Sunday, November 14, 2021

George Stimson on The Paulcast - 13 Nov 2021


Goodbye Helter Skelter 
author and publisher George Stimson was interviewed on The Paulcast yesterday. George also podcasts about his book here. If you're new to all of this and haven't been advised to turn and run and never look back yet, or simply ignored the warnings, that's George on the right towering a full foot or more above (a 5'2) Charles Manson regardless of what your eyes tell you. 

(Forgive me while I adjust my snark levels down to the empathetic person setting. I put a few hours in at Manson High already this morning and lemme tell ya it's freakin exhausting sometimes always. Everybody has a name to drop and a time served number to share amirite? "Benny Banana Peels told me he was at Spahn's in '69 and watched daddy sex between Charlie and Sadie on a floating magical rattlesnakes cloud that continuously rained fresh Gerber speed atop a pile of freshly murdered headless corpses. Soon after, while everyone was writing their bloody nicknames in the BotD, Squeaky hipped BBP's to everything that happened since the day Charlie found her crying while clutching a dictionary. 

Btw, I met BBP's while we worked together at the Winter Haven Publix in 1983 but I'd already been into Manson since Johnny Swartz's car had back seats. I worked in the produce department and BBP's unloaded the delivery trucks until an assistant manager caught him stealing a plastic crate containing four gallons of chocolate milk one Tuesday morning. Haven't heard from old BBP's since that day in fact. Anyhow, here's what really happened at Cielo and Waverly, my dear Green...")

Actually, keep reaching out. I have little else to do like all big Lotto winners. Mostly, I try not to mention the lottery thing since I want the money for Smokey & The Bandit jet skis I sometimes wreck and need repaired/replaced and also endless buckets of Swedish Fish but people are always like oh my car died and I know a guy selling a never washed and muffler-less 1996 Grand Am I will race around Ohio in without using my turn signals, please homie Green. 

Shudder. Poor relatives are as exhausting as rich ones. Bootstraps thyselves already for crying out loud. 

What is not ideal when you reach out to me (however) is the big-timing. The power surge that courses through me every time I click the publish button makes me feel like Thanos watching a world disappear. No crappy BBP's stories will ever outshine Infinity Crystals. Take it down a notch. 
-------------


The NeRVe OF THAT SAM SHEppard! Sometimes GOD is THE CHICKen head and SOMETIMES god is THE SNake head. I'm just a stupid hiLLbilly getting an ICE cream FROM the CANteen so I don't KNOW.

 The rise of muslims. 
-------------

Truthfully, I'm honored to be in such deep thinking company but I also take the wife-murdering doctor's point. You further have my word I will neither make nor consume another drop of coffee before this post ends. Staying linear is clearly a problem for me right now. 

Retro Interlude:

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

Scene report ended. Everyone is welcome. Let's get to the main event! 

STIMSON ON THE PAULCAST...
Just so nice.
No downslope of life from the dark side of a mentally unwell mountain. 
No screaming. 
No yelling. 
No addictions taking center stage. 
No I hate women presented twelve different ways. 

Instead, Paul and Dani ask questions a viewer expects not crazy people to ask at acceptable speaking levels, using inside voices, and George answers in kind. What's also insane is the hosts don't even talk over Stimson when he attempts to answer. Avant Guard for sure.  

The third member of the Paulcast, Mr. Beckham, was not present for this interview. I envy his travel lifestyle and therefore shall never mention him again in any of my posts. 

Just kidding. The three of them fit together like peanut butter and jelly (and other jelly I suppose) and the mix works for me. I hang out on YT a lot and they've become a go-to show. Especially on Sundays when I'm lounging in Snowman pajamas after typing up my love letters to you. 

When I was young, Sunday was always the best night to go out. The amateurs all returned home because they had to be up at 6 am for work Monday. Evenings were rightfully returned to the misfits and outcasts. And oh how we loved to meet up after two nights sealed away in apartments and houses or somewhere unluckily working shit jobs during civilian party hours.  

At some point, I stopped going out and my world became screens. I waited decades for something not pointless to show up Sunday evenings while I tried and tried on various urls. Maybe we bumped into one another somewhere along the way. Summer in Siam was my username and Pearse was my profile pic. 

The 27% of me that is Irish wants me to shout Up the Ra when I remember that stuff. The other percents killed those dreamers in the name of the Crown. As a result, the six remain apart from the whole to this day. 

OKAY THE WRAP UP...
This second interview between the PC crew and George Stimson imo is their best episode to date. I hoped more Stimson interviews were in the works. 

I've always heard that Stimson and Good have a framed map hanging above their couch with a big red X marking the entrance to the desert hole but sadly I think they took it down for the podcast. That's my only complaint. The rest of the interview is great, a bit on the short side for me, and I'd be thrilled to see these folks get together again in the future. Next time, naturally, the questions should come from a more diverse group such as only me until my queries are answered to my complete satisfaction. After that, do the rest. 

Personally, I lean more toward more Hickam's Dictum than Occam's Razor on all of this why business. I was reading comments last week and found a post where the Col. said something along the lines of the older I get, the more I think a bunch of drugged out and panicked kids took the train off the tracks and crazy things happened. If faced with death for not picking a theory, I'd draw a triangle with those two points (Stimson and the Col.), add Schreck as the third, and place myself firmly in the middle. 

All the while saying O'Neill is the best typer with Fromme right behind him. 

Read Stimson. I'll (zero judgement) buy you a copy with my MFB spending account if you can't swing it. 

Watch Paulcast. They're live nearly every night. 

And if you feel like talking, please share your thoughts on Stimson's Love of Brother theory in the comments below. 
+ggw

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

99 comments:

TabOrFresca said...

GreenWhite,

First I would like to say thank you for all the articles you have written.

Second I do at times have trouble trying to understand what point or statement you are trying to make. I consider this to be weakness of myself, not understanding what you’re trying to say, but maybe you could either start or finish your articles with a statement specifically stating what you are trying to say.

I am someone who does not have wired Internet access; I just have a small phone with limited minutes of data. I have not seen Stimson’s paulcasts.

While George is pro-Manson, and I am not, I have enjoyed his writings: his book and his articles he wrote for this site years ago. He definitely sees things through a different set of eyes. I consider his book to be essential reading and a companion to “Helter Skelter”.

starviego said...

