the defendants? Does anyone care about alternative motives during the penalty phase?

AndyTaylor said...

Richard Cranium said:

THE MOST FEASIBLE THEORY TO ME IS THE COPYCAT KILLING TO CLEAR BOBBY BEAUSOLEIL.

That definitely has some legs, maybe more than the drug theory. But I wonder why they chose houses they were familiar with? Having a connection to a crime scene increases your chances of being a suspect. Why wouldn't they keep going night after night? Why stop at 2 nights at houses you knew? Surely the family knew the layout of lots of houses. But that “familiar with the layout” thing seems like utter BugShit to me, anyway. Maybe they needed a certain amount of money and if they were getting money from drug burns and robberies the goal may have been met so they stopped with the next step: the underground world.

Speculator said...

Peter - I was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday when I read the previous post. Agree with you on both points. The copycat theory is ludicrous imho. And as you say, no connection whatsoever made by the police or the media on the day after Cielo yet they proceeded with Labianca the following night. And note that none of the perps have Manson complaining that Cielo wasnt similar enough to Hinman (to be taken as a copycat) or that he was going to show them how to make it look like a better copycat on 2nd night. Copycat never seems to have been on his horizon over those two nights. It’s possible it was a peripheral suggestion by one or more of the girls but not the primary motive imho.

AndyTaylor said...

Peter said:

WHY WOULD YOU COPYCAT A HIGH PROFILE MANSION FULL OF CELEBRETIES TO COPYCAT THE KILLING OF A BROKE BUDDHIST MUSIC TEACHER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CITY THREE WEEKS EARLIER. AND THEN A DAY LATER COPY CAT AGAIN. WITHOUT GIVING THE POLICE ANY TIME TO CONNECT THE FIRST AND SECOND.

The need to commit a copycat wasn't needed until Beausoleil was arrested for the murder which was on August 6, 1969. If the copycat motive is in play, the timeline makes sense for committing copycats starting 2 days after BB is arrested. On paper the victims are all pretty random. Music teacher, Hollywood celebrities and grocery store owner.

The most obvious commonality is drugs. In CM's mind, he had killed Crowe – drugs. Hinman – drugs. Frykowski, Sebring – drugs. Labianca – robbery after which CM immediately proceeds to Venice which just so happens to be the Straight Satan's headquarters - a group to which CM allegedly is being extorted to keep quiet about his involvement in the Hinman murder using an SS weapon. According to Schreck, anyway. If you're unfamiliar with Los Angeles, Venice is under no circumstances on the way to Spahn's from the Labianca home. And if you're just out to kill random people, there's about 500,000 people in between the Labianca home and Venice – in 1969, anyway. Why go all the way to Venice to murder when there are so many opportunities for hundreds of square miles?


ColScott said...

Peter- my ambitions have not (yet ) led to me committing multiple felonies ala the Bug

AndyTaylor- most of what you say we agree with BUT GoldStar was not a grade a studio and what is this funded by Universal shit?

Dan S said...

D.... I feel the truthiness

AndyTaylor said...

ColScott - I never said Gold Star Studios was a "grade a" studio. A lot of legendary music was recorded there and used on landmark albums such as "Pet Sounds" and "Smile." The listing of clients is certainly populated with legends. In any historical narrative that I've read about the studio, it's never mentioned whether it was a "grade a" studio or just a place to record cheap demos.

Re: the Universal financing. My memory may have failed me and maybe I should have listed a source. Somebody paid for those sessions that make up the "Psychedelic Soul of Charles Manson" double CD. According to the liner notes these were recorded on September 11, 1967 but liner notes (even official ones) can be wrong. This was (according to the article on this blog) a period when CM recorded at UNI Studios. So it could be assumed that Universal paid for those recordings at their studios IF that's where these recordings were made and IF the date is correct. These particular sessions with this particular date are credited as Gold Star, but again the liner notes can be wrong. Even exhaustive session notes as compiled at Capitol Records and for reissue label giants like Mosaic and Bear Family contain dates and recording locales that are educated guesses as noted in said liner notes so these CM recordings are certainly subject to the same potentials for inconsistencies and unknowns.

But all of this is a digression because it doesn't really matter WHO paid for these sessions. The point is that someone with money believed in whatever CM was doing or claiming that they thought it worthwhile to record him at a studio that can be presumed to require money for their services. According to said article, quite a few people were willing to put CM in a studio at a time when recording even cheap demos was no easy task and fairly expensive.

My whole point was that CM must have had a serious talent for manipulating and/or charming people as evidenced by the fact that he had SOMEBODY paying the bill for his recording sessions which happened sometime in 1967 (not long after he was released from federal custody) while having such minimal musical talent and skill. And with such social talents, no doubt was familiar with many houses in which to commit random murder to start a race war and didn't need to travel all over L.A. to find a house he was comfortable in knowing the layout. But that's bullshit anyway. How many criminals are familiar with a house they rob or commit murder in? If anything, a criminal will not be familiar with a house to avoid being a suspect.

https://www.mansonblog.com/2017/05/the-manson-sessions.html

bob said...

Well...I'll tell you what.

If some fool was silly enough to give me a quarter of a million dollars, on promise to deliver 7 hours of video in return, I'd never be seen in that town again!
And they would never see their promised videos.

But you never know, some say there's one born every minute...ha-ha!

bob said...

Well...I'll tell you what.

If some fool was silly enough to give me a quarter of a million dollars, on promise to deliver 7 hours of video in return, I'd never be seen in that town again!
And they would never see their promised videos.

But you never know, some say there's one born every minute...ha-ha!

Peter said...

"Peter- my ambitions have not (yet ) led to me committing multiple felonies"

I've seen your films.

Unknown said...

Great piece of writing. You should read the book Abolish Restaurants.

With regards to the drug motive, I think Roman and his sycophants “slummed” it with the Family and others, and this caught up with them. Same with Dennis Wilson. They thought they were having harmless fun with the weirdos, but they went too far. Be careful who you pick up.

As it stands for me, it’s still a combination of drug burn and copycat. No HS, no end of the world, no race riots. The crimes were a lot like the Wonderland murders, except those murders were a lot worse.

Jenn said...

In what way was Gold Star not a “grade A studio”?

Jenn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

Why the paw print at Gary's ? And why go back and try to erase it ?

Unknown said...

To try and make it look like a black militant group did it, when he realized how stupid it was he took it down (or tried to)

Unknown said...

No offense but the "crimes" weren't nearly as bad as the Wonderland group, the Wonderland group murdered for no reason except senseless murder over some drugs and other items committed by 3 black men and "reportedly" John Holmes who went free, it was a crazy drug rip off penetrated on a psychotic middle eastern dealer with blood and guts everywhere, not that Tate was much nicer just much different

Peter said...

If he tried to take it down right away it would have come off. My understanding is that he was told to go back and take it off. And it just happens to support a Helter Skelter motive weeks before TLB. And it's the first murder so it's not a copycat. And if they thought it had been removed, why would they copycat with something they thought wasn't there.

starviego said...

Peter said...
"Why the paw print at Gary's? And why go back and try to erase it?"

Did Bobby even try to erase the paw print?

www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-59b.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2toa2FqipsXsGa3-DrBD3DfKGhTkwL0lsx-KT3v2wUWkVZgNjP1KHVCv8
box 59b pg493of1120 Ella Jo Bailey testimony:
"The words "Political piggy" was written on the wall and later Charles Manson told them that they were going to have to take the word "Political" off the words."

That's a lot of risk for just one word. I suspect Charlie's handlers didn't want the crimes to be connected in any way to politics. Meaning the public was not supposed to suspect there was a political motive behind the crimes.

Unknown said...

Unknown, with all due respect, the Wonderland murders were bloody, vicious killings with pipes as the murder weapons. If there were 23 people there that night, they would have all gotten it. Granted, none of the victims were pregnant, but the victims were massacred. John Holmes was a junky loser that tried to play all of the sides. Eddie Nash was a sadistic psycho. Take the Hollywood folklore and occult mumbo jumbo off the table and they are a lot more alike then you think.

Unknown said...

One more thing... both the Tate home and Wonderland had various lowlifes coming and going after the murders, with bodies on the floor, either stealing drugs (both) or getting rid of evidence (Tate). Watch the Wonderland crime scene video.

grimtraveller said...

Unknown said:

Unknown, with all due respect

Quite a few unknowns attached to this case !
Demon, name yourself !

AndyTaylor said:

If the goal is to have no connection to these murders why would they choose houses they WERE familiar with? You would think they would choose houses that had absolutely no connection to the perps at all

Until 2011 when Manson told Vanity Fair that he'd actually been in the LaBianca house and that he knew it only as an empty house, who knew he had even been in that house ? Furthermore, around the time that Harold True was leaving next door, Watson and Van Houten were new to the Family and had never been to True's, let alone the LaBiancas. So there is absolutely no known connection between the LaBianca house and the perps that could be known to anyone other than Harold True.
As for Cielo, other than Manson in March '69 no Family member could be connected with that house. Watson visited there in '68. Why in the world would he be connected with a murder there that took place almost or around a year after he'd last been there ? It was his print that connected him to the premises in confirmation of Atkins' story. I highly doubt that prior to Manson's connection to Terry Melcher becoming known to the prosecution, that investigators were questioning anyone that had visited Terry Melcher from 1966 to the start of '69, yet loads of people would have been "connected" to the house.
You load the word "connection" with a significance that is simply non-existent. The milkman and the guy that delivered Abigail's bike have a connection to the house.

