Monday, June 28, 2021

The TLB Motive - My Final Word

 


"Unknown answers are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers."

- Tippy Philuea


"The ulterior motives with which you absorb and  assimilate evil are not your own, but those of evil. The animal wrests the whip from its master and whips itself in order to become master, not knowing that this is only a fantasy produced by a new knot in the whipmaster's  whiplash."

- Franz Kafka


What is the real motive for the TLB crimes? I believe that ultimately this question will always remain at least partially unanswered. Today, I am going to give my best and final shot at answering it based on what I have learned in my years researching this case. In doing so, I am going to take one final look at Helter Skelter to remind everyone why I have always felt that there is more hard evidence to support that motive than any of the others. Recently, I have made cases for all the other reasonable motives to the best of my ability. I think this is a great way to wrap it all up, and finish my motive series with a quick nod to the motive that I personally give the most credence to. I am not saying now or ever that I believe Helter Skelter was the actual/sole motive for the crimes. Just that, to me, if you had to pick just one- it is the choice with the most hard evidence to support it. But before I get into that let me review what I think the ultimate motivation for the actual killers those two nights was NOT...

I do not think the actual killers went those two nights for a drug burn or robbery. There is some testimonial evidence to support that motive, but almost no physical evidence to back any of it up. There is no evidence that substantial money or drugs were missing or gained.


The Music revenge snub motive is intriguing. It used to be be my first choice for many years. However, here too, there is not much physical evidence or supporting evidence to authenticate any of the rumors or stories. Nobody who directly screwed Charlie was killed on those two nights. He knew Melcher was already gone at Cielo. Wilson was allowed to live. People who Charlie had not known were killed. Not really enough there to move me in that direction.

Ever notice something about the "Get a brother out of jail" motive supporters? They are all the people who stayed loyal to Charlie after the crimes. The people who still associate and identify with The Family. Is it because this is the motive that gives Charlie the least amount of culpability?  I have read almost every word that Tex has written since he went to jail. Listened to every taped word he has said. I have gone through every letter, book, and email on his website. All of it. There is no way on Earth that Tex went to those houses with the purpose of getting Bobby out of jail. I will never believe that.

That brings us back to the one motive that I still sort of do believe had an impact on the actual killers. Helter Skelter. And while I will be in the minority on this site, I am not alone in the world in general. Helter Skelter is etched in history and, at this point some 50 years later, it is going to stay that way forever. That will frustrate the experts on this blog. The true researchers. The Scholars. It doesn't bother me. I am ok with it. I understand why an average person would see the evidence Bugs presented at trial, accept the Helter Skelter motive, and move on. This is ugly shit and why would your average Joe dwell on it? Besides there is, to borrow a phrase, "A mountain of evidence" to support the Helter Skelter motive. And, unlike other motives, there is some actual physical evidence to back up the testimonial evidence. Ultimately, I think that is why Bugs decided to run with Helter Skelter as his best motive to include Charlie in the indictments. He did a deep investigation, followed the physical evidence and witness testimony where it went, and landed on the common element to all of it. A very weird and far-out philosophy Charlie was preaching to his followers. A Philosophy that Charlie would use to the ultimate manipulation - Murder. Charlie may have had his own personal motivation for selecting the specific people who ended up being murdered, but I think we will never know that for sure. The people who actually did the killing have said that they did so, albeit only in part in a couple of cases, in the name of this Helter Skelter Philosophy Charlie had taught them. There is almost no evidence that anyone who committed the murders would have done so for any reason outside of that being what Charlie told them to do. There is evidence that Charlie chose the nights, participants, weapons, and locations. So we are left with "Why" and here is the key: Which why? Many people focus on the "Why" Charlie sent them to kill. Now that Charlie is gone we may never know that for sure. But we can focus on the other- just as important- "Why." Why the people he chose were willing to go along with it? Bugs found a "Why" that included Charlie. He may very well have started there and built a legend around that "Why." He may have exaggerated and embellished the Helter Skelter motive to fit his narrative and grander plans. But he did not make up Helter Skelter or invent it. There is just too much evidence Helter Skelter played a role to the actual killers to completely ignore it. To me the question is not if Helter Skelter was Manson/Bugs bullshit because in both cases, to different extents, it surely was. The more important question is if Helter Skelter was the motivation that caused Tex, Susan, Katie, and Leslie to commit murder on those two nights of August 1969? Did they buy the bullshit to the point they were willing to kill for it? It can be possible that Charlie created some ridiculous story for his followers, Bugs exaggerated parts of that story for his jurors, and yet half a dozen Family morons still bought into the story enough to kill over it? Or maybe, did a few of them use it as personal justification to cross a line they never would have otherwise? Is it possible that this is what happened here? 

Let's take one last look at the Helter Skelter motive and I will show you for the final time why I think it just might have been....



" If anyone had asked me back in March of 1969 why I was going back to Manson, I would have said I had no choice. Every day I stayed away from him felt like I was running, running away from the place I was supposed to be, running away from the changes that were necessary for me. Charlie was my destiny. Even when I talked to them on the phone, the Family women sounded different. All they could talk about was Helter Skelter. I knew the title from the Beatles White Album, but  I wasn't sure what they all meant when they kept insisting that "Helter Skelter was coming down fast and we're getting ready for it." Everything had changed, they told me as they babbled on about a club they were opening and about having dune buggies and about the White Album, which explained everything, laid out everything and that I would understand if I would just come talk to Charlie."

Tex Watson in  "Will you Die For Me" about the time just prior to the TLB Murders


" I had an urge to stretch out under that searing desert sun and just roast out of me every thought, every sensation. But my mind wouldn't stop flying, speeding back over those two nights and the days before them, the days ahead, maybe tomorrow, maybe tonight, when Helter Skelter would start roaring down on the world. I should start organizing the supplies. I should start looking for the bottomless pit. I should move around. I should catch up with the time rushing like the wind past my ears. My bombed-out brain was was whipping around inside my skull and I couldn't stop it. Even that huge sun couldn't stop it, slow it down, and give me rest."

- Tex Watson in "Will you Die For Me"  about the time immediately after the TLB Murders


It seems like Charlie really did his job on Tex. In six months Tex went from hearing about Helter Skelter for the first time to becoming one of the primary instigators to getting it started. It is hard for me to understand why people say Bugs "invented" the Helter Skelter motive when I read words like this right out of the killers mouth. Tex wrote this book long after the murders, When his head was clear, and he is trying his very best to sound reasonable, rationale, and honest. Albeit for self-serving purposes. Tex will also add in his book that there were a couple of other reasons in addition to Helter Skelter why they went those two nights, but there is no doubt to me that Tex had spent considerable time hearing about Helter Skelter. And again we don't have to just take Tex at his word, because there is physical evidence to back up the testimonial evidence that just doesn't exist with other motives.

I keep saying that lol - Want an example? Here is a piece of Testimonial evidence about the Helter Skelter motive with Physical evidence to support it:

"Charlie pointed out the repetition of the word "Rise," first whispered strangely, then screamed until almost recognizable. This was the Beatles way of  calling blackie to rise up and begin Helter Skelter, he said, and it was no coincidence that Rise was printed in blood on the walls the night of the second murder, along with Helter Skelter, just as pig had been scrawled on the door of the house on Cielo Drive in Sharon Tate's blood. He showed us how the same weird chord that ended the song Piggies appeared later on in Revalution number 9 followed by machine gun fire and the screams of the dying, the interpretation was obvious, most important, because it tied together the two parts of Charlies apoplectic puzzle."

Tex Watson in "Will you Die For ME"



Well, they did write those words in blood at the crime scenes. Those words do go along with the Helter Skelter story Charlie was telling them according to the way each one of them explain it. Tell you what, lets not be too smart for our own good here people. I think Tex is honestly telling you exactly why those words were written. Now let us now listen to another of the actual killers:

" This was the beginning of the talk of Helter Skelter. The notion of a black and white race war was, of course, something Charles Manson had picked up in prison. That it began to come out more and more, was an indicator of the things being said by the young people who began joining the family at this time. A consummate manipulator, Charles Manson simply parroted back at people what they most wanted to hear. With the Watts riots in LA, and the growing fervor over Viet Nam, revolution was a popular catchphrase for ensnaring the young, the idealistic, and the unwanted. And so Charles Manson sewed together several disjointed ideas and began to construct a tale so incredible and so fanciful that it could hold the attention of even the most drugenfeebled teenage mind. And the story of Helter Skelter was born. That Charles Manson's Helter Skelter story was around will not be disputed. That he used it to manipulate the young people around him is abundantly obvious."

"All we knew was a vague story about Helter Skelter, or revolution, or that these people were establishment people who should be hated. We weren't even told what would be happening, were simply told to go with Charles Watson and do what we were told." 

- Susan Atkins in The Myth of Helter Skelter.

Now the entire purpose of Susan's final book on the matter is to repudiate the Helter Skelter motive. She too, for self-serving purposes had changed her story for the umpteenth million time. But even when trying to argue against Helter Skelter, she had to acknowledge it. A pending Race War is what they were being preached to about. And then there is the physical evidence. Once again there is some physical evidence to back up the idea the murders were committed to ignite a WAR:



Its an interesting choice of words they chose to leave at the scenes. To me it seems that words like Rise, War, and Helter Skelter have a lot more to do with Helter Sketler and a Race War than they do to drugs, money, revenge, or robbery. You also have to remember that this book was Susan later on, at the end of her life, trying hard to blame the entire thing on Manson and sound responsible at the same time. She has changed her story so many times, that I think it is also fair to also consider her initial comments back at the time of the crimes. In her 1969 grand jury testimony she recalled the exact conversation Tex  had with Charlie immediately after returning to the ranch from the Tate house:

Q: Did Tex tell Manson in your presence what you and Tex and the two girls had done?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Tex tell Mr. Manson?

A: Basically, just what we had done. That it all happened perfectly. There was a lot of- it happened very fast- a lot of panic, that we were panicked, and he described it, " Boy it sure was Helter Skelter."

Q: Tex said this to Charlie?

A: Yes.