In the PaulCast interview at 21:45, Dani asks Simpson about the cut wire at Sebring's house and Stimson responds by smiling and saying "no... no... ." To me this is ignoring the evidence. The cut wire at Sebring's was confirmed by the fact that investigators snipped a bit of the wire off, to compare it to the cut wires at Cielo, as per the Property Report.

GreenWhite said...

ToF- My bad. You got it.

GreenWhite said...

Star - That's a good point. I've read what the guy who installed the system at Jay's had to say several times the last few years and he comes off as very matter of fact. I've already read it once but I'm listening to the O'Neill book this time around trying to get some sense of why Beckham leans so strongly that way. The first hour is a repeat of Helter Skelter and every subsequent book like it. I'm not sure if he's summarizing HS before going into his findings or not however.

GreenWhite said...

Doug - If you're out there. I started on some early SST research today. Joe Cole and I wrote a few letters back and forth in 90-91. Had no idea who he was outside of music. Gobsmacked is not an exaggeration.

Lemon1 said...

No offense to this gentleman, but anything he says or writes should be seriously taken with a grain of salt. He can't exactly be unbiased because he is the boyfriend of Sandra Good who is still a rabid Mansonite. She even came out on some show the last few years and had not an ounce of sorrow or regret for what her and her friends said/behaved during and after the trial. It is 2021 and she is still justifying murder. I have a problem with her and anyone else who is a fan of these individuals.

Vera Dreiser said...

FINALLY, thank you, Lemon! Amazed anyone gives him two seconds of their time. It'd be like expecting Melania to explain to us the truth of Donald's actions in the days leading up to, during, and after Jan. 6. Preposterous! And why do you think he smiled when asked about those Sebring wires? Busted! The only reason I've ever watched a George interview is on the chance Sandra pops her murderous head into the frame.

Doug said...

He's interviewed in the Sebring documentary too.

Free on Tubi

Watch Jay Sebring...Cutting to the Truth on Tubi: https://link.tubi.tv/CdYb4m44dlb

Doug said...

His murder was horrendous.

I am going to rwach out to Dukowski and Carducci in the next day or so. The last 10 days have been lousy and, busy.

Cheers

PS - I sent you my personal email via your rmail address at this blog

Doug said...

Eff the typos

TabOrFresca said...

I did watch the 2 part paulcast where Stimson is interviewed. One question I have is there was mention of a book in the works by Lyn and what I could not understand was is this a sequel or a revised edition of Reflexion? Does anyone know?

GreenWhite said...

Doug - I will message you today thank you :)

GreenWhite said...

ToF - I took that to mean her second book. Fromme's first imo answers several of the smaller questions, or at least replies to several of the things we endlessly repeat online, and gives us her take. So I'm definitely looking forward to her next one.

If Fromme's manuscript is not a closely guarded state secret over at Peasenhall Press, I am definitely available for a grammar edit/proofread. Otherwise, I will purchase a signed copy and wait with the rest of the peanut gallery.

What'd you think of the Paulcast crew, ToF?

George Stimson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George Stimson said...

The book is a slightly revised edition of Reflexion.

GreenWhite said...

Imo, Fromme's book belongs with Stimson's in the canon. Charles Manson is the boogeyman of the Boomer generation, their parents, and a not small percentage of their children. As well as many commenters on this vaunted blog.

As time passes and the data deluge never lets up, people not connected to anyone who was alive in August '69 are going to crave alternate explanations to Bugliosi just like more erudite Manson scholars seek them now.

I talk to so many people who refuse to read more than one book, consider anyone else's opinions, etc etc, and I just feel like they're missing out on so much. There's so much more to all of it than the exact reason why that Friday night ride to Cielo in Johnny's nasty car happened.

Read them all. Know more. Buy a writer dinner for a day if you can...

GreenWhite said...

Doug - I clearly should never use Outlook. I've made a mess of my account. Any chance you could send your info to matt@mansonblog.com so he can forward it to me? Sorry and thanks.

TabOrFresca said...

GreenWhite asked:

What'd you think of the Paulcast crew, ToF?

They were fine. They were prepared with questions and were not too stiff, not boring, not pushy, or not aggressive.

I actually unknowingly viewed two paulcasts earlier this year and l remember the same guy with the guitar’s on the wall.

An article on this site had links to :
1. a Patty Interview where she was drinking Willet bourbon and talking about Death Valley and pomegranates that she was given by Sandy
2. A Neil Sanders interview. I do have his book.

TabOrFresca said...

GreenWhite said:

Imo, Fromme's book belongs with Stimson's in the canon.

I believe Stimson’s book is essential reading. I think Lyn is a very good writer and her book is a nice companion (and follow up read) to Paul Watkins book.

I consider Watkins book to be an essential read, but I believe he exaggerates his importance.

A couple of the Sandy’s writings that were included in Lyn’s book helped me to understand her a little bit more.

GreenWhite said...

ToF - Fromme and Good possibly give us our first alternate look at Gary in Reflexion. I really appreciated that part being in there. Someone else could've said it first of course. Regardless, I'll never forget their descriptions of Gary and his home.

I'm definitely interested in seeing what is revised etc in Fromme's upcoming edition. One thing I've noticed when I see a bad review of her book is the reviewer doesn't really know anything about them or the milieu.

Watkins I haven't read in awhile but he blew my mind when I found it on the Col's blog so long ago. A lady named Myra Elvira has it on her YouTube channel if you like audiobooks. I might give it a listen soon but I'm 20% into several books at once and may not get there for a bit.

Paul seems more like a dirty little young loves procurer to me. My dislike for him probably overrides any good qualities I've forgotten.

TabOrFresca said...

GreenWhite says:

Paul seems more like a dirty little young loves procurer to me. My dislike for him probably overrides any good qualities I've forgotten.

I like Watkins book but don’t trust or think much of him.

If he recruited girls, name one that stayed?

And what’s the big deal with young loves? Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“… The lower parts continuing to the last as plump as ever; so that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old one from a young one.”

Speculator said...

I remember reading about the cut wires at Sebring’s in O’Neill’s book. Part of me thought is it a true account or another embellishment by yet another person seeking a bit part in the story of the murders. You do wonder why, given all the tumult and angst in the immediate aftermath of the murders, the electrician guy would have the presence of mind or desire to go check the wiring out when he’d gone to the house to pick up a dead mans suit! And not just any dead man either but a very close friend who had just been brutally murdered. WTF would the problem with the cable tv matter given what had gone on at Cielo a few days earlier. But then again what does he really gain by lying he exaggerating any of his account. Maybe he genuinely wanted to know whet had gone wrong and maybe he already had suspicion having heard about the cut wires at Cielo. The reverse circuit with the lights coming on when broken is certainly plausible and it would potentially spook any attempted break in. The next question has to be why didn’t the investigators pursue that line of enquiry and just as importantly why didn’t Sebrjng’s attorney insist that they did so given that his son was the witness to all of this. Most likely, as with other pieces of evidence that didn’t fit the preferred narrative, it potentially opened a whole can of worms for the investigation and for the reputations of the victims. So everyone was happy to bury it. I’d love to hear the thoughts of Grim and others who don’t buy into anything much that deviates from the HS motive.

cielodrivecom said...