The most obvious commonality is drugs

The most obvious commonality is Charles Manson.
Drugs are the excuse given to Lotsapoppa to get him to front the $2700. They play no more a part in his "death" than the tyres on his car. Rosina and the telephone are far more significant figures in his shooting than any drug.
Shorty's death had no drug connotation whatsoever.
The LaBianca murders had no drug connotation whatsoever.
Other than the fact that Gary had been trying to kick his drug habit and may have been making some mescaline {Sanders names a guy who claims he and his wife were partners with Gary in this endeavour and Bugliosi stated on national TV that Gary used to furnish the Family with drugs} and 4 of the Cielo victims had drug histories, the part that drugs play in this saga is entirely to do with the perps.

if you're just out to kill random people, there's about 500,000 people in between the Labianca home and Venice – in 1969, anyway. Why go all the way to Venice to murder when there are so many opportunities for hundreds of square miles?

Because Linda knew a guy there that was an actor and therefore ripe for slaughter {even if he was a small potatoes actor no one had heard of}. And having just successfully despatched one set of killers to a location known to him after a fruitless number of hours trying the psychedelic random route, a visit to Venice was not only logical, but in his mind a surer banker. Linda and Sandy weren't going to be connected in any way to the actor and thus, neither were the Family.

According to Schreck

It's fascinating how Charlie manages to command such loyalty from people, even when their theories are scotched to hell and back and they have to find new and different ones. Nicholas Shreck strikes me as one that would say just about anything if it gets people looking away from helter & skelter, even when his assertions are demonstrably untrue as they were in repeatedly in his 900+ page tome.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Why did they stop after Labianca? If they really wanted to start a race war, why not keep going and going night after night or day after day? Drive up to Fresno? Go to Phoenix?

The obvious question that comes to me whenever anyone asks this is: have you ever started a race war ? And if you haven't or are thinking about it, is there some manual on how to do this ? Step by step instructions on how to successfully navigate such an endeavour that has never been done before ?
There isn't, we all know there isn't, so in a very real sense, it is an irrelevant question and even if it isn't it is the perennial question that contains its own reply, ie, any answer you want to give. Because the purpose is not to genuinely arrive at an answer but to stick a spanner in the works because it is framed in such a way as to never be able to be answered. You don't really care for an answer.

Yet it is quite an easy question to answer if one genuinely is curious as to why the murders stopped when they did, in the way they did.

Consider:
i. Bobby was arrested unexpectedly, out of the blue. They knew that he had gone on a trip somewhere and weren't expecting that. By the time anyone learned of it, he was charged with murder. Mary, Charlie and Susan were all involved.

ii. Sandy and Mary {one pregnant, one a mother with a child at Spahn} didn't return after a shopping trip with a stolen credit card. By the Monday when Linda went to the prison to see Bobby then the women, it was suspected they'd been arrested. By the time Linda returned, it was confirmed. Just consider that it was 3 days before that confirmation came.

iii. Susan left her knife at Cielo. She didn't know where, she didn't know whether her prints might be on it and remember, she was already in the system. It's ironic that it was Pat & Tex that left their prints and Susan would have been in the clear had she not blabbed but all this is retrospective "wise after the event" stuff. In the immediate aftermath of the murders her being identified is a live concern, hence Charlie and Tex threatening her with death if she blabbed.

iv. The Cielo killers had a confrontation with a witness. It was significant enough for Atkins to recall it and include it as a major part of her story that she told Virginia Graham privately in jail 3 months later.

v. Pat was wobbling. She shared with Leslie that the victims had been so young and that it felt wrong. In December '69 she told Claude Brown that she was always afraid that they'd be arrested for what they had done. Significantly, she also told him that Charlie had said no one could touch them. But Charlie was no fool. He could see she was wobbling. It can't be proven as to when this was happening but it may have been part of the reasoning for slowing down a little. Those he involved weren't as solid as he hoped they would be.

vi. Leslie wasn't the trooper she appeared to be when she confirmed to Charlie that she could see why the murders had to happen and was willing to engage. Furthermore, she'd wobbled big time at the actual scene of the crime and even if Tex hadn't told Charlie about that, it was known that some guy that had given her a lift back to Spahn just after the murders had come to Spahn looking for her on the very morning he'd dropped her there !

vii. Linda, Clem and Susan had not carried out Charlie's instruction to kill the actor in Venice. Linda had refused to do it but Charlie overrode her objections and ordered her to. But she hadn't done so and neither Clem nor Susan had made any great attempts to carry out a killing on their own which indicated to him that maybe this whole caper wasn't going to be as straightforward as when they would do what he told them to usually.

grimtraveller said...

2/3

viii. Before the killers had stopped at the LaBiancas, Charlie had learned just how difficult it was to just stop off and randomly kill a human being in a place you've never been or are completely unfamiliar with.

ix. Linda suddenly disappeared. No one knew she hadn't been arrested like Bobby, Sandy and Mary. It didn't occur to anyone that she'd actually fled because she'd left her daughter behind and was in a ranch hand's car, which you'd expect to be returned. He'd only recently bought it.
Suddenly, 3 members of the troupe that had been involved in murder have gone and two of them have been known to be in police custody, one actually charged with murder.

x. The publicity connected with the "Tate" case was exponentially greater than anything anyone would have foreseen. It's one thing to have fantasies/visions in your head about a scenario because you control the narrative and how it all works out. It's another thing altogether to have a matter completely taken out of your hands and assume its own shape with the myriad commentators and directions it may go in.

xi. The publicity gave rise to increased police activity.

xii. The Straight Satans whom Manson had wanted as his own SS unit turned against him and came up to Spahn to get Danny DeCarlo back.

xiii. The August 16th Spahn ranch raid. Not only were they out of action for 3 days, paranoia must have increased about the close proximity of the police. They were raided with no kind of notice, right out of the blue.
As an aside, it wouldn't have occurred to him that Kitty Lutesinger would have been the one blabbing because she had returned the night before and was arrested in the raid !

xiv. The arrest of Charlie with Stephanie Schram for possession of drugs. That Charlie wasn't convicted isn't relevant ~ what's relevant is that in such close proximity to their release after the raid {3 days}, his paranoia could well be increasing.

xv. The call from Joe sage. This is when the Family found out that not only had Linda not been arrested, but that she'd been blabbing. And now, her daughter was in the system so they had no hold on her ! This didn't stop them from trying to get Tanya but they were unsuccessful.

grimtraveller said...


3/3

xvi. Having ditched the .22 and the .45 and the knives, they were low on available weaponry. {OK, that one's a stretch !}

xvii. Why should the murders have carried on ? When people adopt the copycat theory, the exact same question applies. But it never comes up. No one, and I mean no one, ever says "if these were meant to be copycat murders, why weren't there more ?" Instead, they ask sensible questions like "if these were copycats then why wasn't Susan at all of them ?" or "Why did she not write 'political piggy' ~ after all, she told the grand jury this is what inspired her to write 'pig'."

In addition to this, the purpose of the murders is supposed to have been to ignite HS. The idea was to get Whitey so incensed and alerted to what Blackie had "done" that Whitey would start taking out revenge moves on Blackie. It wasn't exactly something that was going to start happening on August 11th or 12th. Manson wasn't to know that Linda had put Rosemary's wallet in a place it wouldn't be found for 4 months. As Atkins pointed out, they'd seen Black people in the area {it matters not whether it was a black or white area} it was assumed that a Black person finding a wallet would check the contents and keep any valuables because the general view that the Family held of Black people was a combination of honest {friction with white society} and racist {friction with white society !}.
So Black people being blamed would take time. The police did look into the Black angle {just look at the 2nd Tate report} and it took a long time. There's absolutely no specific reason as to why the murders should have continued night after night. No reason they couldn't have waited a month and then resumed.

None of these things on their own necessarily amount to much but when put together, particularly with many of them occurring within one week of each other, might go a long way towards answering why the HS murders stopped when they did. Shorty's murder had nothing to do with HS and they made sure he was disposed of in a way that he wasn't going to be found with ease, not when death sentences were in play for murder. No witchy signs there.

grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

Is Vera the only bitch who actually read CHAOS on this godforsaken site?

No, but Vera is veering perilously close to being one who buys all its contents uncritically ~ the way many of us used to do when we might have first read "Helter Skelter."
Helter Skelter as a book has done us all a favour in more ways than one. For one thing, it's the only damn near chronological account of the entire saga up until the incarcerations. But its flaws have also been invaluable. Because if the definitive account can be shown to be not quite as definitive as its authors thought it was then that raises the bar higher for all subsequent books. And it is extremely difficult to approach any book on this subject now without it being accompanied by a searingly bright and dazzling searchlight that lights up every dark or shaded nook, cranny and error ~ especially when the errors are used to prop up points being made.
Yes, one goes into any book or article with the aim of tearing what is written to pieces in the light of what is known, what is purported to have been known and a lot more besides. Which means you better have some robust shit about your person if you want your work to stand up.
And Tom O'Neill doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I like his book. It presents many interesting things, quite a bit of which was not known or commonly known. But it is primarily a book of supposition and in that regard is not essentially different from say, Michael White's "Crucified: the railroading of Charles Manson" or the books Shreck, Stimson or even Hendrickson brought out. "Chaos" reminds me of a brilliant book by Martin Popoff called "Who invented Heavy Metal ?" in which he posits the notion that the genre was "invented" by Black Sabbath but because over a 30 or so year period he has spoken to countless members of heavy bands about their inspirations, the sheer weight of the evidence from their own mouths defeats his notion before it even starts. Interestingly, he doesn't give his conclusion until the end of the book by which time it's almost impossible to agree with it. O'Neill has a similar problem. Each of his chapters and the subjects they cover is plausible. There is "evidence" presented that backs up his claims. Then even he has to recognize {and he does} that they can't all be true. So it is no good to just say "well, I don't know the real goings on but I know it isn't HS." That's adopting a position and that is the position he starts with, middles with and ends with.
HS was never the sole motive presented and because virtually every helter skeptic treats it as if it were and as if that is why the perps were convicted, as well as focusing on Bugliosi's personal shortcomings, history is littered with writers repeatedly missing the boat and trying to put legs on theories that not so much don't walk, but can't.

grimtraveller said...

prefeteria said:

Manson went to his grave without giving up the true story

Manson went to the grave knowing the true story was already out there and therefore the satisfaction of not admitting that he was beaten by the Man came through having enough half words and half assed theories out there among the "children" of the Man to mean that the Man was never going to be thought of as the one that beat Charlie. Confuse it up so you never get pinned down.
An opinion ? Manson really would have been crucified if he had taken the stand. He knew enough from his private chats with Bugliosi to know that Vincent had Charlie's number.