Above is a picture of a door taken from an entryway at Spahn Ranch. It was taken into evidence as proof to the existence of the Helter Skelter Phenomena at Spahn Ranch. Physical evidence to support the testimonial evidence. Before I move on let me point out two more things Tex said in his book - "Will You Die For Me" that goes along with what Susan said in her Grand Jury Testimony above.

"When word of the arrest got to the family, Charlie disappeared  for a couple of days up to Big sur, something very unusual for him. When he got back he called us all together. It was the afternoon of August 8, 1969, and his message was simple. " Now is the time for Helter Skelter"

Then when talking about speaking with Charlie after getting back to the ranch after the Tate murders that same night:

"Okay, he said gently. "Go to sleep and don't tell anyone." As the girls wandered off, he called me back. "Was it really Helter Skelter?"  He asked. "Yeah it sure was Helter Skelter."

So you have Tex saying that the day of the murder he was told it was time for Helter Skelter, and then Tex saying that night after the murder that he told Charlie it was Helter Skelter. Susan backs up the second part independently. Although, as always with Susan, who knows? She told a grand jury she heard Tex tell Charlie "Boy it sure was Helter Skelter", and in Tex's recollection of the same conversation- Susan was no longer around. However, Susan's version was told right after the crimes and Tex wrote his many years later. It seems reasonable that Susan overheard them as the conversation was remembered so similarly, and as Tex's version of the conversation with Charlie came out second. It would have been really hard back in 1969 for Susan to guess almost identically what Tex was going to say he said to Charlie on that night all those years later. 



Lets talk about the Labiancas for a second.

The hardest part for most TLB Scholars seems to always have been tying a motive to both crimes. There are a plethora of motive options for the Tate murders, and I have explored all of them. Figuring out where the Labiancas fit in, has always been much harder. Scholars and researchers have tried looking into their kids, their kids relationships, their business', their hobbies, private lives, potential mob connections, drug involvments. Nothing has stuck. Nothing that you can put a finger on to explain why they were killed that night that would tie the Labiancas to Tate...

EXCEPT THE BLOODY WORDS LEFT ON THE REFRIGERATOR!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on people. What would connect the two houses? The words written on the walls and appliances in the residents blood doesn't ring any alarm bells? The words left behind at both houses have a common theme. And it ain't drugs or money. We are not playing a trivia game here. The obvious answer is not always a trick one. There are important things both crime scenes those two nights have in common. The main participants, the style of the slaughter and the bloody messages they left when they were done. I think the words were intended to leave a message, and the messages were the same at the Tate and Labianca houses. Rise, Pig, War, and Helter Skelter. These words just may have been the key connection between the two crimes. In fact you can throw Hinman in as well. Words that support the idea that the Family was under the impression there was a revolution coming down fast...

Presiding commissioner Roberts:  "Why was that?"

Inmate Van Houten:  " We were stealing Dune Buggies in order to convert them to Desert Vehicles for the revolution."

Then later Leslie says:

Inmate Van Houten: " But prior to the murders, he began to say that it looked like the blacks weren't going to start the revolution, that we would have to. And that's when he seriously started talking about us killing people."

- Leslie Van Houten Parole Hearing 9/6/2017


Here is more from another of the actual Killers:


Deputy Commissioner Lam: "So did Manson do anything to prepare you for this first set of murders, other than what you said already indoctrinating you with his philosophy?"

Inmate Krenwinkle: "No. I mean, the only preparation is yeah, exactly the ideology. Making me just, us and them philosophy and this war he was creating, and this God-like figure that he created for himself. No- that was all his bit. and nobody ever said no."

And:

Deputy Commissioner Lam: " OK. And During these meetings did he teach you about the race war?"

Inmate Krenwinkle: "Yes."

Finally for this segment:

Inmate Krenwinkle: "Tex. I went out and stole Dune buggies with Tex."

Deputy Commissioner Lam: "And what were those dune buggies for?"

Inmate Krnewinkle: "To go out to the desert. That was part of his philosophy, that we would live in the desert."

- Patricia Krenwinkle  Parole Hearing December 29, 2016



Let's take a look at another exchange LULU had in that parole hearing....

Inmate Van Houten:  " This was the 9'th."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "OK"

Inmate Van Houten: "And so the next morning, I saw Pat outside of a trailer, and she said that Helter Skelter had started."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "And what did that mean?"

Inmate Van Houten: "It meant that people had been murdered."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "What did the whole Helter Skelter thing mean to that group? What- when someone said Helter Skelter to that group- what did it mean?"

Inmate Van Houten: "Revolution and chaos."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: " So revolution and chaos had started?"

Inmate Van Houten: "Yeah."

Then just a few questions later she adds this:

Inmate Van Houten: "It bothered me, but again, you know, I never questioned why they were selected or why it happened. But I knew that because Pay had committed herself and early on in my time at the ranch, Manson had told me to stay very close to Pat, I knew that I wanted to go and commit to that cause too. I believed in it, and I wanted to go."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "Alright."


So there is Leslie telling you in her own words, not even 5 years ago, why she personally was involved. She did not go to get Bobby out of jail, to rob anyone, for revenge, or over drugs. Now my question to all of you who argue so strongly that Leslie should get out of jail would be this: Leslie said this 4 years ago. She is older and wiser, and clear minded. She has become a responsible older woman who takes responsibility for her crimes and is showing true remorse. If we are to take her word for that, do we not take her word in all of it? If she is being honest, then we have to accept what she is saying as truthful right? Well, Leslie is saying that she went out to kill the Labianca's in the name of Helter Skelter. It is really as simple as that. She does point out one of the always present unanswered questions. Why the Labianca's were selected? But she doesn't really leave much room for doubt as to why she helped kill them once they were. Again, it kinda goes back to the which "Why" you are trying to solve? Did Charlie have some personal, or specific reason for picking those houses? If the people who actually killed the victims inside those houses did not know, and so went in the name of Helter Skelter does it matter? 



Inmate Krenwinkle: "All right. My personal feeling and I believe that it, of course, it could never be repeated. I don't think anything like that could ever happen again. But the situation that developed into that situation was something of a kind of  - well it was like two years of alienating myself  from any- its hard to find words - thought patterns or a certain way of living, certain mores, certain feelings that are instilled in someone probably from the day they are born. Those certain things through the process of drugs, through the process of having someone who - like - alright, to bring up Charlie, he is someone whose opinion, or I guess, would be his opinion or direction that I would accept as being totally correct. I would follow that. Now, what happens is, when you get more than - when you don't have anyone to say that's not happening and you have more people doing the same thing, more people saying ok, that's correct, then you pick it up and you emulate it. It was like taking one, I don't know. It was like making popcorn balls or something. You start and you build. And each time, there is nothing that comes and breaks it apart. There was never any wedge that stopped it. And each thing reflected upon the other, keeping that whole together."

Patricia Krenwinkle Parole hearing July 17, 1978


I think that by 1978, Pat's head was starting to clear up and she was trying to explain how she could fall for a story so stupid. Pat has decided to keep it simple since then lol. You will notice that Pat has been amazingly consistent over all the years as to why she went along:

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 1978: " I was in taking care of the children at the time -at - when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie."

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 2004: "I participated because Mr. Manson came into a trailer where I was taking care of the children and told me to come out to come to the ranch. When I got to the front of the ranch there was a car and Mr. Watson was there and Miss Atkins was there and Miss Kasabian was there, and Mr. Manson told me to go with them and do whatever Tex Said."

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 2016 "And Manson said, go with Tex and there was Susan and myself and Linda Kasabian and Tex. And he told us to get into a car and go with Tex."





Bugs: "The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said "Now is the time for Helter Skelter", were you at the ranch that night?"

Linda: "Yes."

Bugs: "Was this the evening of August 8, 1969?"

Linda: "I believe so."

Bugs: "What took place, that evening Linda, at the ranch?"

Linda: "I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me at this one point and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Sphan's house, and he told me that- "

Bugs: "He told you what?"

Linda: "He told me to go get a change of clothing, a knife, and my drivers license."

Bugs: Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on, or to bring an additional change of clothing?"

Linda: "To bring an additional."

Bugs: "To bring an additional change of clothing?"

Linda: "Yes"

From Linda Kasabian Testimony at Manson Trial

So now we have heard from all of the actual people who were involved in the killings. I could make this post three times longer going on and on with quotes from other members of the Family about Charlie preaching Helter Skelter. I will not use those here today. I will not use any outside sources of any kind. No rumors, second hand stories, or legends. I am only using the exact words of the people who participated directly and mostly collaborated by supporting testimony from other direct participants - with examples of physical evidence to back the testimonial evidence. You just cannot do that for any other motive. And every person who participated said the same thing. Charlie ordered these crimes. I think there can be very little doubt about that part. Which eliminates some of the other nonsensical motives out there, and it also brings us back to the real question and purpose of this post. The unanswered question of WHY? And that brings me back to my question of which WHY are we trying to answer? I promised to give my final answer to motive, so I will do that now. I think there are multiple answers, depending on who we are talking about and which WHY you want answered. I will start with why I think the killer's went along with the murders:

I think that Tex was a Charlie "Wanna-be", and went because Charlie picked him and he wanted to please Charlie. I think Tex used Helter Skelter as an excuse at the time to justify it to himself, and to sound like he was a leader to the others.

I think Susan went because she was an attention whore and this was a big deal. God forbid something big go down and she not be part of it. I think she may have spouted the HS lines from time to time to impress others, but I doubt she seriously cared much about anything other than her own best interests at any given time.  I am sure she made sure she was the loudest voice in the group about Helter Skelter when it came up, as I am sure she was one of the loudest about any subject that came up. As long as eyes were on Susan, I think Susan would say anything.

I think Pat was a true believer in Charlie and would have gone for any reason he gave. Due to the fact that she has never given any reason outside of the pending race war, I believe she went along with that as the motivation at the time, although again- she primarily went simply because she was told to.

I think Leslie went along to "belong". I think she was another one who would have done almost anything to not be left out of anything the others would be talking about so much. I believe that Leslie thought she should believe, and therefore felt the need to prove she believed. I doubt she really believed as much as she wanted people to think she believed.