I don't believe the cut wires story is in Tom's book

Doug said...

Done

Doug said...

The electrician who did Sebring's wiring is interviewed in the Jay Sebring documentary that can be viewed for free on Tubi

cielodrivecom said...

Right, but the story is not in the edition of Chaos I received.

Speculator said...

Maybe I’m wrong about where I read/heard it. I’m sure I read it in CHAOS though. Albeit not any kind of interview with the guy but a reference to it from the Police file.

Vera Dreiser said...

His film:

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

Dan S said...

Very interesting. Wouldn't the lights have still been on if the line was cut and they're on a reverse circuit?

Also, Fayez, and in a throw back to when trolls and pervs were allowed on this murder blog, if that's Sharon in the footage then i gotta say Sadie Mae is way hotter

GreenWhite said...

Doug - Thanks and sorry about the hassle. And also prepare to be bombarded with every punk rock question that has ever cycled thru my cranium LOL.

Speculator said...

Yes, I thought the same about the lights. But I guess there was a bit more to the circuit and he didn’t feel the need to explain the whole workings of it! Suffice to say that the main point of evidence being the wire had a clean and recent cut when he inspected it. Two wires in fact as I think he mentions the cable wire as being on a separate pole and cut too. Doesn’t he say that he reckoned they were cutting any wires that looked like phone wire. It certainly does make you wonder doesn’t it? And, if true, makes it more or less certain that the victims were specifically targeted.

Torque said...

Speculator, the wires at Jay's are certainly a matter of intetest. However, I wonder what would have stopped the killers from continuing on in to Jay's house, assuming they cut the wires. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Jay's house had been entered.

Contrast that with Cielo, and obviously not only were the wires cut, but the killers very self confidently gained access to the property and the house, killing all inside. If the cut wires at Jay's are in any way a nefarious deed, which was done with the intent of immediate murder, I for one wonder what would have aborted the murder at that location.

starviego said...

Torque said...
If the cut wires at Jay's are in any way a nefarious deed, which was done with the intent of immediate murder, I for one wonder what would have aborted the murder at that location.

That would have been the 120 volts cursing through Tex's body as he cut through the power lines.

Speculator said...

Torque - well aside from the hair raising shock that Watson (if it was indeed he) might’ve suffered(!) I guess the inference is that the would-be intruders were spooked by all the external lights switching on, assumed they’d triggered an alarm and/or alerted the occupants of the house to their presence. Don’t forget Watson and co would have wanted the element of surprise in order to quickly suppress their victims. And aside from any of the who/what/why of it, the mere fact that these wires appear to have been cut is thought provoking to say the least.

TabOrFresca said...

Starviego said:

That would have been the 120 volts cursing through Tex's body as he cut through the power lines.

You can cut live wires and connect other wires to live wires. It’s done frequently. As long as you are not grounded and you are insulated, such as insulated pliers and gloves and shoes. One wire at a time and don’t touch anything.

When an electrician connects your outside service, the thing with a meter and wires that connect to the pole, it’s done live. And when the power company joins in new lines, its done live.

One thing you don’t want to do is ground yourself or you will be shocked/electrocuted. I know a siding installer that was installing aluminum siding and he was grounded in his aluminum ladder and touched a live wire. He lived but was laid up for a while. Also do not pee on a live wire, such as an electric fence. Saw someone do it once. Like Mr. T said, “pain”.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

Don’t forget Watson and co would have wanted the element of surprise in order to quickly suppress their victims

On both nights, Watson in particular, showed that he really wasn't fazed by anything that would appear to catch him by surprise, which is partly why I don't think his speed excuse is anywhere near as big a player in events as he and Susan liked to have us believe. When it came to murder on those nights, he was a level head.

I’d love to hear the thoughts of Grim and others who don’t buy into anything much that deviates from the HS motive

GreenWhite said earlier, words to the effect that soon, those not really connected to the times or to people close to the times would start to look to alternate explanations other than Bugliosi.
That began at least as far back as 1971's "The Garbage People." It's not a new thing at all. Almost every Manson related blog I've come across more or less exists on that diet. Writers since Emmons and Shreck in the 80s have made that direction nothing unusual. Robert Hendrickson's 2 documentaries didn't pursue a HS path and "Death to pigs" most certainly doesn't. Going against "Bugliosi" pretty much is the norm.
He wasn't flawless and much has been uncovered that he didn't touch on, but I find time and time again, that while many of these minor discrepancies are fascinating/interesting and eminently discussable, they have never succeeded in denting, much less demolishing "Bugliosi." In a way, it's doing a disservice to this case to think of it as "Bugliosi". Yes, he did much of the heavy lifting, but there has always been more going on than the super prosecutor in the cool tailored cape beating the bad guy. It's almost ironic that he felt stronger about Charlie's lust for violent death and anti-establishment hitback, than he did HS.

TabOrFresca said:

George...I have enjoyed his writings: his book and his articles he wrote for this site years ago. He definitely sees things through a different set of eyes. I consider his book to be essential reading and a companion to “Helter Skelter”

I think his book is brilliant. And some of my fondest memories of blogging per se were in many of the posts he took part in.
I have long been left with the feeling though, that his book sinks Charlie like an anchor. Charlie supporters have this weird effect of doing him far more damage than Vincent Bugliosi ever did.

Also do not pee on a live wire, such as an electric fence

That's why one should never pee on a London underground train, even in desperation. I once had a go at a drunk for whipping out his hardware and weeing on a packed train. He thought I was doing it because I thought I was better than him; I explained to him that I didn't want to see him electrocuted when his piss hit the live rail ~ or risk being splashed and fizzed too !

Speculator said...

Grim - you’ve kind of side-stepped my question a little there. Would you really call cut wires at Sebring’s house where four of the Cielo victims were gathered the night before a minor discrepancy?! If you believe the guy’s statement that the wires had a clean and fresh cut then don’t you find that a bizarre coincidence in the extreme, if not a very suspicious event worthy of further investigation at the time? And what of Stimson’s reaction to the question too?

starviego said...