The only reason they *might* have thought Crowe was a Panther was because of a news report of a Panther body dumped at UCLA

You should be aware that no such report in the summer of '69 was ever made. And no such report has been located since. Even George Stimson, who places the entirety of his stance on the Crowe shooting being the catalyst for the subsequent murders and who would love for there to have been such a report has publicly concluded that no such report existed. Because no Panthers were shot on that date. No Panthers were dumped outside UCLA on that date.
But Bugliosi's book already told you that because the cops checked after talking with Al Springer in Nov '69.

AndyTaylor said:

Dig Bugs win by default because the defense never put up a case?

Judge Older made an observation {which, during his testimony, Clem also made, interestingly} that the defendants had put on their defence during the penalty trial. In fact, it was one of his reasons later on for not feeling that Charlie was capable of being his own lawyer.
They put on their defence when it was too late !
Think about that. When it no longer mattered in terms of conviction but still made a huge difference as to whether the defendants lived or died, they put on their defence. And that defence netted them the death penalty. If it was good enough to net them the death penalty, it was good enough to net them conviction.
The defence had nearly 5 months to tear holes in the prosecution case and they only put in a few little dents here and there. Why ? After all, the prosecution ripped the defence's penalty trial case to shreds.
No Andy T, it was no victory by default. The simple truth is that the perps were convicted because they were murderers and conspired to do so for a variety of reasons, some straightforward, some rather esoteric. And there were plenty of witnesses and evidence, direct, physical, conceptual and circumstantial that attested to this.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

It's the possibilities of other motives that keep this case alive in a discussion forum

That may be the case for you but it's a narrow view to ascribe that to everyone that joins the discussion. For some of us it's the human dimension, the link between cause and effect, the hidden depths of the mind, the whys and wherefores in the things that people do, especially those that murder. How culture, race, drugs, religion, politics, power, gender, violence, music, children and childhood, law enforcement, education, socialization, parenting, nurture, crime, dishonesty, hypocrisy and a lot more besides can impact a person, both singularly and in combination. It's a part of American history that remains endlessly fascinating but which shines a light on the human condition.

Even during the trial it was widely believed in the legal community that Manson was going to walk because the case of HS was so unbelievably thin

All that demonstrates is how wrong so called experts often are. The experts said Hilary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election. The experts said Britain would vote to remain in the EU. The experts said Leicester City would never be premier league champions.
Experts are frequently wrong, because when all is said and done all they're doing is giving, however educated, their opinions.

And it's easier to get a conviction when the defense NEVER offers a counter-narrative, provide counter-evidence or calls one witness

You can't blame the prosecution for that. I'm more inclined to look into why the defence didn't do that. Face facts, they knew their clients had killed. At least Pat, Leslie's and Susan's [sometime] lawyers did.

The easiest thing to do is believe the Bugliosi account. Why? That's the only one we have that has MONTHS of testimony and evidence to support it. The trial transcripts and official narrative are the ONLY ones we have that are considered “authoritative”

By the courts, perhaps.
And it is not easy to believe the Bugliosi account. It was near crazy to go with that case. One only does so if one is convinced it is true. In his book, when commenting on Clem being certified as 'presently insane' he asks that if the follower is deemed insane, what of the leader. It's a similar thing with the prosecution case. What one stands to lose if no convictions result is incalculable.

We know all about what the prosecution believed regarding means and motives, but we know scant little about the defense

Not so. All you really need to know is what Charlie said during his guilt phase testimony. "If you hadn't arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do...." when he knew that Bobby had killed Gary. That tells you that his foundation was going to be built on the sand of lies ~ and it was.
Furthermore, the judge stated categorically that the right of a defendant to testify superseded whatever hassle might come their way because of the testimony or words to that effect. When Manson was given the opportunity to testify in front of the jury he said naw. And he told the women they didn't have to testify. They all had their chance, the case has been re~tried for 50 years now, in a far more crucial place than the original trial ~ the court of independent public opinion. We know all the alternatives that Family members have tried to put forth at various times and the very fact that there are so many and that so many different combos contradict that which they are supposed to prop up tells me that there is so much bullshit that we do know from the non prosecution, many of its adherents should have a Phd in waste management.

Rumours, innuendos, lies and hunches are all we have to go on to draw a conclusion that is different than Bugliosi's

No offence, but that's not going to bring a great deal of confidence in any alternative conclusions arrived at !

D. said...

Another similarity to the Wonderland Murders: Eddie Nash was represented by none other than Paul Caruso. Because that was what Caruso did, helped drug dealers beat the rap and erase any dealings from the record. Now ask yourself why he represented Atkins and then dropped her like a hot potato as soon as her story was released to the public and made official with her testimony before the grand jury. Because their work was done.

If you want to do miss this reality and marganalize it by saying Caberello and Caruso shared an office, which still doesn't explain why Caruso was on the case of a broke girl involved in the murder of people who no doubt had link s to paying clients. Well, Caberello wasn't her originally attorney. younger removed her attorney and put Caberello in which is strange and support s what one suspect from the Case Elliot circle said...that Caruso is working with Younger...and that was said before a single arrest of anyone at Spahn.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"In December '69 she told Claude Brown that she was always afraid that they'd be arrested for what they had done."

Who's Claude Brown?

ColScott said...

Peter tries to coverup his absolute stupidity and ignorance with a personal shot. Peter fails like he does always in life.

Matthew said...

Starviego said:
Who's Claude Brown?

Claude L. Brown was a psychiatrist that interviewed Pat Krenwinkle in 1969.

Not to be confused with Claude Brown, the author of Manchild in the Promised Land and The Children of Ham.

Peter said...

Says the guy who says NOTHING without adding a personal shot.

Speculator said...

Grim - I don’t agree with some of your dissection of earlier comments. The whole “they chose homes that they were familiar with” motive is a nonsense imho. Andy Taylor was right in pointing that out as I have previously too. No one is arguing how tenuous, or otherwise, Manson’s links to either property were. But either way it’s irrelevant. The point is that familiarity with either property played no part in selecting either property. I think that was just added as a form of deflection from the real reason - particularly in the case of Cielo. Again just my opinion. The true familiarity that they would surely have wanted given murder was their purpose is not, where’s the front door and how do you climb over the fence etc, but how may people are we gonna be up against on the other side of that fence when we get there. And that has always lead me to think that Cielo was in no way a random, spur of the moment selection. Or one chosen because of familiarity. Just think for a minute what would’ve happened if they’d rolled u there and found a party of 100 plus people in full swing. Not uncommon in LA in what was supposedly known as a party house. What would’ve happened to your HS theory then? Rained off til a quieter weekend?! At the very least that should make you wonder about possible prior knowledge of WHO would be there???!!!!

Vera Dreiser said...

Idiots:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CA3aMISpAZO/

AndyTaylor said...

Grim sez:

A VISIT TO VENICE WAS NOT ONLY LOGICAL

How is it logical? From Los Feliz to Venice? From Sylmar to Venice? Not even close. Way too far out of the way. Why is CM asking for murder targets from Kasabian who has been in the family for a month? You would think if revenge was a motive that a guy like CM would have a hit-list as long as his rap sheet. Especially given the fact the Bug claims rumors of a family hit list existed. For a guy who was ordering murders for revenge, he quickly comes up empty-handed for victims when he's got allegedly willing killers at his disposal.

I'm not saying drugs was a common denominator in every murder. Drugs and the dealers that deal them (no matter how small- or big-time they were) were involved. If there was no drug burn, Crowe wouldn't have been shot. If a drug deal hadn't been started with Hinman, he wouldn't have died because of that drug deal. The rest is of course conjecture but it is odd that Frykowski, Sebring and Tex were involved in the dealing of drugs.

IS THERE SOME MANUAL ON HOW TO DO THIS (start a race war)

Well only the one supplied as a motive by Bugliosi who was repeating what CM allegedly told his followers. Kill random white people, blame it on black people, repeat. Hinman wasn't killed for HS, but if you can kill this guy because he's going to call the cops AND point the blame to black people, why not? And I actually do want an answer. If their primary goal is to start a race war, why stop at only 2 houses? I know we'll never know, but it is worth asking if it sheds light on a motive. Shorty was at least two-fold: revenge for snitching to the cops (as CM suspected) and because he beat the shit out of CM after CM beat the shit out of Windee Buckley, if her accounts are true.

PAT WAS WOBBLING / LESLIE WASN'T THE TROOPER / THOSE HE INVOLVED WEREN'T AS SOLID AS HE HOPED THEY WOULD BE.