I think Helter Skelter mattered not nearly as much for Linda. I believe Linda was not around long enough to buy in as much as the others, but also not around long enough to object when being asked to go along either. I think she was the least involved in many ways, which is why it is funny to me when people try to make up alternative motives based on her.

That is WHY I think these people participated individually. I think Tex and Pat are stone cold killers and Leslie and Susan were more reluctant ones. I don't think Linda was capable of killing in that manner at all. I think they all went in the general name of Helter Skelter although I think they all had varying degrees of  enthusiasm for it, and different limits on how far they ultimately could go in the name of it. I have not found any significant evidence that Tex. Pat, Susan, Leslie, or Linda thought they were being sent there for any other reason than to ignite the race war on  that first night. I take them at there word when they all say Charlie sent them there and why. They have all been consistent and uniform about that part of the story if nothing else.

And the brings us to the other WHY. Because if you don't believe the actual killers when they tell you WHY, you must believe there is another WHY. WHY did Charlie really send them if it were not to ignite his race war? WHY were those victims chosen, if not for simply being rich pigs? If Charlie used Helter Skelter to manipulate these people to kill for his own personal reasons- it is going to be really hard at this point to find out what those reasons are. It is my opinion you won't. Charlie is gone. Any secrets Charlie had went with him. Bug's is gone. If Bug's exaggerated the Helter Skelter motive to include Charlie at the expense of any real motive possibilities he may have known of, they too, went with him. The Killers have all told their stories over and over. What do they gain in changing those stories at this point? To admit they have still been lying these last 30 years would hardly be the best way to get out of jail for the last years of their lives. Have any of the dozen books or documentaries that still come out shed any new light? I am sorry to say that we know almost all we are ever going to know about this story. It is a fantastic story as it is. I will never understand the need for so many people to make it even more complicated, and strange than it already is. And look, for a little while I was no different. For 15 years, I have read so many websites, books, testimony/trial transcripts you would think I was obsessed. For hours and hours I have watched videos, listened to parole hearings, and interviews. All trying to understand why the hell this happened. I kpet telling myself it couldn't be Helter Skelter. It has to be something else. So I kept looking into every avenue. I chased down every story I heard or rumor I read. I went to all the locations in person to try and get a feel for myself. I met some of the people loyal to Manson, and considered their versions of the events. All with an open mind. And while I am no scholar or professional researcher I feel I have earned the right to my opinion. It is my opinion we are stuck with Helter Skelter lol. That is just the way it will be. There is just enough real evidence to make Helter Skelter credible, and just quite not enough evidence of any other motive to disprove it. Many people better than myself have tried to prove other motives, and we all always end up at the same intersection. Accept the answers we have found, or keep asking the same questions in different ways. If you chose the latter, my friends, I fear you must prepare yourself to live with frustration. I think the last remaining questions about the TLB motives are always, unfortunately, going to end up unanswered questions...

Now I leave all of you with a question:

A person who lives in the neighborhood where I walk my dog is the leader of a gang of thugs. They do whatever he says. One day he gets pissed off my dog keeps pooping on his lawn. He warns me, but I just laugh him off. So decides to have his boys kick my ass really bad. He is not sure they will go that far over dog poop, so he makes up a story that I raped his sister. He tells the gang members that and they buy it. One day I am walking home with my dog and they jump me and beat me so bad I pass away in the hospital 3 days later. As they first confront me they are screaming at me about rape. the night of the attack the Gang leader who masterminded my attack had a freak heart attack and died. Someone witnessed the attack and the people who beat me are caught. When they are questioned by police they all say they killed me because I raped the leaders sister. When they go to court they repeat this in front of my family in friends. At the scene where they beat me they wrote rapist on the street next to where my body was laying. I died thinking I was killed because people thought I raped someone. The people who killed me did so because they thought I raped someone. My family and friends live the rest of their lives thinking I was killed because someone thought I raped someone, all this even though it is later proven I never committed the rape.

What was the motive for me being murdered? 



-Your Favorite Saint






83 comments:

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

Good rave, Saint (as always) but just a couple of points…

“There is no evidence that substantial money or drugs were missing or gained.”

Yeah but that’s kinda inherent in the nature of a successful drug rip-off, isn’t it?

And…

“Helter Skelter is etched in history and, at this point some 50 years later, it is going to stay that way forever.”

I dunno, Saint... I dunno. In the years since the Bug shuffled off the ol’ mortal coil, there’s been (at least) a couple of “new” documentaries made about the case. For the first time ever, these documentaries examine other possible motives. Undoubtedly, they come to no firm conclusion as to what actually was driving the murders but they all consider the possibility that Helter Skelter is at best an unlikely motive and take a more nuanced look at it all. This is a major change after fifty years of Bug being wheeled out at every opportunity to repeat his best-selling blag… and this being accepted as the definitive explanation. Of course, now they trot Steven Kay out to preach the party line but I dunno… he doesn’t quite pull it off the way the Bug could. For my money, he lacks the gravitas… always a bridesmaid, never the bride, as it were. :-) I kinda suspect this will continue as time marches on.

I think you’re probably right about nothing new ever surfacing. But (I.M.O.) eventually the conventional wisdom about the case will morph into what most of us have always felt. It was a veritable cluster fuck of motives and madness. I still reckon Beausoleil summed it up best when he said something to the effect of “Helter Skelter? That’s like saying this is what happens when you take acid & listen to the Beatles”. There were a lot of people that would buy that 50 years ago… less so, now… and even more “less so” in the future.

I like your last paragraph a lot.

SixtiesRockRules! said...

The only important takeaway from this entire sordid subject amounts to: "virtually everything that the mainstream media outlets have told us about this case is utter bullshit". In my opinion, that's the perspective anybody with any intelligence should take regarding ANY topic. None of us will ever know why charlie sent his associates to murder those individuals. He took his motive(s) to the grave. Truthfully, this subject has been done to death;there's really nothing more of significance to learn about it. It might really be time to seriously examine the reasons for our own morbid fascination with this case and, maybe just maybe, decide that perhaps we've all spent time on this matter that could have been much better spent elsewhere.

Gene Aquamarine said...

As far as "all the secrets dying with Charlie" you might very well be correct. However, I'm still hoping that someday in the future the Tex Watson interview tapes that were recorded in Texas right after he was arrested just might have some new information for scholars to consider.

gina said...

I believe that the killers believed that HS was coming down because Charlie told them that and that is why they killed. What I have always wondered: Did Charlie really believe that or did he use it as a way to get them to commit the murders just to prove he could? We'll never know...but I absolutely believe that the killers believed HS.

Jay said...

Interesting article. There are so many different takes on the case, truths and half-truths, that I believe a 100% this is what happened and why explanation will never be possible.
Almost everyone involved, on every side of it, has at some point made self-serving statements or omissions.
I agree with the statement about Tex and Katie being stone killers. When I first read Helter Skelter about 35 years ago, Sadie was the one that I saw as the scariest, for lack of a better word. After going through her books, reading all of the other books to cone out, and watching all of the new material released, my opinion of her is somewhat changed.
I do believe she participated, but to what degree is questionable. Katie, frankly, gives me chills now. I picture her chasing Folger with an upraised knife across the lawn. Sadie and Leslie I think had to be kind of nudged into doing what they did. Tex and Katie were definitely the main butchers.
For what it is worth, I lean towards a blend of Helter Skelter as combined with perhaps a more mundane motive. There had to be some kind of reasoning behind picking the two houses. Yes, I know there was some connection, with Manson having either been there, or in the vicinity of them. But he went to a lot of places.
Lots of compelling arguments out there, which is why we are still talking about it.

Jay said...

Interesting article. There are so many different takes on the case, truths and half-truths, that I believe a 100% this is what happened and why explanation will never be possible.
Almost everyone involved, on every side of it, has at some point made self-serving statements or omissions.
I agree with the statement about Tex and Katie being stone killers. When I first read Helter Skelter about 35 years ago, Sadie was the one that I saw as the scariest, for lack of a better word. After going through her books, reading all of the other books to cone out, and watching all of the new material released, my opinion of her is somewhat changed.
I do believe she participated, but to what degree is questionable. Katie, frankly, gives me chills now. I picture her chasing Folger with an upraised knife across the lawn. Sadie and Leslie I think had to be kind of nudged into doing what they did. Tex and Katie were definitely the main butchers.
For what it is worth, I lean towards a blend of Helter Skelter as combined with perhaps a more mundane motive. There had to be some kind of reasoning behind picking the two houses. Yes, I know there was some connection, with Manson having either been there, or in the vicinity of them. But he went to a lot of places.
Lots of compelling arguments out there, which is why we are still talking about it.

Torque said...

Aside from many of the girls in the Family--who arguably were already on their way to a hard life with drugs, etc before they met Manson--Watson(often labeled the chief killer)was arguably a square, who more or less stumbled into trying drugs while attending college. He migrates to California for his senior year, then quit college, got turned onto Dean and Charlie, then subsequently started dealing drugs.

I don't really detect a chip on the shoulder, as it were, of Watson, when he arrived in L.A. in the summer of 1967, or at any time during his sojourn with the Family thru the summer of 1969. His incubation from jock, college boy, and small town good guy to drug dealer, and ultimately murderer, is a strange evolution indeed.

Herein for me has always been a period in the life of Tex which invites further study. He willfully participates in multiple murders, while always acting the "nice guy," according to many in the Family. Its tempting to think that Charlie could have identified a trait in Tex, however latent, and exploited it for his motive, couched as it may be in HS. I would also agree that a full disclosure of the contents of the Tex Tapes may offer more insight into this, and to a more clear understanding of motive.

Vera Dreiser said...

It's all right in front of your eyes, fuckers. Just ask Quentin, fat porky's scariest monster:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQrs1q4AgVi/

Zeke002 said...

Pretentious pompous bore offers up yet another high school book report and claims it as his final word for the 18th time.
The Cliff Clavin of the TLB community.

D. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gene Aquamarine said...