I can see why Bugs didn't introduce the Sebring wire evidence(assuming he even knew of it). It means one or more of the victims were being deliberately targeted, instead of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which would basically bring an end to the HS motive.

Vera Dreiser said...

Grim's a coward.

Doug said...

I sent Dukowski an enormous tome of correspondence via Messenger. I actually ran out of words in my message word count.

Questions for you

1. What city did you live in (in Ohio) when you started to get interested in the punk/indie scene?

2. What year, venue, city did you 1st see Black Flag? I'd have to think that Henry was singing because they really only did the one trek out east with Dez singing (1981) and, by the summer of 1981 Dez moved to his preferred place on 2nd guitar and, Rollins sang. Also, Dukowski left and, Kira entered the band in 1983.

4. Now that you have my email...send me a one sentence email with your name so I can save your info

Cheers

GreenWhite said...

Vera - Your Caroline Bingley-ness I hate to admit pulls me toward you.

grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

Grim's a coward

It's true.
I won't go on any live TV quiz shows in case I bomb before the nation when I get asked simple questions like "Which school did Bernard Crowe's grandmother go to ?" 👠
















Speculator said...

Seriously though Grim. I know that you’re a proponent of the HS being the most likely motive school of thought. And that you’re pretty dismissive of what get described as alternative theories. What’s your take on the apparent wire cutting at Sebring’s?

GreenWhite said...

Bernard Crowe namedrop on the mighty MFB? I LOVE IT. Sharpe forever.

Doug said...

Bernard Crowe's GRANDMOTHER even 🤘

GreenWhite said...

Those Crowe Happy Bday wishes every year on Facebook a decade-ish ago were always day makers. I say Happy Birthday to everyone in my feed to this day because of it. Such a simple, kind gesture.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

Grim - you’ve kind of side-stepped my question a little there

Yeah, and my reward was to be sent public love notes from Vera Dreiser. I won’t be doing that again !

Would you really call cut wires at Sebring’s house where four of the Cielo victims were gathered the night before a minor discrepancy?!

In the light of what turned out to be what happened, yes.
I’m not desperate to show LE has elements of corruption in major western cities, especially the USA. As a black person {even an English one}, I’ve seen that only too readily.
I’m not desperate to try to demonstrate that career criminals don’t have acid assisted visions about the various races in their midst, and try to do something apocalyptic to bring about what they’ve seen in those visions.
I’m not desperate to hook Jay Sebring to some major drug dealing shindig. If the evidence had seriously pointed in that direction, then it really is of no consequence to me. It doesn’t mean I’d be disappointed. In point of fact, as I argued earlier this year with, I think, Andy Taylor, Hollywood celebs and high-level drug dealing resulting in a gruesome death in the 1960s would have made for a sensational book.
I try to follow the evidence, but I also acknowledge that some of that evidence comes from highly dodgy sources like the perps. Not every piece of evidence actually goes anywhere.

If you believe the guy’s statement

I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. I keep in mind, however, highly suspicious statements made 30, 40, 50 years after the event, particularly when there is a recent, but lengthy history of trying to fudge what went down in every way imaginable.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

that the wires had a clean and fresh cut then don’t you find that a bizarre coincidence in the extreme, if not a very suspicious event worthy of further investigation at the time?

According to Tom O’Neill in a 2019 interview, “I found pretty compelling evidence in the original police reports that the people who were killed the first night—Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, and Abigail Folger—there was an attempt on them the night before at Jay Sebring’s house. They had dinner at Sebring’s house—and this is part of the official narrative—and they were sitting down to watch a movie after dinner and all of a sudden there was a big surge of power and the floodlights went really powerfully on and off. He lost his TV, half the power in the house went off. I found a police interview with the guy who did the wiring for Jay’s house and put the cable TV in. He told me that at Jay’s house [later] he saw the cut wires and said, ‘These wires were deliberately cut.’”.
That tells me that the police did investigate that angle because it was in police reports that Tom claims he found it. So his later conclusion that “That would upend the whole Helter Skelter motive that says [the victims] were strangers to their killers, that it was the house, that they were trying to send a message to Melcher, who used to live there, and to Hollywood. If this is true, and all this adds up, it means they were stalking them. And even more interesting, Manson was away during those 24 hours the night before. He wasn’t at the ranch. So then it brings up the question of maybe this whole thing was organized by Watson for other reasons” does not follow as a foregone conclusion. It can, if you want it to.
That it may have been an amazing coincidence, if it really happened, is undeniable, but then, so is the fact that a James and a Lauren were the last people seen with Ron Hughes before he disappeared and a James and a Lauren were murdered by people that were shacking up with Family or ex-Family women. Or that right around the time Charlie’s Dad’s brother was murdered in May ‘69, a guru type with female followers arrived in the area, trying to entice local teens with acid and calling himself the preacher.

On the property report from the Cielo investigation is an entry that says “1-BLK Rubber, ELECTRIC WIRE CORD (SeBring Home)” that had been obtained from the Coroner’s office on August 13th. Which further indicates that this is not exactly the kind of thing that the police would just ignore. That we hear no more about it tells me that it’s in the same league as them looking into the Black Power angle during the investigation…..and ditching that too, before the killers were nabbed.

And what of Stimson’s reaction to the question too?

Well, George’s reactions are George’s reactions. I don’t pretend to know what’s in his head when he engages in body language. As I’ve said before, I dig George’s book, contributions, articulacy and manner, even though I vehemently disagreed with him on many things. I’m not in the “just because George said this” camp or the “it must be right because Bugliosi said this” camp or the “Well, BUGS must be a charlatan because Stephen Kay thinks XY&Z” and unlike my bestest bud, Vera, I don’t worship at the altar of O’Neill.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

Grim - you’ve kind of side-stepped my question a little there

In all seriousness, I wasn’t side-stepping the question. It was just a demonstration that the whole 9 yards and kitchen sink has been thrown in over the last 51 or so years to deflect, from what appears that a sizeable segment of parties don’t want to accept ~ that by and large, the prosecution got it right. And so every single thing is, at some point, considered fair game to throw in and show that Bugliosi and co got things wrong. Added to that, the 15 minutes of fame👨🏼‍🎤 merchants {we can now add Quincey Jones 🤴🏿 to the growing list of those that “should have been at Cielo that night” !}, the spooks🕵🏼‍♂️ that notified the photographer of the bodies before Mrs Chapman arrived, COINTELPRO, MK Ultra, elephants 🦣killed on LSD, Jack Ruby, sodomy and whippings, films supposedly made that have never turned up, Charlie being beaten up at Cielo the night before {ironically, part corroborated by Charles Watson !!}, Steven Parent the drug dealer in the system, Rosemary LaBianca, the acid queen of Los Feliz, Charlie’s claim that he knew Sharon {according to Nicholas Shreck}, etc, etc, etc etc, well, pardon me for a little cynicism here and there.
The first question I ask myself when some new revelation comes up is not even “is this true ?” but “what does this change if it is true ?”