All true. But if CM had the power Bug alleges he did, he should just be able to pick another follower. Maybe CM got lucky in that the ones he chose (if that's true) to go killing actually wanted to go kill. But without a real reason to go killing, why kill? If they all believed HS was really theirs for the starting, why would anyone refuse the opportunity to jump-start a race war where they would all wind up ruling the world? Just to please Charlie? Apparently this wasn't enough for even the hard core followers like Clem. Unless they didn't really believe it was going to happen as CM said. A drug burn to raise money and curry favor with CM could be a big sway to an emotional cripple like Tex and Sadie. If the Straight-Satan-extortion theory is true, maybe CM raised enough money from these robberies to pay his debts and then have a little more to get out of town. I still can't understand why CM would choose Kasabian. In the family a few weeks. He's got another 30 or so followers who allegedly want nothing more than to please Charlie. Why does he need this newcomer? Why trust her with such a mission? A valid driver's license? Hardly.

HAVING DITCHED THE .22 AND THE .45 AND THE KNIVES, THEY WERE LOW ON AVAILABLE WEAPONRY. {OK, THAT ONE'S A STRETCH !}

A stretch? You'd have to undo 90% of that sentence to make it a stretch. DeCarlo had lots of guns out at that ranch. And...it was a ranch. A shortage of weapons is not even close to an issue. Since Tex was the only one armed at LaBianca and they did the deeds with the victims' own knives, couldn't they count on using knives at future victims' homes?

AndyTaylor said...

IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO NET THEM THE DEATH PENALTY, IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO NET THEM CONVICTION.

We'll never know, will we? The death penalty was likely a foregone conclusion. The brutality of the murders, the number of victims, the HS theory. As Bug said, if this isn't a good example of a case requiring the death penalty, what is?

THE DEFENCE HAD NEARLY 5 MONTHS TO TEAR HOLES IN THE PROSECUTION CASE AND THEY ONLY PUT IN A FEW LITTLE DENTS HERE AND THERE. WHY ?

The fact that the defense rested almost immediately without calling witnesses or presenting evidence during the guilt phase of the trial is enough to show the defense never presented a case. By the penalty phase it's over. The conviction has been had.

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERPS WERE CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY WERE MURDERERS AND CONSPIRED TO DO SO FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, SOME STRAIGHTFORWARD, SOME RATHER ESOTERIC. AND THERE WERE PLENTY OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE, DIRECT, PHYSICAL, CONCEPTUAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL THAT ATTESTED TO THIS.

All true. But the reason why we're still questioning the motive 51 years later is because we don't have as much knowledge about the reason why these people did what they did from their case as we do from the prosecution's. If the defense had put on a real case, calling witnesses, presenting evidence in a real effort and truly established a different motive or maybe even presenting a case of not-guilty, we wouldn't be discussing this. Certainly not to the extent we do.

THAT MAY BE THE CASE FOR YOU BUT IT'S A NARROW VIEW TO ASCRIBE THAT TO EVERYONE THAT JOINS THE DISCUSSION. FOR SOME OF US IT'S THE HUMAN DIMENSION, THE LINK BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT, THE HIDDEN DEPTHS OF THE MIND, THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES IN THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT MURDER. HOW CULTURE, RACE, DRUGS, RELIGION, POLITICS, POWER, GENDER, VIOLENCE, MUSIC, CHILDREN AND CHILDHOOD, LAW ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, SOCIALIZATION, PARENTING, NURTURE, CRIME, DISHONESTY, HYPOCRISY AND A LOT MORE BESIDES CAN IMPACT A PERSON, BOTH SINGULARLY AND IN COMBINATION. IT'S A PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY THAT REMAINS ENDLESSLY FASCINATING BUT WHICH SHINES A LIGHT ON THE HUMAN CONDITION.

For some, sure. But we don't need THIS case to “shine a light on the human condition.” We've got thousands of years of history to do that without resorting to a case like this. These people were so abnormal there's no way most people can even begin to identify with their perspective. Motive is one of the most hotly debated topics on this forum and indeed on every CM discussion group. It always comes down to HS, drug burn, revenge or robbery. We keep discussing this over and over. In fact, I can only think of very few postings I've seen here or anywhere else trying to dissect the deeper inner workings of these individuals, namely the list you give above. I mean SERIOUSLY – all of that list you present can be tied to why MOST things are discussed on one level or another. I may have been remiss to say that alternative motives are the only reason we discuss it, but that comes up more than anything else discussed here. And if this case is still discussed in 20 years, it will still be the main topic. It's why alternative books like Schreck's, O'Neill's and others are continuing to be published. Because we don't know. It's why Brian Davis has a weekly youtube show about it. It's almost always about the alternative motive. Maybe all that deeper stuff you list is why you and a few others are interested, but from I've seen most are here for the other motives. Not that delving into those qualities you list is a wasted pursuit. I just see almost none of it here. The post that started this whole topic was yours: drugs or money. Searching for more meat from the bones of motive.

AndyTaylor said...

THE EXPERTS SAID HILARY CLINTON WOULD WIN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hillary Clinton DID win the 2016 presidential election. The popular vote, anyway. There's plenty of examples of experts being wrong. There's just as many to prove the experts were right. Like COVID-19. Like weathermen who are right most of the time.

And it's easier to get a conviction when the defense NEVER offers a counter-narrative, provide counter-evidence or calls one witness

YOU CAN'T BLAME THE PROSECUTION FOR THAT. I'M MORE INCLINED TO LOOK INTO WHY THE DEFENCE DIDN'T DO THAT. FACE FACTS, THEY KNEW THEIR CLIENTS HAD KILLED. AT LEAST PAT, LESLIE'S AND SUSAN'S [SOMETIME] LAWYERS DID.

I didn't blame the prosecution. How often does a lawyer represent a defendant he KNOWS is guilty but tries to get him off on a technicality or lesser charge and how often does that work? A lot more frequently than we know about. Of course they knew they were guilty. They said they did it. But a good defense attorney will make SOME effort to have evidence or testimony dismissed, get charges dropped etc. These defense lawyers did almost nothing.

Don't get me wrong – I know the defendants killed those people. I'm still fascinated to keep learning why.

BY THE COURTS, PERHAPS.

Perhaps by the courts?? Definitely by the courts! That's all we have to go on. The defendants presented almost no case in the courts. Everything from their side is rumours, lies, half-truths, conspiracies.

ONE ONLY DOES SO IF ONE IS CONVINCED IT IS TRUE.

Or if that's the only one with the most evidence, as Bugs clearly states in his book. He didn't have to believe it. He just has to get a jury to believe it.

ALL YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW IS WHAT CHARLIE SAID DURING HIS GUILT PHASE TESTIMONY.

That's just one statement. What evidence was presented? What corroborating evidence or testimony? Very little. None in the guilt phase. And that's not “really all we need to know.” There's lots more we need to know.

WHEN MANSON WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE JURY HE SAID NAW. AND HE TOLD THE WOMEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO TESTIFY. THEY ALL HAD THEIR CHANCE, THE CASE HAS BEEN RE~TRIED FOR 50 YEARS NOW

Spot on true. Manson et al suffered their fate at their own hands both before, during and after the trial. Their lawyers should have done a LOT more than they did. But we're discussing motive, as you asked for when you created a post called “drugs or money.”

Rumours, innuendos, lies and hunches are all we have to go on to draw a conclusion that is different than Bugliosi's

NO OFFENCE, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BRING A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE IN ANY ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT !

No, it won't. But it doesn't stop us from discussing it, does it? And it doesn't stop us from trying to find out the details of why, does it? Again – you made the post questioning the motive. And a few posts back you posted another entry about another motive of revenge. If this were Casey Kasem's radio show, #1 with a bullet would be motive.

D. said...

As for putting onna defence, Charlie was pretty fucked. As he said during the trial, he lived life according to one law: don't snitch. With Watson tried separately, it was an impossibly to do so. What was he and the girls going to do? Tell? Atkins had threats against her life from people outside "The Family", just common female inmates for her early cooperation.

The girls, did put on a defense too. What do you think the court room antics were about? That was their defense. They were being tried for murders, of which there was enough convict them. The best thing they could try for was not getting the death penalty. There was little to nothing to convict Charlie of. That is why there was a shitload of hearsay testimony especially revolving around a motive to make him the ringleader. Far more than most cases. Most murder cases do not have that many witnesses and testimony.

Susan, who told a shitload of lies actually DID tell the truth in one of her rare moments (like.in the quote in this post) during the penalty phase. That the motive was to help Bobby get out of jail and because Linda was burned by the people up at Cielo in a deal for MDA. Which is only the jist of it, but still exactly what happened.

Crowe, drugs. Hinman, drugs. What would make anybody think Tate was different. Frykowski wasn't employed, Tex was employed, Sebring made money doing hair but even with a handful of celebrity clients, still didn't make much doing that to afford the lifestyle he had and his records indicated that. Even if you read Watson's book and read between the lines, you see this guy was more Hollywood than Spahn and was constantly involved in drug sales. From the time of his wig shop to living with Wilson and being around Morehouse who got busted for possession to living with an unnamed dealer in Malibu to Spahn, then back to the guy he sold weed with from the wig shop, to Rosina dealing and then to Spahn right at the time the Shelter Skelter club opened, which was just a front for under the counter dope sales to his spend ing all of July with former dealer Kasabian.

Watson, Frykowski and Sebring were all.dope dealers and all knew each other. I fully believe Sebring is the "friend he met" when running the wig shop who "cut and styled" his hair. How many other men's stylist were there and look at the vicinity of these people and places in those days.

Peter said...

There is no evidence Gary was about drugs. There is evidence it was about money. And Crowe also was about money. You could just as easily say Cielo was about money. Big house, rich people. Maybe Manson just told them to rob the place and then went to Waverly "to show them how its done" without killing everyone. Nice house, big boat out front, "I'm back, everyone is tied up, all you have to do is get the valuables, and DONT kill anyone this time."