Manson had an ongoing connection to Scientology while he was in prison. Paul Watkins was eager to talk about this in the vintage TV interview that was posted here awhile back, but Paul was largely deterred (or detoured). Manson allegedly spent many hours being audited by a trained Scientologist in prison who was most likely using a version of the Personality Assessment System (PAS) developed by CIA behavioral psychologist John Gittinger.

The PAS was designed specifically for determining how to compromise a person and take advantage of them. It can be used to assess peoples' aptitudes, to help select and manage personnel , and as a recruitment aid. An extensive database of test scores has been compiled over the years so that the system is able to chart all aspects of human behavior and individuals can be profiled and categorized into groups based on matching their known personality characteristics to the accumulated test scores. The information derived from these comparisons help define categories that include things like what a persons greatest fears are , what their motivations are, if they're easily hypnotized, if they have criminal/sexual deviancies, if they can be influenced, etc.

This touches on what Torque mentioned earlier in thread, that Tex may have been "identified" by Manson (or someone else?) as a personality type that could be useful and amenable to coercion for TLB. Manson also wrote for The Process Church's propaganda magazine while he was roaming around SF, The Process was a shadowy group started by ex-Scientologists and the group had ongoing parapolitical escapades in Europe, Central America and the US.

Saint didn't mention Mary Brunner in the post, I've always felt there might be 'something about Mary' that needs to be better understood to help flesh out the TLB picture. I'm not sure yet if I totally believe the established "meet cute" story about how Charlie met Mary, on a sunny day, under a tree with a dog, while Brunner was a librarian at Berkeley. Mother Mary instantly provided a crucial "Mother" role for the other Family recruits, which may have been significant, because without Mary along for the ride at first, it would have been just Charlie as another horny lone wolf "Dad".

Mary and Tex are two of the more interesting Family members to me in the sense that they seem to have embraced Manson's ideology initially as some kind of escape from their relatively boring lives in mid-60s America. Torque gives a nice outline above, how Watson incubates from college jock and 'small-town good guy' to depraved killer in no time flat after going to California, and dealing and taking drugs. It feels like Tex somehow plays the role of the Establishment's cautionary tale of how embracing the 'hippie lifestyle' drug use, and communal living will lead a 'good person' to ruin.

Dan S said...

Domestic abuse is a crime that's not money related

Dan S said...

Cue the GIF of a dead horse being beaten.... Diarrhea brain meets diarrhea mouth (Tex and Manson respectively) with a little dash of speed and you get some dumb ass shit that makes no sense. Stupid stupid stupid not logical master criminal enterprise.
As for Charlie finding his perfect stooges he had a system of treating people like he wanted and if they stuck around they were in, so they pretty much weeded themselves out. Tex himself was not a favored mansonoid (e.g. had to sleep in the outlaw shacks) and his need to impress his frat leader is what i believe was the motivator for Cielo.

Dan S said...

The motive for waverly would be Charlie having to put up when he should have shut up after tex et al did the stupid shit his diarrhea mouth had been pooping all over the place. He had to show em how it's done. Note if he had really wanted helter skelter they would've kept it up and now that they knew how to do it they could've hit more houses.
Is the death drive for real? That seems like such a hapless day it really proves there was no plan at all.

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

D. said...
"Even Catherine Share said she never heard Charlie refer to the race war as Helter Skelter."

Huh?

https://www.lamag.com/longform/manson-an-oral-history

Gypsy Share: "Charlie talked about Helter Skelter every night ... I think Charlie really believed his own hype."

starviego said...

St. said:
"I am sorry to say that we know almost all we are ever going to know about this story."

You could have said that two years ago, and then Tom O'Neill's book came out, and now we know a lot more. Keep the faith!

Doug said...

This caught my attention today as an interesting and, odd Manson/Rosemary LaBianca related (blood related even) bizarro disappearance...

Las Vegas does have some semi-mysterious MF lore connections that have never really come in focus.

Although this case (disappearance of Ruby Estelle Doman) is obviously the fodder of an impaired mind and, is likely a bunch of coinkydinks...there is enough actual fat of truth on this bone to wonder why someone like O'Neill or Shreck has never mentioned it!

I mean as kookoo as this likely IS...there are verified blood relations within this story.

Check out the disappearance of Ruby Estelle Dorman from 0:10-approx 4:45 of this fairly popular true crime mystery blog...weirdness indeed...


https://youtu.be/LApX1L_uPWo

Cheers

David said...

Nice post, Saint.

By the way, in response to that comment up there by that clown, I was probably the Cliff Clavin of TLB, not you.

I think many don’t understand that actual ability of Bugliosi (VB) as an attorney.

Conspiracy to commit murder is one of only a few ways to convict someone of murder who doesn’t actually commit a murder. It is a very ‘hard’ crime to prove. Another is (well was) felony murder and Manson could be convicted of that night number two, unless you argue he wasn’t there.

But part of what VB faced was the need to convict for the celebrity deaths (night #1). Frankly, the LaBiancas were collateral to the point.

So, why Helter Skelter?

Bugliosi needs an agreement to commit murder. And needs Manson to be part of the specific agreement. There is no contract, no taped phone calls and no document.

He has two comments by Manson:

“Now is the time for Helter Skelter”.

and

“Go with Tex and do what he tells you to do”.

The second statement is ‘action’. It activates the conspiracy.

The first is the key for VB. The first is the conspiracy.

In order for there to be a conspiracy there has to be an agreement. That means “now is the time for Helter Skelter” has to really mean, legally, “now is the time to go commit murder”.

Much of the witness testimony that focuses on Manson’s control is secondary to this. But the witnesses that testify to the meaning of Helter Skelter are used by VB to convert the words to a conspiracy.

Aside: VB should have taught a class in law school. His approach is, actually, brilliant.

Manson told everyone who would listen about HS: Stephanie Schram’s sister, Jakobson, random people at a diner in lower Topanga. It was his schtick. It is why we have to go to the desert. So, the key, for VB, became make Helter Skelter mean: murder. That is where testimony like ‘someone needs to show Blackie how to do it’ comes into play.

It was teed up for VB by Manson. Everyone heard it, believed it and embraced it.

If Helter Skelter means “commit murder” then Manson is the ringleader, the author of the contract to commit murder. Then, it doesn’t matter if the ‘real’ motive is something else. VB has Manson, which was his goal.

Manson handed VB the motive on a silver platter. It works because Manson preached it and his followers believed it.

The question to me is how we define the motive?

Is it Manson’s motive or the actual killer’s motive?

I think there is a difference there and ‘yes’ I believe more than one killer (all but one, including Kasabian) thought the answer to that question was HS and that is why VB won.

Was HS the reason Manson decided to kill people?

I think the reason, the 'why' is more likely simply the collapse of a millennial movement and a crisis experienced by the leadership of that movement in almost textbook terms complete with other factors that added stress to the situation. That is more responsible, more 'why' than any real belief by Manson that he could pull off his BS.

The violence then turned outward when it could have turned inward and saved innocent lives.

IMO

Dan S said...

Yes!

I don't really believe Charlie ordered tex to kill specifically at cielo but he irresponsibly created the monsters and desire. Waverly was felony murder for sure

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

Col, get on this guy: he used the wrong"there"!

David said...

We love conspiracies these days, don’t we.

Monica said...

Nice post, Saint. Sums up my feelings exactly. Especially this: "Ever notice something about the "Get a brother out of jail" motive supporters? They are all the people who stayed loyal to Charlie after the crimes. The people who still associate and identify with The Family. Is it because this is the motive that gives Charlie the least amount of culpability?"

Charlie may have had other motives, but the killers believed they were making a statement: Helter Skelter. Later, Susan said it was because Charlie thought Bobby would roll...but at the time of the murders, I doubt that crossed her mind. I believe they really thought they were at war. Soldiers for a cause.

You made a lot of interesting and good points, Saint.

Dan S said...

Tex is a shithead. What was he thinking when he left what'sherface at Lotsapoppa's for collateral? How was that gonna work out? What was he thinking when he stole 17 typewriters for a frat initiation scavenger hunt (he only needed 2)? The motive is he's an idiot trying to impress his elders.

As for all the participants in Cielo attesting to Charlie sending them to kill, it must be noted that they didn't say Charlie sent them to kill; they said they were all sent to do what Tex told them to do. It must be noted that Tex was not part of Charlie's inner circle. It must be noted that people this stoned float through life with no real plans. People on speed dying for approval will go above and beyond overkill.

I actually believe Tex saw his victims as blobs, worthless pigs. Charlie did the give up existence, kill me kill you, come to now schtick so much, it was programmed into the children that death isn't so signifcant, killing not such a big deal, really just an extension of a creepy crawly (have we decided if creepy crawlies were for real?).

I think they may have been taking the piss as much or more than they thought they were soldiers. Just like they acted in court. Having a great time.

starviego said...

Dan S said...
"As for all the participants in Cielo attesting to Charlie sending them to kill, it must be noted that they didn't say Charlie sent them to kill; they said they were all sent to do what Tex told them to do."

Don't believe that for a second. They all knew what they were going to do even before they got in the car, including Kasabian.

grimtraveller said...

brownrice said...

“There is no evidence that substantial money or drugs were missing or gained.”
Yeah but that’s kinda inherent in the nature of a successful drug rip-off, isn’t it?


It is....but on the other hand, one of the fascinating things about this case was the propensity of people to shoot off their mouths. The drug dealers were pretty forthcoming about their trade and movements and the Family in particular just couldn't shut up. And from none of them was there even the slightest hint or whiff of anything to do with any kind of drug rip off...until the penalty phase of the trial.
In a way, your point opens up an interesting door. Sure, there's no evidence of any kind of drug rip off and there's no evidence that was no drug rip off. So why does the point even come up ? It cannot be proven one way or the other, but not one of the people involved has ever seriously mooted it, outside of the one event where it is well known everyone was lying their blaggers off. The important question to ask is, who mooted it in the first place, what have they said subsequently and why was it mooted in the first place ?
What evidence is there that Tex ripped off Lotsapoppa or Linda ripped off Charles Melton ?
But we never doubt either event. Because we are content to take their word for it.

there’s been (at least) a couple of “new” documentaries made about the case. For the first time ever, these documentaries examine other possible motives

They do, but they are really just an extension of what has been going down on the blogs since George and the Col and what had begun in the kind of books Michael White and Nick Shreck were writing in the late 90s. And every one of them can be demonstrably ripped to shreds ~ most notably by Charlie !