I know that you’re a proponent of the HS being the most likely motive school of thought

I think there were a number of motives. I pretty much always have. I don’t think of HS necessarily as being the foremost, but it is broken up into constituent parts and it’s helpful to examine it that way, rather than as one glob. As I once said, I harp on about it for its veracity, not its primacy.

GreenWhite said...

Grim - I always looked forward to your comments when I was a lurker here. They've been a huge part of this blog.

Spec - Those wires stay stuck in my mind as well. I bet the guests from Thursday freaked out Saturday morning when the news broke.

Vera Dreiser said...

Green, the guests from Thursday were all murdered Friday by people who cut wires before going into the house.
Grim, O’neill did provide the police document from August 1969 in his video but you say you don’t believe statements made 30 or 40 years after?! Watch it again. You call it “desperate” to take this new discovery seriously? Wow, okay, glad the researchers who exonerated Malcolm X’s killers last week with evidence they spent decades rooting out weren’t as ignorant as you. And your defense of the police and the official narrative is naive and embarrassing. Sure they must’ve “followed it up” and found it amounted to nothing, that’s why you never heard about it before O’neill revealed it. Because it was so inconsequential bug never mentioned it in his book that spends its first half recounting all the false leads.
“What does it change if it’s true”? EVERYTHING. Vera would suck oneil off if he wasn’t a homo.

Speculator said...

Well, not quite I’m afraid - they were all dead by Saturday morning! THEY WERE the news that broke!! They unfortunately would have freaked out shortly after midnight on that Saturday morning though.

GreenWhite said...

LOL! Ice cold.

Speculator said...

Vera - I agree entirely. This isn’t a statement that was made decades after the event. The guy gave his original statement very shortly after the murders ie days after not years. I can’t think of any reason why he would concoct such a story. I think there was a separate blog entry on here about the cut wires a couple of years or so ago too. Your comparison with the Malcolm X case is very apt. Law enforcement very often get things wrong and/or ignore evidence because it doesn’t fit the narrative (path of least resistance in order to secure a conviction) or because of incompetence. Or, as maybe the case here, to protect the reputations of people who had powerful and wealthy families or connections. Who knows, the cut wires may have purely been a made up story and/or had no relevance whatsoever to what happened at Cielo. But I think anyone taking a dispassionate and balanced view would find the guy’s statement more likely than not to be factual and more likely than not to have some relevance to the murders the following night. I’m not an apologist for Manson - I think he was as guilty as the rest for the part he played. This isn’t about that at all. I think his HS preachings were a system of control to keep the rest of the gullible fools in check but I doubt very much that they were the reason for these murders. And pieces of information like the cut wires add fuel to that fire imho.

prefeteria said...

If the wires were cut at Sebring's house the night before Cielo by someone in the Manson group, wouldn't it be safe to say that it wasn't done by a group of five? Otherwise this part of the story would have likely been told by someone along the way.

[Begin baseless speculation]
If so it would have likely been Watson alone. Perhaps he saw it as too big a job for one person and procrastinated. My thought is that this was always a targeted hit directed by a third party, as absolution for the Crowe incident, which puts Watson front and center. Maybe he talks about it on the Tex tapes.
[End baseless speculation]

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

I have no idea what I just read.

"Avant Guard"? Seriously?

Stimson is a crank. Stimson is Blue who is a grown-assed woman who allowed herself to be color-coded by her suffering, imprisoned guru. In other words, these are not the most critical of thinkers among us. I will say that I found it most amusing that, by the time Chuckie hit upon the idea of classifying his followers in such a way, he was down to only two and couldn't even cover the primary colors on the wheel. Poor Chuckie.

Look, Stimson's whole schtick is nothing more than an (endless) repetition of the West Temple "Kasabian & Watson did it" gospel. As we will recall, as the original trial went south, Manson decided to cut bait and persuaded his giggle girls to testify to his innocence. The whole Kasabian finger-point went nowhere, of course, and justice was properly served.

But the now-aged Good, her proud forehead X now almost completely obscured by the wrinkled ravages of time, and her moth-to-flame late arrival Manson worshipping squeeze, never got the damned memo. Instead, they have wasted decades by continuing the party - er, family - line that Charlie pathetically attempted to cast to save his own ass. Books, talk shows, podcasts and time - loads of it - devoted to defending the same molehill of bullshit everyone laughingly stepped over back in 1970.

I suppose there is so little to be spoken of still regarding this dumpster fire of a historical moment, we might as well give Stimson a kind of snickering nod of attention. It would be nice if the posts on this mess were less "Avant Guard" in style, so that maybe there is actual "stuff" to be discussed & debated here. Or hell, perhaps that is exactly what is called for when it comes to Stimson and his bullshit - gibberish about gibberish.

grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

your defense of the police and the official narrative is naive and embarrassing

Aloe Vera !
Nice try, but unfortunately, I don't bend to those tactics. You should have tried them 40 years ago.
As David/Dreath would have told you, my take is that there are 3 or 4 narratives that get labelled "the official narrative." A cursory read of this or any other blog will show you that.
And I'll say it again, just for you. There is a desperation among some people to scotch what the prosecution came up with. Tom O'Neill openly admits that was his start point {"I don't know the truth, but I know what it isn't" or words to that effect}. George Stimson openly admits that was his start point. Nicholas Shreck openly admits that was his start point. Michael White openly admits that was his start point. Two decades before them, those in the Family that were still loyal to Charlie did precisely the same thing. While he was trying to be the big wheel, Bobby Beausoleil did the same thing.
You sometimes come across as actually no more balanced and adept at weighing up pieces of evidence than you accuse me of not being. Whereas, for the last 6½ years, I've actively engaged in numerous debates across a number of sites with many deep, keen and lively minds {including your own, dare I say it} on most sides of the equation, taking on board tons of thoughts, opinions, evidence etc and have continuously refined and modified my positions. Don't howl at me just because I haven't capitulated to what you would like me to bow to.