Peter said...

"How many other men's stylist were there"

In Los Angeles? 500 ?

Speculator said...

Peter - if you’re saying that the motive in each case was money then, again the question has to be, why did they stop? How much loose change did they supposedly get from the murders - pocket money??!!! And think about it - if they were simply after money why not just get the whole crew engaged in street robbery, petty theft etc etc. lower risk for better gain. Did they really think there would be piles of dollar bills at Cielo or Waverley? Clean money gets kept in the bank. Unless they thought or perhaps knew that there might be dirty money hanging around these properties. Possible?

Peter said...

I'm just pointing out that there is no evidence that it was drugs. That based on the "its possible" standard you could say it was a lot of things.

Lots of things are possible. They just aren't plausible.

D. said...

What would constitute as evidence of drugs? Sales receipts? If you need undisputable evidence of it, then just give up exploring any possibility. Drugs as all illegal business is kept secret. It's easy as fuck to take any drug related killing and make it appear like it was something else. Which is, what they did with the red hearings.

It's common sense actually. Anybody with a brain can piece it all together even with out evidence and laugh off any possibility that it had anything to do with anything other than drug dealing.

Murders like that in the Hollywood Hills in 1969 in a house with two drug dealers killed by a drug dealer didn't have anything to do with a Beatles album or revenge on a person who already moved out.

Vera Dreiser said...

Catch me outside. Is ANYONE dumber than "the col"? Seriously, i'm serious as a gin-vagina-soaked heart attack. Can porky rwewally be THAT stupid?

grimtraveller said...

D. said:

Anybody with a brain can piece it all together even with out evidence and laugh off any possibility that it had anything to do with anything other than drug dealing.

Well, yes. Anyone can.
But you'd still be wrong.

Speculator said:

Grim - I don’t agree with some of your dissection of earlier comments

Shocker !!

Just think for a minute what would’ve happened if they’d rolled up there and found a party of 100 plus people in full swing. Not uncommon in LA in what was supposedly known as a party house. What would’ve happened to your HS theory then?

Precisely nothing would happen to the theory. It would remain the same. In point of fact, your scenario occurred 5 times the following night ~ ie a specific plan to kill scotched because of unforeseen circumstances {photos of kids, houses too close together, driver driving away, church building closed, going to wrong apartment....}. And one of them was when Manson was not there. So while your point looks cool as a spanner in the works type thingy at first glance, it is, like most objections, plausibly countered.

AndyTaylor said:

Grim sez:A VISIT TO VENICE WAS NOT ONLY LOGICAL How is it logical?

Saladin Nader lived there. Logical as you like.

Why is CM asking for murder targets from Kasabian who has been in the family for a month?

a] She was part of the Cielo murders.
b] She was along on LaBianca night and as far as Manson knew {with the wallet} had already done as instructed..
c] In that month, she had shown herself to be willing in every single endeavour she'd been called upon. I could just as incredulously ask, who steals $5000 for someone you haven't even known for 3 hours ?
But Linda did.

And I actually do want an answer

To what ?
I'm not saying that you have to accept every and any explanation that you're given but when your start point is that you don't accept what you have been given because it doesn't fit what you want, then realistically, you're always going to be chasing your tail.

The death penalty was likely a foregone conclusion

I highly doubt that. I don't know if you've read the books by jury members William Zamora or Herman Tubick but that's not the impressions either give and neither does Bill McBride in the Tubick book. The fact is that the women gave them little choice. They tried to find mitigating circumstances so they didn't have to vote death but when people come out and say "we did this and we're glad !" or words {and accompanying actions} to that effect, what can you do ?

if CM had the power Bug alleges he did, he should just be able to pick another follower

It is well known, the power that Hitler had over the Nazis. But that didn't stop Rudolf Hess flying to Scotland during the war in an attempt to broker peace.
I mention that only because there isn't some strict universal application of power that never wavers. All people under someone's domination are a sliding scale and behave differently.
And besides, Shorty got killed after the TLB murders and Clem, Bruce, Larry Jones and Bill Vance were new additions to the cast of killers.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

Windee Buckley, if her accounts are true

I frankly wouldn't believe Windy Bucklee if she told me my name, address and date of birth !

If they all believed HS was really theirs for the starting, why would anyone refuse the opportunity to jump-start a race war where they would all wind up ruling the world?

Because what they had all been believing for months re: HS changed drastically from "This is what the Blacks are going to do to start it all" to "I'm going to have to show the Blacks how to start it all" to suddenly "We are going to have to show the Blacks how to start it all" and "we have to be willing to kill pigs" which went from a self defence kind of thing to an offensive. It was sufficient to cause Paul Watkins to run for the hills. Linda in her testimony at Tex's trial said that she knew there would be violence during HS ~ but not that the Family would be instigating it.

A stretch? You'd have to undo 90% of that sentence to make it a stretch

I was actually throwing that one in very much with my tongue in my cheek, hence the statement that it was a stretch.

the reason why we're still questioning the motive 51 years later is because we don't have as much knowledge about the reason why these people did what they did from their case as we do from the prosecution's

Now, these are only rumours culled from statements from LAPD, but they say that there's nothing on the Tex tapes from '69 except him chundering on about underground cities and espousing dubious racial theories.
But from Pat, we have her daubing "HEALTER SKELTER" in blood at the site of her second murder. If you want to deny she connected their actions with HS, you're welcome.
From Susan, we have her telling Virginia Graham that she felt at peace in the aftermath of the murders as now, it was the beginning of HS, which indicates that it wasn't conceived as a "this happens every night" kind of thing but something that could be achieved at a relatively leisurely pace because she was saying this in early November. But, if you want to dismiss Susan connecting the murders with HS, you're welcome.
From Leslie we have her clearly telling Marvin Part that these murders were in furtherance of HS. That's the three murderers that were tried with Charlie. If you want to dismiss Leslie's telling her lawyer in private that the murders are inextricably linked to HS, you're welcome.
We have very important statements from the killers as to why they did what they did. And all from 1969. All before the trial. But you know what's interesting ? Bugliosi said in his summing up that their reasons for doing what they did was because Charlie told them to. It didn't diminish their responsibility but that was his view. I think he was wrong about that. I think they did believe in HS and certainly the second night was deliberately and specifically with HS in mind.
I don't dismiss the motives the prosecution gave. I certainly have looked hard for many years at all of the alternatives and they simply do not stack up.
The motives are a mixed bag. Drugs ain't part of that bag.





grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

But we're discussing motive, as you asked for when you created a post called “drugs or money”......Again – you made the post questioning the motive. And a few posts back you posted another entry about another motive of revenge

You made the same mistake in a previous post. You're mixing me up with St. I don't question the motives now. I've never written a post for this blog.

we don't need THIS case to “shine a light on the human condition.” We've got thousands of years of history to do that without resorting to a case like this

Well, pardon me !
There are so many aspects of the case that do exactly that and I happen to be interested in discussing them sometimes. And you're right ~ we do have thousands of years of history to shine a light on the human condition. This saga happens to take its pride of place as one of many and that is why I often use comparisons from a variety of other situations in history to show that this is a very human story.

These people were so abnormal there's no way most people can even begin to identify with their perspective

I don't have that problem. Belief in the Christian notion of sin and its effect on human nature settled that one for me many moons ago.
The Family are not difficult to understand if one really wants to. It's just that many of us don't actually want to.

Motive is one of the most hotly debated topics on this forum and indeed on every CM discussion group

I don't, never have and never will deny that. But it is not a hotbed of contention for me in terms of trying to find out what it was. I'm satisfied with that. If you look at my contributions down the years, you'll see clearly why I'm at that conclusion. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss it or demonstrate various shortcomings with ideas that people put forth. As do we most, if not all.

D. said...

One commonly asked question by the naysayers and Helter Skelter zealots is:

Why didn't they say that?

Why WOULD they? Everyone involved plead not guilty and they were charged with murder. Why you didn't isn't the question in the court of law, the question is, DID you do it.

If you shot somebody two times at 10 at night and beat up there wife because they owed you money and the police and prosecutor claim you shot them 3 times at midnight and raped their wife even if you didn't for no reason....what do you do? Say no and tell the truth in which case would be a confession or try and beat the rap by denying you did anything?

The entire official narrative is based on Atkins bullshit story before the grand jury. Kasabian backed it up for the prosecutor in exchange for a honey deal.

Watson, because he was being charged with murder, tried to deny doing anything, blaming the girls as much as he did Manson. Only after that got ripped to shreds did he back up Atkins story later in his book, which it what the court found to be reality.

Watson tried to Walk out a free man or at least do a little time in a nut ward. So of course he wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to say he held the motive. Nor would he today. Claiming drugs, the devil and an evil guru with a Beatles album courts sounds better than slaughter over dope and money. His Christian supporters wouldn't bother with him.

From Charlie's point of view, the crimes were their crimes. Whatever they said, he agreed with but would call out bunk when they pinned it on him. Watson and Kasabian never admitted to what really happened, thus Charlie wouldnt..at least not openly to everyone.

Peter said...

Cant decide if I want to be a naysayer or a zealot. Which do you think pays better?

Speculator said...

I’d say that there are theories both ways on that one Peter ;-) !!!

Speculator said...