Steven Kay.....he lacks the gravitas...always a bridesmaid, never the bride, as it were

Yep, that's Stephen Kay. He's always presented as a gent, but I think he's something of a wolf in sheep's clothing, though a very kindly wolf. There's obviously been a long time animosity between Vincent T and him and it has been batting back and forth for a while. I've noticed since VB's death, Mr Kay doesn't hesitate to stick it to Vincent, but in that oh so nice way of his. He's done it in documentaries, he does it in Uncle Tom's book....whereas before, he'd be a bit slaggish, but respectfully so, so that he wouldn't get sued.

I still reckon Beausoleil summed it up best when he said something to the effect of “Helter Skelter? That’s like saying this is what happens when you take acid & listen to the Beatles”

Here's a definition of irony ~ the first time I'm aware of that particular duet being trotted out together comes from....Charles Manson ! Bugliosi claims in his book that Charlie says these were to blame for the murders. And during the trial, Manson was very loud and vocal about what acid can do and the music of the day telling young people to rise up and kill.

Dan S said...

They did bring a lot of rope...

grimtraveller said...

Unknown said...

The thing is, if whatever motivation for the killings was clear~cut and beyond doubt, we wouldn't be here all these years later still discussing and arguing about it. There wouldn't be as many books, films and documentaries to keep us engrossed

Not really. Sometimes, it is as simple as people simply not wanting to accept the result and the implications of that result and conclusion.
For some, to accept the result feels like acquiescing to the "unhip" who represent a world filled with ideals and principles that are seen to be outmoded.
Some have a problem, whether consciously or unconsciously, with issues pertaining to race and as a default move will deny anything that has any element of White culpability in the ill~treatment of Black people down the ages and HS is an all too present reminder of that.
Some have issues with what they see as a Republican led attack on the counterculture and many of the issues of freedom that went with that.
There are some that just cannot believe as a reality that any group could commit murder for the reasons given or have a real problem believing that the situation as presented could honestly exist, even though there are loads of parallels in everyday life all over the world.
There are actually so many reasons why people may not accept the result and conclusion as is. They're pretty much all worthy of examination and great debate.
"Clear-cut" is in many ways a misnomer. Few things are universally clear-cut. World War 2 is not clear-cut. The death of JFK is not clear-cut. The slave trade and colonialism are not clear-cut. Climate change is not clear-cut. Justice is not clear-cut.
There is virtually nothing that cannot be argued at least two ways.

Speculator said...

Grim - the motive(s) for the murders are far from clear cut and there is no conclusion only opinion. And my opinion is that Manson copied an ideology from other cults around at that time pure and simply to gain control over numerous susceptible individuals. He was a street wise guy and took full advantage of those he knew were easy to exploit. It brought him free sex on tap with a multitude of young ladies as well as drugs, near stardom and his own little empire. Did he really believe his preaching himself - I very much doubt it. He probably had a chuckle to himself every night at how green his “family” were and was probably curious as to just how far he could push them. After years of being what he saw as shit on by society can you imagine the power trip he must’ve been on. HS was his vehicle to get the gullible to do his bidding but I don’t at all believe that it was in and of itself a motive for the murders. But it was the lever that helped get the murders done. Bugliosi was similarly opportunistic in using HS as a vehicle to get the crime of the century, create the criminal of the century and of course make him a small fortune in book sales. If you’ve not already done so I’d invite you to read O’Neill’s book and then see if you can be so confident in the HS motive. Whatever you think of O’Neill he has some pretty thought provoking stuff in that book.

Dan S said...

A pimp turned on to Scientology to control people and the rehash of fountain of the world apocalypse

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

the motive(s) for the murders are far from clear cut

For you, maybe.

there is no conclusion only opinion

My opinion is that it's pretty clear-cut, and that's the conclusion I've drawn !

Manson copied an ideology from other cults around at that time pure and simply to gain control over numerous susceptible individuals

Whether he actively initially set out to do that is debatable, but it was the net effect.

He was a street wise guy and took full advantage of those he knew were easy to exploit

Agreed. He thought like a jailbird.

It brought him free sex on tap with a multitude of young ladies as well as drugs, near stardom and his own little empire

With the exception of the empire, he had all of that before he was getting it on with Mary. Those were the times.

Did he really believe his preaching himself - I very much doubt it

You may doubt it. That 1970 Rolling Stone interview when the man was awaiting trial with the possible outcome of a death sentence looming large tells me otherwise.

He probably had a chuckle to himself every night at how green his “family” were and was probably curious as to just how far he could push them

I concur. As a good opportunist, used to dealing with maniacs and likewise in jail, young people a decade younger than him and generally not schooled in the art of criminal thinking would be chickfeed in his hands. I'd say it's almost inevitable that anyone in a position of power would at the very least be curious about how far that power can go and when you see women prepared to stick with you after you've beaten them or screwed their butts the first time you've met them or knowing you'll never be exclusive to them, well, let's just say that will tell you a lot.

After years of being what he saw as shit on by society can you imagine the power trip he must’ve been on

I agree. I reckon in his head, the Family was part of his revenge against society. Get the supposedly righteous to be just like him. And HS was revenge against everyone ~ parents, society, Blacks, the rich and/or succesful, liberals, conservatives, cops, women ¬> you name it !

HS was his vehicle to get the gullible to do his bidding but I don’t at all believe that it was in and of itself a motive for the murders

The gullible had been doing his bidding for a good year or more before HS appeared on the scene.
I've never believed it was the sole motive for murder. I think a hodgepodge of motivation was in there, most of which existed long before there was a HS. But HS played a crucial role as catalyst and jumping off point.

If you’ve not already done so I’d invite you to read O’Neill’s book and then see if you can be so confident in the HS motive

I've read Uncle Tom's book and commented on it a few times in various threads over the last year or so.
It actually strengthened my confidence in HS as a motive. But since I first appeared on TLB blogs back in 2015, I have been vocal about the fact that it was not the only motive and that the prosecution never presented it as the sole motive.

Whatever you think of O’Neill he has some pretty thought provoking stuff in that book

I couldn't agree more. There's lots of thought-provoking stuff there. But there is lots of thought- provoking stuff in Michael White's "Railroaded ~ The crucifixion of Charles Manson," Nick Shreck's "Myth & reality of an outlaw shaman" and George Stimson's "Goodbye, Helter Skelter."
They're all demonstrably flawed, too.

Peter said...

Hinman was the Rubicon. They thought he had the money, the one big score they needed, to get to the desert. Once they muffed that and Bobby was arrested it was in for a penny in for a pound.

It's possible that Manson intentionally didnt want to kill Melcher but to send him a message that he was sure he would understand. Nobody crosses Manson. Nobody is safe from Manson. He wanted Melcher and his friends to fear and respect him.

LaBianca was a random murder intended as a copycat of Tate murders so that,while Melcher would make the connection to Manson, the police would not.

Helter Skelter was the tool he used to keep the Family isolated, cohesive and in a constant state of "us vs. them." Classic cult tools.

I also agree with the theory that having created this monster, the temptation to release it on the world was to great to resist. The ultimate power, the ultimate sacrifice. "Will you die for me"?

I absolutely do not believe in the drug burn theory or the get a brother out of jail theory. Both are after the fact justifications.

Whether Manson actually believed in Helter Skelter himself. My gut tells me he dis not. I think he believed in his ability to create a convincing con, weaving together what he had learned from Scientology, Fountain of the World, the Book of Revelations, and the Beatles. He probably thought it was clever, and that he was something of a philosopher, and enjoyed the attention and reactions to his theory. But in the end, he was just interested in keeping the family together so he could get laid and paid without having to work.

Bobby said...

Your last paragraph is very likely. If Manson was delusional and believed helter skelter wouldn't he have gone down with the ship like other cult leaders.

starviego said...

Peter said...
"Whether Manson actually believed in Helter Skelter himself. My gut tells me he dis not."

Did Manson delusionally believe he was Jesus Christ reincarnated? If so, why is a delusional belief in HS such a great leap?

Bobby said...

Again, if he had believed himself the christ wouldn't he have been determined to martyrdom?

Speculator said...

Most everything Manson said was likely a con or intended to deflect/confuse/diminish/throw off balance whoever he was communicating with. As has been stated many times before it was a skill he acquired by necessity in his earlier life. In that respect he was a very intelligent guy and a great manipulator. Whether he said he was JC or the devil incarnate, why for a minute think he actually believed it himself. He said those things for impact and design rather than true belief imho.

D. said...

Just take a look at what some people were saying about the shooting of Bernard Crowe and the murder of Gary Hinman.

According to Dianne Lake, she "heard" that Charlie "shot a black leader to start the revolution". I believe Brooks Poston said something similar. Paul Watkins, who Bugliosi heavily used to build his case said Crowe was shot because he was "fucking little white girls".

But we know, it was all about Watson's botched drug burn.

When it comes to Hinman it was because he "wouldn't join the Family", he wouldn't play in Charlie's band, inheritance (which was really Charlie Melton, not Hinman). But....it was yet another dope related crime.

Why in the fuck should anyone believe Tate-LaBianca was Helter Skelter and bullshit about kick starting a revolution?

I don't even believe the bullshit that Charlie and the other involved really believed that Crowe was a Black Panther. I DO think Charlie feared reprisal. But I don't believe Charlie, Tex, Susan, Beausoleil or anyone else who spoke of it thought Crowe was a Panther. It was yet another smoke screen to keep those not involved, like the younger kids from knowing about the drug-related criminality taking place. I also think it was done in case it leaked out to police. If they believed Charlie and the gang shot a Black Panther, they might be more sympathetic. Also, since it couldn't be proven any Panther was shot, it was all hearsay. If it leaked that a black DRUG DEALER was shot, it could be linked to Spahn.