Speculator said:

This isn’t a statement that was made decades after the event

I never said it was. The fact that I state that the police investigated that angle and the fact that I quote from the 13th August property report should have told you that. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's in reference to the point about the fresh cut. Even to this day, I get told things by practitioners in their field that I know are not true because I've done what they said couldn't be done. Even right at this moment as I type this, I'm looking at something an electrician for the past 35 years, told me wasn't possible, yet I knew it was and I'm looking at the results of what I knew was possible because I went ahead and did it.

Law enforcement very often get things wrong and/or ignore evidence because it doesn’t fit the narrative

I couldn't agree more. And that is precisely what happened in this case on more than one occasion {eg, Jess Buckles, the Beatle lyrics in the messages at the LaBiancas etc}. LE thought one thing, it turned out to be another.
You don't believe HS was the reason for these murders. I believe it was one of the reasons for these murders. That means....we'll have interesting discussions.

Speculator said...

Prefeteria - I’ve wondered the same thing. Watson alone or with a n other(s) excluding those in the Friday night crew. As you say, pure speculation though. The cut wires are hard physical evidence that potentially point towards something sinister though. I’ve often wondered why the crew set off to Cielo at the time they. It was hardly the dead of night. If you wanted to break-in and subdue the occupants of a house quickly and easily surely a couple of hours later when all asleep would’ve made more sense. Add to that the risk of running into other people on Cielo at that time of night ie the dinner party guests who had just left the house next door. Maybe they needed to catch Sebring there before he left. Who knows. It’s very intriguing though. And one thing I’d say you can guarantee is that the stories provided by the perps are way more self-serving than in any way serving the truth. And once you tell a lie you have to stick to it if you want any chance of parole - which they all clearly still do.

Vera Dreiser said...

Grim a few days ago:
To other guy: "If you believe the guy’s statement"

Grim: "I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. I keep in mind, however, highly suspicious statements made 30, 40, 50 years after the event, particularly when there is a recent, but lengthy history of trying to fudge what went down in every way imaginable."

Grim dissembling today:
Other guy: "This isn’t a statement that was made decades after the event"

Grim: "I never said it was. The fact that I state that the police investigated that angle and the fact that I quote from the 13th August property report should have told you that. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, it's in reference to the point about the fresh cut. Even to this day, I get told things by practitioners....[blah, blah, blah, suck-my-wet-pussy]

And, you're STILL wrong anyway about the report.
From LAPD's 8/14/69 interview of Greenwald:

"Greenwald was of the opinion that the wire had been deliberately cut. Probably three days prior to his investigation."

So what 30, 40, 50 year delay are you fucking talking about?!

More:

Grim: "Tom O'Neill openly admits that was his start point {"I don't know the truth, but I know what it isn't" or words to that effect}".

Now we know you didn't read the book. His start point was an anniversary piece about the murders for a magazine. He was looking for a fresh take, but nothing like countering the official narrative. He even spent 6 hours with Bug in his first week of reporting and planned to make him the centerpiece -- in a heroic way. It was when Bug's story began unraveling that everything changed for him and he began to understand things happened very differently. Oh that you could be so brave, smart (and handsome) to have the balls to admit you're wrong and do something besides putter away on your computer like a lazy (but still hot) granny Vera.

Finally:

Grim: my take is that there are 3 or 4 narratives that get labelled "the official narrative."
Who gives a fuck what your take is. There is ONE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. The one that got them CONVICTED in court: That the murders were committed to incite a race war called Helter Skelter. The others you cite by O'Neill, Shreck and Stimson are the unofficial narratives.
No wonder your name is what it is, I'd be grim too.

tobiasragg said...

"Greenwald was of the opinion that the wire had been deliberately cut. Probably three days prior to his investigation."

Vera, thank you for this.

This is one of those conspiracy theory rabbit holes that people who have too much time or too little sense or perhaps both like to masturbate over. Without having wasted hours of my life reading up on this particular dead-end avenue of thought, the suggestion seems to be that Watson had it in for the four non-Parent Cielo victims (or at least one or two of them) and attempted an August 9th slaughter the night before, on August 8th.

How clever! My, what a wonderful theory that is - Einstein himself would be jealous!

Except that, aside from a single quote in an interview/questioning, there is absolutely nothing to merit even a passing thought on this suggestion. Are we actually suggesting that everyone currently rotting away in west coast prisons would remain silent on this multi-night murder attempt scenario just to save Tex's dumb ass? Kasabian, who had complete immunity on the table and more than a little personal reason (at the time) didn't even offer such a thought. Are we saying that perhaps the mastermind Tex thought he could pull off the offing of four people on his own that Thursday night and, finding himself somehow stymied, decided to enlist the help of a few gals the next night? Do some out there actually think that a Krenwinkel or a dying Atkins would not spill this truth in their decades-long quest for freedom? Or even Van Houten?

"No sense makes sense" . . . I think this must apply to a lot more of these "deep thinkers" on this matter than some of us ever thought possible.

George Stimson said...

O’Neill says the four Cielo victims were all at Jay’s the night before? According to the first Tate homicide report, on August 8 “Frykowski departed from the Polanski residence at approximately 1505 he drove directly to the Jay Sebring residence. At that location he picked up a Miss Suzan Peterson, who had been Jay Sebring's companion for the preceeding [sic] night.”
Did Ms. Peterson corroborate that the other three were also there? Did she witness any electrical malfunction? Or did she come over after everyone else had left? If so, did Jay mention the electric weirdness to her? And what about Amos, the butler?
The “night before” get together never happened, and the people who think it did are chasing their tails. Hence my reaction, smiling and saying, “No, no.”

George

Vera Dreiser said...

George watch the video before you comment then you won’t sound so ignorant.

Vera Dreiser said...

Or ask Sandy. I’m sure she’d tell the truth

George Stimson said...

Why doesn't anybody around here have the balls to post using their real names?

GreenWhite said...

Well of course I understand your question is rhetorical, George, but I have an additional thought or two. I used to employ my genealogy tools and a sinister network of the once bullied but now Internet digger bosses of the highest order to figure out who the trolls were and etc. The results 90% of the time if not closer to 100% typically made me feel bad for the person once I saw them and their ephemera. Even the occasional king/queen type looked like no one ever loved them in a way that helped.