Grim - I’m afraid that your counter argument doesn’t hold water in comparing night two to night one. The first night specifically targeted one house - Cielo Drive. From the evidence given, there wasn’t any discussion about go to x or y instead if no ones home or it’s too hot to handle. The second night was a let’s go out and kill someone/anyone and I’ll show you how easy it can be done. Manson clearly wanted to reassert himself. No specific target at all. If your argument is to hold any water then explain why Manson didn’t just tell Watson to go kill someone/anyone on the first night? To me it suggests that they had prior knowledge of who would be at Cielo. And don’t you find iit a strange coincidence too that on the second night they drove around for an age before targeting Waverly? And after Manson possibly made a phone call? And after the Labiancas had arrived home late that night? Had they gone to Waverly earlier they’d have found no one there to kill. Do you just put all of these things down to coincidence?

Speculator said...

D - precisely the same points that I’ve made previously. If you’re wanting to beat the rap you’re hardly going to challenge the motive that’s being presented by the prosecution with what you know to be your real motive!! As you say, they all stuck to the official narrative that was first presented to them by the prosecution. And let’s not forget that HS was basically a regurgitation of the same/similar bullshit belief system from a couple of other cults around that time. I’m not saying that one or more of the girls didn’t believe in it to some extent. And if they did I’m sure that Manson purely saw it as a means of control rather than a genuine belief on his part. Watson too. And it certainly didn’t form the real reason behind the murders imho.

starviego said...

The murders happened because the Black Muslims came out of the ghetto to tell Charlie he'd better kick it off or else they were going to snuff him. Helter Skelter, of course, was a Black Muslim philosophy before it was anything else.

Peter said...

I think the first night took Charlie a little by surprise. He recognized that the police may uncover his connection to the house and so the second night he intentionally sought something random, a place where he had no perceivable connection. But he still wanted the element of control offered by being inside a house and one that he knew.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

your counter argument doesn’t hold water in comparing night two to night one. The first night specifically targeted one house - Cielo Drive. From the evidence given, there wasn’t any discussion about go to x or y instead if no ones home or it’s too hot to handle

Have you ever read the transcript of Susan's Dec 1 '69 interview with Caballero and Caruso ? The plan was not only to do 10050, but other houses along the same strip. That's why Manson was so surprised they got back so quickly and he asked them why they were home so early.

If your argument is to hold any water then explain why Manson didn’t just tell Watson to go kill someone/anyone on the first night?

That's exactly what he did do. He didn't know who was at any of the houses. But after 5 murders and the unexpected Parent situation and Linda going missing and the fact that this was murder, they didn't have the stomach to do the other houses. And so the next night, Charlie decided that his plan of multiple killings would go ahead which is why he had 2 death squads with him.

To me it suggests that they had prior knowledge of who would be at Cielo

To me it suggests that the object of the exercise was to kill. It didn't matter who.
I've long held the opinion that Harold True's former housemates {in the US you guys call them room-mates} were his target on night 2 ~ but only after the sports car incident when Charlie's randomness had shown for the 4th time that this wasn't quite the easy gig he thought it was going to be. Then, I suspect, he thought that he would go somewhere he did know.
It's important to remember that Charlie thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa so he was no stranger to killing. Various other Family members thought he had too so they weren't adverse to going along with him.

And don’t you find it a strange coincidence too that on the second night they drove around for an age before targeting Waverly?

Not in the slightest particular. In fact, it's completely logical and understandable. Charlie had made his name with the Family as "Mr Spontaneous and I don't do things that 'normal' straight society does." When they needed money, his confidence brought them through. When they needed a place to stay or a vehicle fixed or to get out of the clutches of the cops, his confidence brought them through. He'd organized one murderous outing. But as you say, he was reasserting himself because Charlie was a competitive guy. He may have been a psychedelicatessen but he didn't like being shown up by those that he could boss. And Tex had done something he had not done and had done it big. He had made national news, even by the evening of August 9th. And so whatever he said subsequently, in the aftermath of the Cielo murders, he just had to find some fault with what had happened, hence his "I'm going to show how this should be done" malarkey.
If you think about it, it really shows the mind of Charles Manson. He tells Tex to do a gruesome murder then when Tex does a gruesome murder he says "You should have not caused panic !"
But the following night, Charlie, who was good at beating women and girls and half crippled men like Randy Starr found that just randomly killing people with your cheerleaders onboard wasn't quite so easy. Driving about all that time with no result intensified the pressure. It wasn't lost on any of them there that the night before, in a fraction of the time, Tex & his comrades had murdered 5 people. So no, I don't find it a coincidence they all drove around for ages.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

And after Manson possibly made a phone call?

There are only 6 people in the history of this planet's existence that are genuinely fit to comment on whether or not Charlie went near a phone box that night ~ Clem, Leslie, Linda, Susan, Pat and Tex. And none of them ever have. The whole phone box "maybe" is a figment of the modern online penchant for TLB conspiracy theories.

And after the Labiancas had arrived home late that night? Had they gone to Waverly earlier they’d have found no one there to kill. Do you just put all of these things down to coincidence?

Yes. In much the same way that Steve Parent running into the perps just as he was leaving William Garretson was coincidence; in much the same way that Parent's clock showed a time that most closely corresponds to other witnesses like Tim Ireland and Rudy Weber was coincidence.

Peter said...
I think the first night took Charlie a little by surprise

I don't and I'll tell you why in 2 words ~ Gary Hinman.
After a 2 year escalation in which he'd seen how people could be bent to his will, how he could get people to crawl around like sheep, how he could communicate wild visions in his own mind and see them become groupthink, how people would remain with him when they all thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa, how he'd told Bobby to take care of the Gary problem ~ and Bobby killed Gary, then I think he had a pretty good idea that if he communicated 'kill' then some of his troupe would kill.
"What are you doing home so early ?" just do not sound like the words of someone who has not been expecting carnage.

He recognized that the police may uncover his connection to the house

I don't buy this either because it is illogical. Manson's only connection to the house was via Terry Melcher and Melcher had left 7 months before the murders.
Now, if it was part of the police investigation to check every known associate or visitor of the previous occupant then possibly, just possibly, he might have had a genuine fear that he might be outlined as a having a connection. But Charlie had no connection to Sharon, Roman, Abigail, Wojiciech or William Garretson. Besides, what police force anywhere in the world, if there's a murder in a house or apartment, starts checking on associates of the previous occupant when the murder has nothing to do with them ?
It was through Susan Atkins that it first became known who the murderers were and through her that the Melcher link first appeared. Even if part of the idea of selecting Melcher's former house was to send him some sort of cryptic message, there's no way the police would pick up on that.
The following night wasn't a copycat to throw the police off the scent because they were never supposed to be identified anyway. The idea was to have the two connected in the minds of the police in the hope they and others would think it was Black people wot dunnit.

Speculator said...

Grim - I respect your view but I’m afraid that you miss the point entirely so I’ll restate it. And yes, I have read Atkin’s trial testimony. The mission on night one was a very specific one from the get-go, to leave Spahn and head directly to Cielo to kill the occupants. The instruction that they go to other houses on the street was to be do so AFTER business done at the Tate home. Not instead of. There was no back up plan - it was very specifically instructed and accepted that everyone at Cielo was going to die. No wondering about photos that might be in the windows or other such deflecting nonsense. The people at Cielo were the targets and no one else. That suggests to me that Manson and Watson were very confident of who and what they would find at Cielo which in turn suggests prior knowledge.. There was no such specific plan or target on night two and no instruction before leaving Spahn as to where they were heading to kill. They were heading out without a plan other than to randomly kill - or so we are lead to believe. And to further turn your argument on its head, if as you say, Manson found it so difficult to find and settle on a target on night two (in the whole of LA???!!!) how do you explain his certainty of success at Cielo before they even left on night one? And if the whole thing was purely HS, why didn’t he just send Watson out to do random killings on the first night as they did on the second?? can you not see and accept the flaws?

Peter said...

Grim. You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt. Hasn't Melcher said that he immediately thought of Charlie when the murders occurred? That's like 98% of making the connection. Even if he didn't, it wouldn't be implausible for Charlie to think that he might.

Gary was one guy, a reclusive music teacher that nobody missed for like a week. Cielo was a massacre of a half dozen of L.A.s most beautiful people chased around the house and out onto the lawn.

And you know what a cryptic message is? Thinking that the word "Rise"and "Pig" and a Beatles Song would be interpreted as the vanguard of the blackopolypse.

Peter said...

"Besides, what police force anywhere in the world, if there's a murder in a house or apartment, starts checking on associates of the previous occupant when the murder has nothing to do with them ?"

A murder like that. A creepy bloodbath that makes international headlines. The police are eventually going to check EVERYTHING.

Peter said...

If he told Sadie to go get a coconut, there is no doubt she would walk out the door heading south. But do you think Charlie believed she would walk to South America and come back with a coconut? If she came back with 5 coconuts, I think he'd be surprised.

D. said...

Melcher never said he suspected Manson right from the start. Though it is highly likely he knew it was the Spahn gang, as I suspect both he and Wilson may have been involved enough to actually be considered accessories. That they had some direct involvement in a rather large dope deal that was in part to pay Charlie for music and broken promises to some others. Melcher actually said years later he thought the murders had to do with pornography being filmed....which no doubt was happening and Altobelli and Polanski were involved and could be why Melcher HAD to sublet to Polanski and the idea that Sharon just liked that house is nonsense. The celebrity porn ring wasn’t just a small crowd doing it for kicks, but unknowingly falling into a blackmail trap.

D. said...

Melcher claimed the only person he thought would be out to get him was his mothers ex husband, who fucked both of them financially. Which is why Melcher was involved in dope dealing with Watson and Moorhouse.

Speculator said...