Secondly, I don't think Charlie himself was going around running his mouth to people like Dianne Lake about what was going on. Big mouth Susan who had a knack for shock value and bullshit was most likely telling the kids all sorts of shit.

Watson's book only has minor value because you get his story in dribs and drabs and if read between the lines, you see he was nothing more than a wannabe big time player in the LA drug trade. There was not a single time in his life in California where he wasn't dealing dope or teamed up with a fellow drug dealer.

Nobody can answer WHY Dennis Wilson would invite this uncharismatic goofball to live with him. Charlie, despite popular belief never lived with Dennis Wilson and even Watson said he would see him every now and then at the house. Why would Wilson ask him to live there when he wasn't even employed? To mow the lawn? Give me a break.





TabOrFresca said...

Thanks for the article St. You know you’ve done well when both David and Grim respond in your favor.

When you say “ Let's take one last look at the Helter Skelter motive and I will show you for the final time why I think it just might have been....”, I don’t believe it (final time). I look forward to you writing about the HS motive again.

Peter said...

There is no evidence Hinman was drug related other than after the fact Family testimony.

D. said...

Give me a break. So you think Charlie sent Beausoleil to Hinman's house to strong arm rob him despite the fact he knew all of them by name, face and exactly where they lived, thus could easily turn them all in? And after this supposed big robbery all that was took was two junk cars they scrambled to get rid of? One of which ended up with a close associate of Straight Satans? Who later despite being 1% became a bunch of snitches conviently as the case was developing? That they took those cars shows a desperation to not come back empty handed. Considering Charlie was buying brand new Dune Buggies in cash an there was an auto thief ring, clearly there was no desperate need for two junk cars they had to get rid of fast. In Watson's book he wrote they needed $800 for bail money for Mary Brunner. That's bullshit. The microbus was sold via Straight Satan's for $200. Deduct that from $1,000, the amount turned over for the Mescaline and what do you have?

The inheritance story was only later corroborated by Ella No Bailey in exchange for dropped charges and because they knew she and Bill Vance brought one of Hinman's vehicles back to the ranch when it was all said and done.

Of course Bobby would hide it during his trial when he was trying to deny any involvement and it was with Charlie's blessing too, as after the Tate trial he told Beausoleil to say whatever he had to as one of them out was better than two in.

David said...

Yes, it certainly would be bullshit if Watson said the motive for Hinman was that they needed $800 to get Brunner out of jail.

I also think it was $600.

Dan S said...

Hey, D, i don't think bobby got rid of Gary's car fast enough.....

grimtraveller said...

D. said...

it was with Charlie's blessing too, as after the Tate trial he told Beausoleil to say whatever he had to as one of them out was better than two in

You have an interesting and aggressive style, "D,"; you take this "how can anyone believe such bullshit" approach to things you don't agree with, almost in the hope that you can embarrass people into disbelief and denial.
But it doesn't work.
Much of what you spout is pure conjecture, very little, if any, fact that demonstrably stands up.
The above quote is a case in point. You really ought to examine the notion that Charles Manson, about to face trial for 7 murders and conspiracy to commit murder, something that could net him the death penalty, was quite happy for Bobby Beausoleil to finger him as Gary Hinman's killer so it would result in it being better for at least one of them being free ~ namely Bobby.
But if you desire to continue in such beliefs, well, no one's going to stop you in this day and age !

Bobby said...

if he had believed himself the christ wouldn't he have been determined to martyrdom?

LSD Christ conflation delusion never seems to work that way. But it really is not uncommon at all for people to believe that they are God or Jesus. John Lennon believed he was Christ and told the Beatles and their entourage this. It was almost immediately after this that he got together with Yoko, which is why initially the other Beatles didn't take his seeming obsession with her particularly seriously. They just thought it was more Lennonesque acidity.

grimtraveller said...

Although it does sometimes come out in the kind of persecution complex that John went on to exhibit.

D. said...

It's a fact that Charlie told Bobby to say whatever he had to say and blame "The Family" if he has to in his second trial. Charlie was already convicted and sentenced in Tate-Labianca. "One of us out is better than two of us in" was his exact words and something he repeated multiple times over the years.

Peter said...

Anything said by any of the participants after the fact isn't just questionable, it's presumptively a lie.

D. said...

Really? Generally what people say at trial is bullshit, because that's when it matters most. Or when writing a self serving book to gain public support for their parole. Bobby absolutely denied ever touching Hinman during the trial and blamed it all on Charlie. Charlie himself even said he killed Hinman. Susan Atkins said she killed Hinman at one point. Then for years after, Bobby denied Charlie had any involvement at all. It wasn't until Charlie admitted to cutting Hinman that Bobby felt it was OK to say he did. Then when Bobby came clean about the true circumstances of the incident, Charlie opened up about it. It's clear that is the truth too, because while Bobby has never had an issue with naming the Straight Satans, Charlie was always reluctant to name them. Which is typical of him. If it were a lie, he'd blur out their involvement rather than then just say Hinman owed Bobby.

But if that's your feelings, then just cozy up with your copy of Helter Skelter, drink your milk and walk your dog. If you are so content with believing Bugliosi's horror script, why do you even bother with this case?

Peter said...

"came clean about the true circumstances of the incident" You spelled "made up a bunch of bullshit about a drug deal" wrong.


As much as I don't believe that HS was not the end, but rather one of the means (as I said above). I believe much less that Gary was dealing mescaline. If he did, why wouldn't he just pay them back? I would think after Charlie cut off his ear he would be willing to make good. Why kill him ? Not a very good business model since he cant pay them if he's dead. Is he going to go to the police and tell them that the Family threatened him because he sold them some bad mescaline? If you can show me one piece of evidence that doesn't come from the mouth of a defendant to back up the claim, go for it.

SixtiesRockRules! said...

Gary hinman did not manufacture drugs in his spare time. Period. Does "D" stand for brian Davis? 😆

D. said...

Ah....and who said Bobby was sent by Manson to strong arm Hinman out of money? The same group of people you dismiss as liars and a 1% motorcycle club who happened to be named as being apart of the sale of Hinman's microbus. There is as much evidence for robbery as a drug burn. In fact, less. It's pure hearsay when it comes to the robbery and look at who told that tale. Kitty Lutensinger, who knew nothing of the drug related business at the ranch and who talked to DeCarlo, who most likely fed her that story to cover up him and his club's involvement. Al Springer made that clear, that DeCarlo and Kitty discussed it and the day Springer went to police just so happened to be the day she was testifying in Beausoleil's first trial.

Ella Jo was actually asked about Hinman selling mescaline on the stand. Which she said was true. Clearly Beusoleil's attorney knew the truth, but trials aren't about historical records.

Even Bugliosi in 1999 said Hinman was a source of drugs. When Sandy got busted with pills at Summit Trail, she named Hinman as the source. Who by the way and few people know, that it was Hinman who later turned up at Malibu Station to bail Charlie out. Which I believe is why Charlie suspected Hinman of being an informant.

Why Gary refused to pay them can only be speculated. Most likely the money was in the bank and half spent on the supplies needed to make the product (ah ha!). He DID sign over those two pieces of shit automobiles though. Two things the Spahn group didn't need....unless they HAD to come back with something to appease the Straight Satan

D. said...

Yeah, "SixtiesRockRules". Because somebody living in Topanga Canyon in 1969 manufacturing some psychedelics is so hard to believe. I don't think anyone even consider Mescaline and other psychedelics to be "narcotics".

Gary Hinman was unbelievably well known by all the hippies in the area. You really think it was above him to make mescaline or sell a little weed? So in your mind, he hung out with and let people like Bobby and the Spahn commune to live with him, but drugs were a no, no?

D. said...

What? You can't even string together a coherent sentence.

EVERYONE knew Gary Hinman. I've talked to several people from the Topanga Canyon area who backed this up. You can go to the Topanga Canyon: Before the Bulldozers FB group and find tons of credible stories.

Including Dennis Wilson, who was introduced to Charlie by him.

Peter said...

Well. If a bunch of randos on the internet say that Gary was unbelieveably well known to be a drug dealer by all the hippies in Topanga, it must be true.

Peter said...

The day Springer went to police just so happened to be the day she was testifying in Beausoleil's first trial.
Springer was interviewed on Nov. 12, 1969. Lutesinger testified on the 14th.

Most likely the money was in the bank and half spent on the supplies needed to make the product.
No drug making paraphernalia was found in Gary’s house.

The microbus was sold via Straight Satan's for $200.
The Microbus was given to Marcus Anderson and he sold it for $350.

Ella Jo was actually asked about Hinman selling mescaline on the stand. Which she said was true.
Pretty sure Ella did not testify at Beusoliel’s trial, she wasn’t interviewed by police until May 15, 1970. There was also no such testimony by her at the Manson Hinman trial.

Peter said...

It's pure hearsay when it comes to the robbery and look at who told that tale.

Kitty only testified that Bobby told her he was going to get some money from a “rich fag.” It was Ella Jo Bailey that testified to the inheritance/stocks & bonds motive at the Manson/Hinman trial on Aug. 12, 1971. And this testimony is corroborated by Brunner’s December 4, 1969 statement (made a year and a half earlier):

MS. BRUNNER: We came for money but by this time it was obvious he didn't have any.
SERGEANT WHITELEY: How much money?
MS. BRUNNER: Somebody said he had $30,000.
SERGEANT WHITELEY: Did you ever look for some money?
MS. BRUNNER: No, his money was in stock and bonds. We looked around but he didn't have any cash. We looked in his check book.

Dan S said...

The hinman murder is even more sickening hearing that rich fag comment. I thought bobby was his friend and erstwhile roommate.

starviego said...

LADA files Box 49 Grand Jury Proceeding in the murder of Hinman April 9, '70 and April 14, '70

pg51 LASO Whitely: There was $6 in Gary's checking account

ColScott said...

The current parole system requires you to accept the crime narrative you are convicted of. Leslie and Pat have to subscribe to the reality that was invented or never get released.