Another group who are also trolls but don't think they are consist of know-it-alls who really don't want to talk Manson or consider new ideas because it makes them anxious and they display their anxiety disorder and or depression with anger. They want the same lists re-written the same way with the same three photos from Cielo so they can either say, "Gawd, we've rehashed this to death you are so stupid." Or, "No look right here someone said this in 1976 and that's that you are so stupid."

No one is allowed to be new. Nobody is allowed to learn. And in your case why listen to someone who's done a lifetime of research and has a unique perspective none of them have ever had or will ever have? Schreck is in the same boat with you here. Over on his page, I'm part of a rotten group of assholes I've never met and have barely spoken to about anything including the weather.

Finally, naturally, it's so they can act disingenuous if/when they meet you in public. That's the balls part.

Ours is an even unwell-er corner of an unwell culture but like I said rhetorical. Every one of the dudes talking shit online about those girls as older women has their naked photos on their last six hard drives and that's some real talk from Ohio.

My real name is Godot Sherman Grenwhyte. I hid the first part for so long because a crazy person from the broken minds side of Manson sent me a video in Messenger of someone being murdered with a machete.

*all typos are staying

Vera Dreiser said...

Dodging, George?

GreenWhite said...

Vera is at least funny and has comedic timing. The others should really take lessons.

GreenWhite said...

Since the messages have already started...I wasn't calling anyone in NS's group any names. I meant it's how I'm personally viewed there for being here even know I've never spoken to most of the other writers.

No one needs anyone they don't even just pretend.
Green is an American.

Speculator said...

Tobias - maybe you need to open your mind slightly and not be so dismissive. You ask why the girls wouldn’t come clean about anything that might’ve occurred the previous night and why save Watson’s ass. Who’s to say that any of them were even there if indeed there was a trip to Sebring’s house the previous night and/or that they knew anything about it if Watson went alone or with others. And even if they did, you ask why Kasabian didn’t spill the beans on it. Maybe because she was simply touting the story that Bugliosi spoon fed her and he found it a better fit to his HS narrative to leave out anything that might’ve occurred at Sebring’s. As for the others, once you’ve given your version you tend to stick to it if one day want parole. Who knows. In terms of this discussion it matters not. The thing that doesn’t seem to be in dispute is that wires were cut at Sebring’s and that in itself opens up a lot of questions wouldn’t you say? And no way am I salivating about other theories. I’m simply highlighting that if wires were cut at Sebring’s it does lead one to wonder why and what a helluva coincidence it was if that is indeed all it is.

Speculator said...

George - even if, as you suggest, the night before get together never happened. It still leaves open the question as to why wires appear to have been cut outside the home of one of the victims at some stage shortly prior to the murders. It’s not jumping down rabbit holes to see that as very thought provoking and to question whether it was just a massively unlikely coincidence.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mr Stimson.
I comment on this blog using my real name.

So everyone is aware.
Please reference this tweet of mine
👇
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950/status/1462808550594416640
There is a Charles Manson Case
people-connection with a person pertaining to this tweet.
I'll see what develope's.

Also, please reference my latest tweet.
Keep an eye on the TV.

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

tobiasragg said...

"It still leaves open the question as to why wires appear to have been cut outside the home of one of the victims at some stage shortly prior to the murders."

Why are we assuming that power had been cut at the Sebring home prior to midnight 9 August?

Are we suggesting that no one would have been inside Sebring's home for the day or two or whatever before the murders? Maybe the butler enjoyed living by candlelight and didn't notice?

If a wire was indeed cut by a human and discovered after the murders, who's to say that it did not happen on the 10th . . . or the 11th . . . or . . .

And why is Tom O'Neill the only one suggesting that the murdered four had dinner together at the Sebring house 24 hours before the big event? Sebring apparently had dinner on the evening of 7 August with Steve McQueen, after having cut his hair that afternoon.

This seems very random and more than a bit silly.

Vera Dreiser said...

LAPD Interview
74. Russell, Amos by Warren, Gilmore – 8/14/69
Address: 725 No. Fairfax
DOB: 9-5-21
Mr. Russell is employed as a handyman for Jay. He states he lives at the house, 9810 Easton Drive and was there on 8/7/69 to 8/9/69. He states that on 8-7-69, Sebring was home and approx 7:00 PM Tate, Folger, Frykowski arrived for dinner. They then left about 10:30/11:00.
Sebring remained at home about 1 hour, then left about 11:30…Returned about 2:30/3:00 AM with female friend, 25, 5-5….w/ long white, blonde hair...

tobiasragg said...

Ah yes, I remember Mr. Russell - and that interview.

Strange that he apparently made no mention of the power going out . . . ?

Vera Dreiser said...

And watch the damn video Tobias. All your questions are answered. You guys really waste an old gal's precious time.

Speculator said...

I think the electrician guy was the one suggesting it - he claims that he got a call from Sebring to say that the cable tv had cut out while he and the guests were watching a movie. It’s perfectly plausible that the wires were cut after the murders, or that someone accidentally cut them while mowing the grass! Or that they were never cut in the first place. But you have to wonder what the electrician guy had to gain by making the story up surely? And if you’ve no reason to disbelieve him you must surely accept that it’s a massive coincidence that they were cut at all? As for the butler living by candlelight, I think it was just the cable and outside lights that were affected going by what the guy said. But hey, there’s no way of knowing either way is there. All we can judge it by is the integrity of the guy giving the statement and the probability of the wires being cut in whatever way we believe they were. It seems odd that the investigators didn’t see fit to follow it up either. Particularly given that they appeared to have little much else to go on at that stage of the enquiry.

Vera Dreiser said...

WATCH THE VIDEO Toby. The power SURGED MOMENTARILY, it didn't go out except on the cable in Jay's bedroom. Greenwald said Amos easily could've missed it.
And Jay didn't have dinner with McQueen the 7th, where you picking up this bullshit. (Where did my George go????)

Speculator said...

As for the interview with Russell, was he interviewed before or after the electrician guy? Without checking the records I assume it was before looking at the date of his interview. So the suggestion of wires having been cut hadn’t yet arisen as far as the investigators were concerned. Therefore not covered in his interview note.




tobiasragg said...

Well, you will note I said "apparently" on the McQueen dinner thing - it's been thrown out there by others for years (McQueen's biographer indicates that this happened in his tome, though my personal assumption is that the author was trying to set up a "McQueen was supposed to be at Cielo on the 9th" narrative).