Peter - spot on about the cryptic messaging. Grim - I’d be interested to know what part of the Cielo murders and the scene that was left was intended to be linked to the Panthers and/or ignite a race war?! Daubing “Pig” on the door??!! Really?!! In what context?!!! If the purpose really was HS then why didn’t Atkins daub “Whitey Pigs” or something a bit more overtly obvious??!! And why did Manson tell them to leave something “witchy”??!!! Witchy???!! Wtf had witchy got to do with blacks, whites or race??!!!! Also the point about Manson’s connection to Cielo is perfectly valid. As Peter pointed out, Melcher immediately thought of Manson as no doubt did others like Wilson who preferred to keep quiet. And given the fact that the Polanskis had only moved in there in March it’s perfectly plausible that investigations might turn to previous occupants and their connections.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

And yes, I have read Atkin’s trial testimony

I didn't mention her trial testimony. I'm talking about what she said to her lawyer in private.

The mission on night one was a very specific one from the get-go, to leave Spahn and head directly to Cielo to kill the occupants

Yes, but with caveats. If no one was there or the supposed $600 couldn't be raised, then they were to move on to other houses.

The instruction that they go to other houses on the street was to be do so AFTER business done at the Tate home. Not instead of

I never said it was instead of. But it's pretty clear Manson did not know for certain what was going to be at Cielo {eg, he didn't want the gun used}, hence the instruction to move on to other houses if the mission was not accomplished there.

The people at Cielo were the targets and no one else. That suggests to me that Manson and Watson were very confident of who and what they would find at Cielo which in turn suggests prior knowledge

Well, we obviously see very different things from this. I approach bearing in mind various nuances and the possibilities that may arise from a situation. You don't. You like the security of surety. Yes, the people at Cielo were the targets but you're the one that started to introduce the "what if...." questions.

And to further turn your argument on its head, if as you say, Manson found it so difficult to find and settle on a target on night two (in the whole of LA???!!!) how do you explain his certainty of success at Cielo before they even left on night one?

The same way I explain his certainty of success when leaving Linda, Susan and Clem to 'off' Saladin Nader the next night.
What is "certainty" of success ? It only really becomes that when what you've expected to happen happens. He had a good idea there would be deaths at Cielo otherwise he wouldn't have instructed that. Same with the next night. Same with Shorty. He had a good idea Gary would be killed. He knew Bobby couldn't take Gary to the hospital. "You know what to do" tells us much about Charlie.

And if the whole thing was purely HS, why didn’t he just send Watson out to do random killings on the first night as they did on the second?

Hey, you'd have to ask dead Charlie that and as we know, dead men tell no tales.
I think sometimes we need to balance a variety of things here. These weren't hardened Nazi soldiers that had seen war, were used to killing people and had no qualms about the reality of ending life. So Charlie took things 'easy' this first time. As far as we know, this is the first time a murder is actively planned, not 'forced' on the situation like Lotsapoppa or Gary. So when things happen for the first time, one might expect that there will be a less than perfectly organised smooth run. After that first night however, the next night what do we see ? We see less caution to the wind and 2 death squads.

can you not see and accept the flaws?

In what I'm saying ? Of course. Any ideas I might have about who thought what 50 years ago and the actions that may have flowed from such are potentially flawed. I do not know, for example, that Charlie was after the ex-room mates of Harold True when he decided to head to Waverly. But putting together a whole host of separate things, including the words of Manson himself in insisting that he went to Harold's house that second night, once I discovered that he had wanted to move into that house and was rejected, it doesn't at all seem like a stretch that having failed in his quest thus far that night, he thought that the ex-True house provided a safer target and would kill 2 birds with one stone. Does the idea have flaws ? Yes. Is it plausible ? Yes.
Pretty much everything that is not filmed and viewed live has flaws.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

I’d be interested to know what part of the Cielo murders and the scene that was left was intended to be linked to the Panthers and/or ignite a race war?! Daubing “Pig” on the door??!! Really?!! In what context?!!!

I've made this point many a time ~ the Family, like most groups that are prejudiced against a particular group, know very little about the real inner workings and nuances of that group. Thinking that "this is how Blacks talk" is no guarantee that that is how Blacks talk. Bobby made that error. Susan made that error. And Pat made that error. All on separate nights at separate events. And don't forget, 6-8 months prior, long before it was known that the Family would be kicking these events off, Charlie had been telling them that 'blackie' would do these murders, writing things like 'pigs' on the walls in blood. They took him at his word, after all, as Gypsy later said, Charlie had been in jails with Blacks. He knew Blacks. They didn't question it, even though Sandy, Squeaky & Snake should have.

Peter said...

You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt

Don't we all ?
I simply happen to disagree with you on this Peter, and I think it is illogical. I agree with you that Manson was paranoid and I agree with you that he did things out of the ordinary. I disagree with you on this particular matter because it kind of suggests that Cielo was a one-off. And I don't believe it was.
It's only an opinion, this isn't university challenge.

Hasn't Melcher said that he immediately thought of Charlie when the murders occurred?

Do you honestly believe that ? Melcher knew Charlie as a guy playing guitar that he'd heard play twice and talked to for a bit. A murder of people he doesn't know takes place in a house he once lived in and straight away he thinks "it was that hippie singer Charlie !" and he turns out to be right.
I'm evidently a little more cynical than you when it comes to these kind of extracurricular claims.

A murder like that. A creepy bloodbath that makes international headlines. The police are eventually going to check EVERYTHING

That's what is illogical. The police did no checking on any Melcher connection for the 3½ months they were investigating prior to Susan bringing him into the equation because Melcher had no connection to any of the victims. Taking your line of logic, how far would they go back ? Would they investigate all Candice Bergen's friends and acquaintances ? Mark Lindsey's ? Henry Fonda's ? Anyone that had lived there ?

do you think Charlie believed she would walk to South America and come back with a coconut?

I don't think he genuinely believed she'd go to South America for one and frankly, in my opinion, to believe he would is, to put it as gentlemanly as I can, "not the wisest thing one could believe."

Speculator said...

Grim - it’s good to debate and we can agree to disagree. Afterall and as you say - the whole thing is academic! Regarding the True house though, I’m doubting that he was after the guys that he had previously known there. I can’t remember the timings of what was said, but didn’t Kasabian say “we’re not doing THAT house are we?” when they pulled up and BEFORE Manson left the car and he said no it’s the one next door? I think he just decided that it was a less open spot to park the car by the True house and a more covert route to access the LaBiancas. The LaBianca drive was long and completely open to be seen from all directions. Maybe that put him off approaching that way. But hey, who really knows. What is a mystery to me is how a little pos like him managed to subdue LaBianca AND his wife without so much as a fight. I guess he just knew the power that surprise and initial fear had over people. He was clearly a past master of sadistic cruelty. And if anyone doubts his guilt in all of this they should dwell on that point. I doubt that him or Watson would have ever risked a straight up confrontation with anyone. I often wonder what must’ve been going through the LaBiancas minds in the few minutes between Manson leaving and Watson and the rest coming in - if that is indeed how it played out. Maybe temporary relief I guess - which makes the final
Outcome all the more horrific. You do wonder if they might’ve been able to free themselves what would’ve happened.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

Regarding the True house though, I’m doubting that he was after the guys that he had previously known there

In March of 1970, months before the trial even began, Aaron Stovitz made this statement ¬> "So they, after circling the city for a while, they go into the True, uh, to the True residence. No one is home, so they, go next door."
And during the trial itself, as part of his summing up Bugliosi states ¬> "And of course it was Manson who finally decided to drive to Harold True's place and after he got out of the car, of course, he entered the LaBianca residence ~ we don't know how."
In the archives, go to July 16 2018 ~ there's a tremendous debate that comes after the post entitled "Roommate Revenge" in which both sides of the debate are well and truly covered.

I can’t remember the timings of what was said, but didn’t Kasabian say “we’re not doing THAT house are we?” when they pulled up and BEFORE Manson left the car and he said no it’s the one next door?

In the Watson trial, it comes out that this conversation takes place as Charlie was going up the drive towards the True house. Linda never mentions Tex going to the LaBianca house with just Charlie but Susan {'69}, Tex {'78} and Charlie {'88} all have.
It just makes logical sense that Manson would state that he was going next door if he'd already ascertained that there was no one in at the True house ~ but there was a lone guy in the one next door. Manson has stated that it was a dog next door that alerted him to its occupancy as he had always known the house as empty. He'd been in it a few times prior to Sept '68.

What is a mystery to me is how a little pos like him managed to subdue LaBianca AND his wife without so much as a fight

He had a .45, Tex, the element of surprise at 2am with very tired people who had been driving for hours and were ready for bed. Linda never mentions Tex going into the house with just Charlie but Susan in her Dec 1st '69 interview does and Tex in his book does. They tied up the LaBiancas. Charlie wasn't going to do that on his lonesome, even with a gun.

You do wonder if they might’ve been able to free themselves what would’ve happened

Rosemary tried. She went for Leslie and Pat even though she had a pillowcase over her head and electrical cord round her neck. For Pat it must have been Cielo all over again and it's interesting that the response is the same ~ when the victim puts up a struggle, call Tex. I honestly do believe that had Rosemary managed to get free and prevent the women calling Tex, she would have taken them down because Leslie was shitting herself and Pat was no fighter and even a cursory glance at Rosemary's background reveals that she wasn't one to take shit or prisoners. She went down fighting.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said:

Grim. You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt

We all do this if we accept he had paranoid delusional moments.
But this is not a bad or negative thing. In fact, it's necessary. We have to make some kind of judgement as to when we think his thinking is affected by paranoia, vengeance, Mommy issues, Daddy resentment, irresponsibility, effects of LSD, distaste for authority, jealousy, misogyny etc and it works both ways. Charlie Manson was a psychologist/psychiatrist/psychoanalyst's dream and let's be honest here, many of us on these pages are little league psychologists on the sly !