David said...

Col Scott’s comment: Bingo!!!!

Fayez Abedaziz said...

That's an interesting article and take there ST.
By the way is that for a street or a what?
Just kidding, I sometimes joke about some people's goofy names...ah, forget I said that.
That was fair of St. to point out that some of the gang, such as our P.H.D. candidates Sadie Susan and weird Pat, for example, probably/or did swallow that Heelter Skealter bull. (sounds like a bad spelling bee contest. Or a bad barn dance tune gone off key) How about Helter Skittles?
Though Charlie (life is good for two years and a half years, then I threw it all away) Maddox Manson, probably didn't. Or came to believe some of it. After all, he could point out to the riots, by blacks, in Detroit, Memphis, L.A. and so on as to the strife...as if he 'predicted' such events coming to fruition.
I generalize but what do you expect?
Now, walk with me into this nice, very nice, Ranch style house on Cielo here.
Nice sofa there, Voytek, what's up? Where are the drugs, where are the bundles of cash, know what I'm saying. By the way,what are you, a foreigner or something? Well, let's try the cabinets and the desk drawers. Nothing but nick nacks. Nothing in the bedrooms, no cocaine, hash, any pills to sell? No. maybe a small bag of pot? Big hairy deal.
What are you, good middle class citizens?
Wait, the sofa, with the the stars and stripes. Under the cushions, yeah!
Oh man, nothing. Just a place for something to fall into. Like a Buck knife. Or a Harmonica. You know, to fall between the cushions. Did you all know that John Lennon played the Harmonica in the song 'Lust Me do?' Er, Love Me Do, that is.
So? What happened? We go to Gary's living room, we look around and all we find is...a bag with green stuff in it. What's that Gary, fess up now, dammit.
Oh, herbs. What are you a vegetarian? What are those beads for? Oh, you meditate?
Like George, While My Guitar Gently Weeps (for millions more dollars) Harrison does?
No drugs. You're obviously a good man Gary. as opposed to nasty, ignorant Bobby the big dummy.
What do you say you killers? Did you all know any of the victims? No.
Did anyone say "drugs" or "drug money" or "rip-off the dinero from their drug dealing," over there at Cielo or at Wavely? No.
Who, dear Sadie, who said, "go and do what Tex says to do, cause that'll show Bobby wasn't the criminal low life that did the deed at Gary's?" Who? No one said a thing about that, but give some of 'em time, that sounds like they can then rationalize some of our and their bloody murders, dig?
If, if I say, y'all think that Charlie thought that a couple days of a murder spree was gonna have blacks or whites 'rise' up in numbers and...well, do what?
Lemme tell you something. He did not. Charlie was clever. It was a combo for Charlie.
That, he gets off on having some revenge taking, hoping that a benefit too, would be, Bobby having a defense, with those two crime scenes as diversions and I think that he knew that Mary and Sandy were arrested and that really pissed him off.
The use of a phone after an arrest in those days? A lot easier, more lax than it has been for some years, in the past couple decades anyway.
It's dark, where's Mary, where's Sandy?
Tex, go on. Sadie, Pat, Linda, go with Tex, do what he says. Revenge at Cielo, a follow up by True's house at some 'well off' people's house, more diversion from Hinman's, more revenge against some of society, some more money would be good and also...
let 'em get their hands dirty, these cute girls from middle class families and so, Charlie, "I'm not the only one that steals and attacks someone, once in a while, and what about what's been done to me?"
Well? Well, yeah, I see what you're saying brother Charlie. Ah, hey man, Can I hump Leslie tonight after dinner? Dig, brother? The year of '69.

D. said...

I can tell you that isn't an absolute 100% fact that Krenwinkel said she doesn't nor did she ever believe the motive was Helter Skelter in private. Although she never told, which she knows. She always maintained that as far as she knew, it was another creepy crawl (i.e. robbery/drug heist). She also said other bullshit in the same breath, like that Stephine Schram was the one who went to Cielo with Charlie later in the night. That's a lie, it was her and they weren't alone. Not that it means much, but I'll throw it out there and say that she claimed William Garretson wasn't on the property at all that night and speculated he might have been walking the dogs.

The "rich fag" comment holds no water and sounds something more like DeCarlo would say.

Beausoleil and all of them knew Hinman very, very, very well and they knew he wasn't rich.

You are contradicting your own story here to. Gary Hinman was planning a trip to Japan, but only had $6 to his name? The day prior to his death, he went to obtain a passport but couldn't because he arrived too late. Yet, they say he had a ticket which he paid around $500 for. It's odd somebody would buy a ticket first and obtain a passport later. So perhaps he purchased that ticket the day before he was killed. He was also preparing to take part in a festival.

Why he didn't give up any money is a rather stupid question. I sell on eBay a lot an I cannot stand to refund anyone, especially when I'm not sure they aren't pulling a scam and I'm not the only one. Does any store refund anything without a product and the contents and receipt?

That DeCarlo is all over this case and the fact he was the SS treasurer doesn't mean anything right? Do you even know what a treasurer is?

D. said...

Oh yeah, it wasn't Beausoleil's trial, it was Bruce Davis'.

From the People Vs. Davis on January 12, 1972:
GEORGE DENNY: They got some of their mescaline from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I believe so, yes
GEORGE DENNY: And you got some of it for the Family from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't recall ever --Gary Hinman turning over any mescaline to me.
GEORGE DENNY: But you used that which had been gotten from him; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: Yes.
GEORGE DENNY: He manufactured it for the Family and others; isn't that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't know if he manufactured it.

There also remains the possibility that Hinman had no time to make some, thus bought it from somebody and only made a very small profit which he later spent.

D. said...

"Gary Hinman furnished drugs for the Family. He was not a member of the Manson Family, he was an associate" - Vincent Bugliosi 2009

Peter said...

You just curl up with your Bugs and walk the dog.

Peter said...

I will accept that the Davis trial testimony raises questions. But this, come on ? If the question was stupid, the answer is stupider.

Why he didn't give up any money is a rather stupid question. I sell on eBay a lot an I cannot stand to refund anyone, especially when I'm not sure they aren't pulling a scam and I'm not the only one. Does any store refund anything without a product and the contents and receipt?

If a buyer showed up at your front door and cut your year off, you'd refund if you had it.

Peter said...

Do you even know what a treasurer is?

A treasurer is an individual, typically a pirate or leprechaun, who hides something valuable (i.e., Spanish doubloons, pots of gold, jewels), often in a large wooden box called a "chest." Treasurers are known to record the location of these deposits on parchment maps with rough or burnt edges using a large "X." In more recent times, treasurers have also treasured under a giant "W" in Santa Rosita State Park.

I'm not retarded.

Peter said...

GEORGE DENNY: They got some of their mescaline from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I believe so, yes
GEORGE DENNY: And you got some of it for the Family from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't recall ever --Gary Hinman turning over any mescaline to me.
GEORGE DENNY: But you used that which had been gotten from him; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: Yes.
GEORGE DENNY: He manufactured it for the Family and others; isn't that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't know if he manufactured it.

It continues:

ELLA JO BAILEY: There were a couple of occasions where Gary Hinman did - you know, give the Family, either mescaline or something else, but --
GEORGE DENNY: What else?
ELLA JO BAILEY: - to say "source of supply," I don't know, you know.
GEORGE DENNY: What else?
ELLA JO BAILEY: Marijuana

D. said...

After he was cut he (or before) he signed over the cars and Bobby accepted that as sufficient. His being cut clearly became a much bigger issue than the money at that point.

If Hinman did manufacture it himself, obviously he had to purchase supplies, including the Cactus. So it's not as if he ended up with a full $1000. The rest could have easily went to bills or who knows what.

starviego said...

They knew he had no money:

www.cielodrive.com/mary-brunner-statement-04-06-70.php
MS. BRUNNER: I didn't really know what to expect like eh - cause - eh I know that he didn't have any money and I told Bobby I knew that he didn't have any money. But Bobby said come along, so I went along and - and Bobby had said, you know, that he said like you know, if Gary doesn't come through well, you know, -
MR. STOVITZ: Rough him up a bit?
MS. BRUNNER: Yah, little bit but I didn't really think, you know, it wouldn't turn out to be - why I didn't think Bobby would do it, you know, and he knew Gary didn't have no money. He must have known, 'cause I knew.

Peter said...

Mary's stocks and bonds statement is four months older.

D. said...

Mary at one point said he was killed because he refused to "join Charlie's music band". Mary like Ella also got immunity. Her story is a half truth too, because Bobby didn't tell them the nature of what was going on. Those aren't her utmost earliest statement. That took place in Wisconsin when she said "all the trouble started when those motorcycle bums showed up".

D. said...

One somebody gets a deal and whatever there story is, sticks and cops will push the rest to conform to that.

For instance:

We made a drug deal with him..

Cops: come on. We know that isn't true. So and so said____

and they'll lie and do everything they can to get you to crack.

Bobby never snitched on Susan. But police lied to her and said he did and told them "everything". Police manipulate. Police lie. Police give deals to people they know are guilty to bust others.

D. said...

I'll put it this way: when I was younger and if I were living on a ranch with 25+ girls, my own adoring harem, as Bobby had and a ton of male competition. I doubt very much I'd tell any girls a motorcycle club threaten me in getting their money back after I tried to stand up like one of the big boys and conduct my own drug deal, as Charlie and Tex were doing constantly. Especially if my ego was as big as his. I'd most likely lie and front like it was a strong arm robbery.

D. said...

Oh yeah, re-reading her statement right off the bat, she told a lie: that Bobby called Charlie and she didn't hear the call....SHE called him hysterical to tell him that a fight broke out and Hinman got the gun away from Bobby.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

The current parole system requires you to accept the crime narrative you are convicted of. Leslie and Pat have to subscribe to the reality that was invented or never get released

David said...

Col Scott’s comment: Bingo!!!!

Problems have always abounded with that view.
Bobby does not accept the crime narrative he was convicted of. Hasn't done since at least 1976. Yet, he was granted parole. Sure, he was denied this last time but that's neither here nor there. He was granted it the prior hearing.
Pat wrote "HEALTER SKELTER" as we all know, on the LaBianca fridge. So how can she honestly deny it had anything to do with the murders ?
Leslie spelled out the story to Marvin Part in Dec 1969, before there was even any trial.
Stating or implying that they only trot out the HS stuff because it's the only way they can ever be released is denying reality that has already and actually happened ~ 50+ years ago. From the moment their parole hearings began in 1978, neither have ever denied murder. Neither was on trial for believing HS. Interestingly, neither has changed their story either.

D. said...

It's a fact that Charlie told Bobby to say whatever he had to say and blame "The Family" if he has to in his second trial. Charlie was already convicted and sentenced in Tate-Labianca. "One of us out is better than two of us in" was his exact words and something he repeated multiple times over the years

Quick question ¬> are you Dennis ?
Anyway, whoever you are, it's not possible to take you seriously. You're so up on the throne as Charlie's cheerleader that you knock out stuff that simply is not true, in the hope no one will check what you say. You state that Charlie was already convicted and sentenced in Tate-Labianca when he supposedly told Bobby to go ahead and implicate him as Gary's murderer {!!} which is your kingpin to demonstrate Charlie's honesty and selflessness. But Bobby's trial and sentencing were concluded long before Charlie was ever on trial. Bobby was a done deal by April 1970. Charlie's trial didn't even start until July {well, June, but it took ages to select the jury} and his conviction sentencing weren't until 1971.
So what are you talking about ?

Speculator said...

Whether he said he was JC or the devil incarnate, why for a minute think he actually believed it himself. He said those things for impact and design rather than true belief imho

"I may have implied on several occasions to several different people that I may have been Jesus Christ, but I haven't decided yet what I am or who I am" doesn't sound to me like someone just conning for impact. Not when they're saying it before the world's media !

grimtraveller said...

D. said...

So it's not as if he ended up with a full $1000. The rest could have easily went to bills or who knows what

The timeline of when Gary supposedly received the money, supposedly gave Bobby the drugs, and when Bobby supposedly returned with Mary & Susan will, {all taking Bobby's word as truthful} always defeat any defence you try to make. When trying to dilute the Charlie/Bobby culpability in the Hinman murder, you continually run into murkier waters that in actuality, simply throw more culpability Charlie and Bobby's way. And the amusing thing for me is that it is all geared to trying to scotch HS. It's like watching a kid lying their arse off about an incident in the playground when you already have the whole scenario on cctv.

then just cozy up with your copy of Helter Skelter, drink your milk and walk your dog. If you are so content with believing Bugliosi's horror script, why do you even bother with this case?

One could just as easily say to you that if you are content to believe the myriad contradictory stories that exist only to absolve Charles Manson of murder and the incredible visions that he had and convinced others of, and for which there is barely anything that can be described as evidence, then you might as well cosy up with all the Charlie supporter contradictions that enable you to not have to face reality, drink your warm milk or Ovaltine and stroke your cats.
Mind they don't scratch you though !

If you are so content with believing Bugliosi's horror script, why do you even bother with this case?

The days when this kind of rhetoric could embarrass people into repudiating whatever they thought or scurrying for cover into frightened anonymity have long gone.
People come to discuss this case for a whole host of different reasons. Some do so because they have issues with women killing. Some do because they do not believe another human being is capable of coercing/persuading/talking another human being, let alone a group of them, into murder. Some do because they do not want the drug subculture to be denigrated in any way. Some do because they have such issues with authority that they refuse to accept that authority is in any way ever right. Some do because they are fascinated by mental illness and see it in droves in the case. Some do because they see it as important to call out police and judicial corruption. Some do because they are dedicated conspiracy theorists. Some are interested in the totality of the case. Some do because they have an affinity with the legal world. Some do because they want to find out more about it or that particular time in American history. Some do because they dig the Beatles........and so on and so forth.
Someone should do a post titled "Why are you interested in this case ~ or let me count the ways..."

David said...

Grim, it is at least nice to see you are still ‘all in’ on Helter Skelter.

And also nice to see you still redefine my comments to suit your agenda.

The purpose of motive both legally and on a more basic level is to answer the question ‘why’ something happened. That simple question and its answer from a legal perspective is why it need not be proven in court. You shot someone. That is the crime. That is what we care about. Why you shot them doesn’t matter. Criminal culpability is action and intent based.

The murders occurred because there was a crisis of the charismatic leadership at the head of a millennial movement. That really is ‘why’ they occurred.

Manson was that leader. I assume I need not argue that point. The crisis happened for the same reason literally thousands of others have happened. The philosophy sustaining the millennial movement is Helter Skelter, which is why that is relevant. But it is not the motive. Anyone who argues Manson did not ‘proselytize’ this philosophy should, well, go read.

The crisis, above, occurs for several reasons.

First, there is outside pressure and stress. This can be seen both in the comments of ‘the girls’ about the police at the time, the Crowe shooting and the Hinman murder. These last two are similar to Jim Jones and the shooting of Congressman Leo Ryan.

The second stressor is the inability of the charismatic leader to expand his message. Typically, he promises this will happen but it turns out others are not listening. This is the where the music comes in.

I assume it need not argue that Manson’s music was supposed to be the vehicle to spread his message. If we must argue that point, perhaps I will come out of retirement and write a post. Even his most ardent followers agree with me. Read their quotes at the time. Read what they have written since. The instrument of Manson’s message, failed.

The ultimate failure of that message, I believe, can be found in what happened at Esalan. But I operate from a ‘think-know-prove’ approach as to these matters and will admit the best I can say is ‘I think’ on that one.

The third stressor is defections of key members. I think one can identify, in no particular order, Ella Jo Bailey (and Bill Vance if memory serves) and move on to Paul Watkins et al. Put simply: devout members start telling the charismatic leader ‘no’ and leave him.

The final stressor is the failure of the millennial event to occur. This event is according to that leader a cataclysm that will usher in the new age. An event that only those, tuned in will see coming. I believe (‘think’, again) that it is no coincidence August was chosen for the advent. August 11th is a particularly important date for Manson’s revelation.

These stressors lead the charismatic leader to seek to try to reestablish control. Some have noted this in their comments.

In other movements it is actually ‘die for me’ as in suicide. Control over life and death, of course, is ultimate control. In all cases the violence turns either outward or inward.

Again, I can neither prove nor do I know why Manson chose those two houses. I suspect what we have been told may be true as to the Polanski residence- to scare Melcher, which, if I were to believe O’Neil, appears to have succeeded. Unfortunately, he quotes only dead people.

I have come to believe the second night did have something to do with the True House and that the LaBiancas were, much like Steven Parent, in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, again, I neither know nor can I prove this.

But these murders occurred because Manson needed to reassert his control over a millennial movement in crisis. That is why they occurred, not because he believed there was a big rock candy mountain under the desert or that he would rule the world.

Thank you for reading.

Dan S said...

i think your explanation is likely

Is the 2nd night Charlie reasserting ? Also shorty .

grimtraveller said...

David said...

And also nice to see you still redefine my comments to suit your agenda

Oooch !
Actually, as I was reading your earlier post {your first one} a couple of weeks back, I was going to comment that I wasn't in disagreement with it, for the most part. It certainly makes up part of the puzzle, in my opinion.
In a previous thread, Col Scott made the point that many things can be true at once and as you know, I have long banged the drum for paradoxes and nuance.
I think he's right on that point.
I don't redefine comments, by the way. I examine and analyse them and comment on what they say to me. If I was off track on what I understood, it'll be pointed out soon enough !

Speculator said...

David - I agree with you that whatever went down at Esalen just prior to the murders may well have contributed to Cielo being chosen and executed. However, I disagree about the murders, or certainly the Cielo murders, being driven by Manson needing to reassert himself. I find that contradictory for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he didn't lead the trip to Cielo himself (as he did the second night) which you could argue he would've done had he thought he needed to re-establish himself (whilst clearly avoiding getting his hands dirty on the actual killings themselves). Instead, the events at Cielo elevated Watson's status amongst the girls rather than Manson's after the sheer brutality that he displayed. So a little self-defeating if that was Manson's motive imho. He clearly realised that when he decided to lead night two himself "Last night was too messy, I'll show you how it's done" etc. If we're to believe that was Manson's response to Cielo you can almost sense the perverse jealousy that he was feeling towards Watson and his need to find fault with what went down at Cielo and bring Watson down a bit. Atkins said in one of her books/interviews, almost admiringly, that Watson seemed to be levitating at Cielo and how in awe she was of him etc etc. If she said the same kind of crap to Manson after they returned from Cielo, you can almost sense him thinking AT THAT STAGE I need to reassert myself here. Hence imho the second night may well have been about him feeling the need to reassert himself and pull the limelight back from Watson. But I don't believe that's what drove the events at Cielo. Furthermore, if we're to believe the script, the very fact that Manson felt confident enough to instruct Watson and the girls to go out and kill without giving them any why or wherefore tells me that he felt very much in control of them at that time. I'd also argue that the purpose of motive from a legal perspective is purely another selling point to the jury to further enhance the chances of securing a conviction. In that sense, it can simply be a construct of the Prosecution and not necessarily the truth or even something that the Prosecutors themselves believe in. The end product (conviction) trumps the truth. Some might argue that HS perfectly fits that bill.

grimtraveller said...

David said..

But these murders occurred because Manson needed to reassert his control over a millennial movement in crisis. That is why they occurred, not because he believed there was a big rock candy mountain under the desert or that he would rule the world

a]Except that he clearly did believe in the underground stuff under the desert and b]if, under the influence of LSD, someone can genuinely believe they are someone else that has already existed, then they can believe that they could "rule" the world. History records people that believed that {and acted on it} without any psychedelic drugs.
It's not being trite to say that the counterculture and many offshoots of it was not about sharing the world with the straights. It was essentially about taking over with a better way. Not vastly different to hard line Islamists of now or Christian nationalists that have blighted the USA for too long. Charles Manson was simply a smaller and more extreme version of that underlying thought.