Gary was one guy, a reclusive music teacher that nobody missed for like a week. Cielo was a massacre of a half dozen of L.A.s most beautiful people chased around the house and out onto the lawn

The reason I mentioned Gary as a reason why Charlie would not be surprised by the events of Cielo is that by then, he knew at least some of his people would follow him in killing and not say anything to the police {at this point he still thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa}. He may well have been surprised at the scale of the killing or the story surrounding the killing, the "what happened ?" and stuff. But not the fact of killing.
I think he'd have been way more surprised at the killing of Gary than anything that happened subsequently.

Speculator said:

I often wonder what must’ve been going through the LaBiancas minds in the few minutes between Manson leaving and Watson and the rest coming in

I would imagine confusion perhaps building up to abject fear. As Manson & Tex left, other than Rosemary's wallet, they hadn't taken anything and Rosemary, if she was aware her wallet was being taken, would know only her cards were in it. But they didn't take Leno's wallet. That might make one wonder, especially if you've been tied up.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

Aaron Stovitz made this statement ¬> "So they, after circling the city for a while, they go into the True, uh, to the True residence. No one is home, so they, go next door."
And during the trial itself, as part of his summing up Bugliosi states ¬> "And of course it was Manson who finally decided to drive to Harold True's"


What has for a while really made me wonder is why Aaron made this statement. What caused him to surmise that ? It's not something he was speculating about. He seems pretty certain of it and so was Bugliosi during the trial.
The interview came 2 weeks after Susan recanted and he'd obviously {or the prosecution had obviously} spoken with both Linda and Susan so it could only have come from one of them ~ or both.
Years later, when Manson would say that he went to Harold's place, it was always with the purpose of trying to deflect, to show specifically that he hadn't targeted the LaBiancas. That their killing was random. Ironically, his original mandate for the evening {showing them how to do it and a random killing} was fulfilled in the end. But we know from Stovitz's interview with Harold True that Charlie knew that Harold had moved out almost a year previous. When Manson would make his "I went to Harold's place" statements, he was not aware that it would soon become public knowledge that Harold had moved out nearly a year before. With that in mind, it begs the question why he told Vanity Fair in 2011 that it was Harold's he went to and why he goes into such detail in George Stimson's 2015 book about how he went to the house as opposed to going right to the LaBiancas. It dovetails perfectly with what Aaron Stovitz had revealed in March 1970 and says to me at least that Charlie had Harold's former roommates in mind for a kill, particularly bearing in mind they fitted the description of 'pigs'.

Speculator said...

Grim - if you check Kasabian’s trial testimony you’ll see that she does say the conversation with Manson about not doing the True house/no it’s the one next door, took place right after they pulled up and before he went up the drive. So if you believe the testimony it would appear that he didn’t have in mind to target anyone in the True house at any stage. But really who knows what’s truth and what’s lies from any of them. I find a lot of Kasabian’s evidence a bit suspect. At Cielo she she went back down to the car after they killed Parent “to listen for sounds” and that Krenwinkel later came down to the car and asked for her knife. And then she heard the screams and ran from the car back up to the house and saw everything. If you look at the distance between the house and where the car was allegedly parked (after they drove it down the hill after cutting the wires) it’s a fair distance for them to be walking up and down in the middle of a frantic struggle! It just doesn’t ring true.

Torque said...

Speculator, I believe it is fairly well accepted that Linda hid out near Steve Parent's car, parked inside the property near the gate button on the driveway, to listen for sounds. That way she could have advised the killers if someone was about to enter the property.

Indeed, the killer's car was parked at the bottom of the hill, where the private extension of Cielo Drive meets the main Cielo Drive at Bella Drive. The time to walk from that location to the Tate/Polanski gate, at a brisk pace, is just over three minutes. This was determined during a recent Manson tour, and the video of this appears as a post on this blog.

After seeing Voytek and Abigail stabbed in the front yard, Linda ran out of the property and all the way down the hill to where the killer's car was parked. Of course this is why Linda was nowhere to be found when Tex, Susan, and Pat energed from the house. They ultimately found her in the getaway car.

Speculator said...

Yes, that would make sense. It’s just that she doesn’t specify, or isn’t asked to specify, which car she means ie Parents or their car at the bottom of the hill.

Speculator said...

And I’m afraid that what she says about the car just doesn’t ring true to me. If someone you’re with says go and wait by “the” car it’s surely inferred that they and you are meaning your car and not any other car??!! I know that sounds like splitting hairs but it just feels like a lot of her evidence was manufactured and staged. It’s usually the very minor details that are overlooked as being important when a story is concocted and end up being the ones that don’t stack up.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

if you check Kasabian’s trial testimony you’ll see that she does say the conversation with Manson about not doing the True house/no it’s the one next door, took place right after they pulled up and before he went up the drive

It's kind of ambiguous. She says it the same way during the Watson trial yet when she's questioned by Tex's lawyer, that's when it comes out that the conversation took place as Manson was walking up the path towards the True house. And at no point during either trial does she ever mention Tex getting out independently of Pat & Leslie. Yet as early as Dec 1st, before the grand jury even, Susan does. And later, Tex and Charlie do. It's been part of Leslie's official description of the crime found in the Appellate Decision that gets read out in parole hearings since at least 2004. I'd say it was a fairly safe bet that's actually what happened. Yet Linda never mentions this. For the benefit of the trials, it doesn't really matter; her testimony and the leather strips found there corroborate her assertion that Manson went into the house. So there was little reason to push it. And Tex never denies he was there.
But it becomes important later on, if only to attempt to glean some insight into Manson's thought process, particularly with that statement by Stovitz and the one during the trial by Bugliosi.

If someone you’re with says go and wait by “the” car it’s surely inferred that they and you are meaning your car and not any other car??!!

Like Torque says, the natural reading of that would be the car that has just been pushed {ie, Steve's}, particularly as Linda had been assigned the role of lookout, to warn them if someone was coming. Ironically, if one believes her story of trying to get Susan to stop proceedings, she actually did just that ~ but she was ignored, which makes one wonder what they would have done if someone actually was coming !

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

it just feels like a lot of her evidence was manufactured and staged

It feels like much of her evidence was ragged ~ which, for us, with so many questions, it is. But I find most of it plausible.
I think the prosecution {meaning Bugliosi !} utilized of her testimony what it needed to net the result it was after.
And why not ? I would if I was in that position. Their first priority was to prosecute. It's then for the accused to do their bit in demonstrating that the allegations are without foundation.

Speculator said...

Grim - who and what to believe eh. A lot of omissions and inconsistencies are riddled through the case. But as you say it didn’t matter to the prosecution in their aim of securing a conviction. One thing is for sure, when you look at Kasabian’s life prior to Manson she certainly wasn’t some sweet n innocent. I’d go so far as to say that she was more streetwise than possibly even Manson when you consider how she (apparently) managed to keep her hands clean during the crimes (unlike for example Van Houten) and maneuvered herself to avoid any charges after the events.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

when you look at Kasabian’s life prior to Manson she certainly wasn’t some sweet n innocent

No, she wasn't. But neither was she a hardened criminal. She drifted into what I'd call lawlessness ~ not an unusual trait with much of the counterculture. But nevertheless deadly in its potential to help steer a person towards 'criminal pursuits'.

I’d go so far as to say that she was more streetwise than possibly even Manson

My observation of her was that despite Charlie's street smarts, his desire to control others, even in his psychedelic way of appearing not to, left him taking his eye off the ball in terms of taking care of himself whereas Linda's primary concern was Linda. Everything else played second fiddle to her {murders, her daughter, telling LE what she knew but telling others etc} which is not to say those things weren't important to her, just not as important as her. She was smarter than Charlie, really, but she did have one very important ally on her side ~ she was no murderer.

when you consider how she (apparently) managed to keep her hands clean during the crimes (unlike for example Van Houten) and maneuvered herself to avoid any charges after the events

Despite the cynicism that usually comes in the direction of anyone that says anything not negative about Linda, I do not believe that she had murder or even killing for the cause, in her. I don't believe Bobby, Bruce, Pat or Leslie were hardened murderers, capable of sprees, but they did have some aspect of either killing for the cause or killing if they couldn't see a way out, to them. I think Linda was horrified by murder. Not by robbery, not by rape, not by lots of negative things. But murder was a bridge too far for her and ultimately, that played in her favour and goes a long way towards explaining her actions at Cielo, Ocean Front Walk and fleeing Spahn as well as during the trials and why none of the perps have ever {outside of that ridiculous penalty phase} come out and said she killed. The best they could do subsequently was Pat saying she doesn't recall her trying to stop any of the activity at Cielo and Susan trying to say she was in the house after 7 years of saying she wasn't.
I don't think she was maneuvering herself out of any sticky situation because she was indicted and charged with 7 counts of murder and one of conspiracy. But she's never been on the same page as the others and if she had killed someone or had some kind of planning role, she'd have done jail time, even if she escaped the death penalty.

Peter said...

I think she was lying and spent most of the time hiding in "the car."

D. said...

Linda left her children with them

Linda never went to police

Linda played absolute hardball to get the deal she got.

Linda supposedly was horrified by seeing Tex brutalize and murder Frykowski. But did anyone see the way she spoke of Tex on Current Affair (?) in the late 80's or early 90's? She was speaking of him the same way a woman talked of her husband. She had a twinkle in his eye as she discussed how tall and handsome he was.

Tex went in, Linda stayed out to watch. They both took turns driving and both of them are similar when it comes to the trial in that they are the only ones who kept their mouth completely shut, got competent attorneys and threw it all off on the others.