I dunno, while it's true that I am naturally more than a little skeptical of things like this, this still seems a rather small and insignificant matter to dwell on for too long, especially as the investigators at the time saw no reason to pursue the matter. What does a power surge have to do with the murders that happened in another location 24 hours later? Tex didn't cut the power at Cielo, after all - he cut the telephone wires. In fact (if we are believing Tex), he wanted to be careful NOT to cut the power at Cielo because the whole idea was not to tip the occupants off that something was up.

The whole idea of trying to make a connection here just doesn't add up.

Speculator said...

Tobias - the suggestion is that he didn’t intend to cut the power at Sebring’s wither but rather the phone line. He cuts the cable wire and the outside lights wire mistakenly thinking that they’re phone lines and triggers the surge whereby all of the outside lights come on. That’s what the electrician figured would’ve happened as he installed the wiring. I entirely accept that it’s a small detail but it’s on such small details that cases are often broken, it’s all conjecture of course but it’s a helluva coincidence to me.

tobiasragg said...

Yes, it is a "suggestion" in a matter rife with such suggestions.

They did take samples of the cut phone lines at Cielo and they made test cuts with the bolt cutters once those were discovered, of course.

One imagines that, if there were reason for suspicion here, they'd have compared the cut or whatever it was at Sebring to that evidence. I mean, the LAPD was inept, but they weren't *that* inept.

Speculator said...

If you think about modus operandi, where does that take you with this?!

Speculator said...

Well they were inept enough with the blood mapping and the recovery of the clothing, the discarded gun and a whole lot of other much more important things!

Speculator said...

Tobias - one other point. As you pointed out, Watson expressly stated that he was very careful at Cielo NOT to cut the power cable. Aside from trying not to fry himself (!) you do wonder with hindsight and having read the tale about Sebring’s house whether that had something to do with him being so careful. Learned from his mistake elsewhere perhaps??!

tobiasragg said...

Agreed.

There just doesn't seem to be any "there" there. I mean, there is just no supporting evidence to suggest that these victims were actually being stalked and targeting for ... reasons? There is simply no known connection between the killers and those killed, other than the chance Manson/Tate encounter that spring and Folger possibly volunteering at the free clinic when a family member or two might have wandered in, years before.

And what of Hinman and the LaBiancas? Any cut wires at those homes?

With everyone directly involved and so many indirectly involved all telling the same macro-level story for more than 50 years now, wild, left-field theories like this seem rather ridiculous. And those offering (very) slightly different stories (Good, Fromme) each have very identifiable motives for doing so.

Speculator said...

I agree with everything you say there. But in reality, what kind of links would you expect there to be. Particularly at this stage of the game. Manson was running what was essentially a criminal enterprise. And Watson was assisting whilst also running his own enterprise on the side. Who knows where and with who their tentacles stretched. Manson was a con man and manipulator through and through. HS was a wacky belief system to keep his flock in check, get them to do his bidding, give him free sex and keep his free loading enterprise going. He probably pinched the whole idea from the other sect up the road! He was ever the opportunist. Was it the reason for the murders? I’d say not and I’d go back to the core function of the group - criminality - as being the more likely cause. Hinman was a guy they knew so no need to cut his wires or gain surprise entry. The LaBiancas was Manson’s show. He likely felt threatened by what Watson had “achieved” at Cielo and needed to reassert himself. The showing them how it’s done line that he used. You could also argue that it suggests knowledge of how many victims were at each location. Two at the LaBiancas - easy to subdue so no need to cut the lines. More af Cielo so isolate the phone lines first in case anyone manages to run. Who knows. It’s all conjecture at this stage isn’t it? I do think that the little anomalies and contradictions of evidence do offer their own insight though and shouldn’t be outright dismissed simply because there is no smoking gun.

tobiasragg said...

I know, I know. I am a complete spoil sport when it comes to this kinda stuff. Makes me wish sometimes that I was more of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but not really;)

I would quibble with the idea that criminality is, in and of itself, a goal. Rather, the criminal acts were more a means to an end. Kill the people to get their money - or because they won't give you any of it. Or hell, kill the people to gain vengeance on an unaccepting society. Or hell - both. Burn the earthmover because it is being used to spoil the Rommel fun. Shoplift to get the shit we cannot afford, etc. etc.

In other words, I don't think Charlie & Co performed criminal acts so that they could be criminals. I think he did (and encouraged) these things because that's how he knew to get by in life. He wasn't gonna don a suit and play good boy, so fuck it - just take what you need.

The other thing that strikes me in so many of these posts and theories people share is that it seems like some folks place a whole lot more "gravitas" on the likes of Manson and Watson, etc. Let's face it, these were not very bright people. Watson was pretty much a self-admitted serial failure, except when it came to leaping over collapsible gating. He failed at petty typewriter thievery, college was a bust, wiggery was not his thing, and he definitely failed at pulling off drug burns. Manson was wily and street-smart, but his entire life story involves trying to pull off really fucking stupid criminal acts and, as his bio demonstrates, he continually failed at being a criminal. Or hell, I guess one could say he was really good at it, as he accomplished quite an impressive rap sheet, but he seemed to get caught on a very regular basis. And then he'd whine about it.

The point you do raise that remains fascinating (to me) is: did Manson really believe this whole Beatles-in-the-sky, end of the world bullshit? I do get that the young lost souls bought into this crappola, but did Manson really fall asleep at night dreaming of this massive race war that his pitiful little self was going to ignite? See, the sensible part of me laughs at this very notion, that the dude actually believed in such crockery. But then again, apparently thought Manson believed that Tate would be a good cover for Hinman, so what the fuck do I know?

grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

And, you're STILL wrong anyway about the report.
From LAPD's 8/14/69 interview of Greenwald:
"Greenwald was of the opinion that the wire had been deliberately cut. Probably three days prior to his investigation."
So what 30, 40, 50 year delay are you fucking talking about?!


Did I say that Greenwald made his statement 30, 40, 50 years later ?
Try to keep up, Dora.
Many, many takes and statements have been made decades after the event {Uncle Tom even makes the point that many that he spoke to didn’t speak to the police at the time} and so many of them are highly suspicious at best. This didn’t begin in the 80s, right from the start, statements were made that needed looking at robustly. So if I hear of any statement now, I keep in mind what the last 5 decades have brought up, even if the statement came from 1969 or 70.


His start point was an anniversary piece about the murders for a magazine

I’m aware of that. He states this blurb at the start of his book. When I talk about his start point, I wasn’t talking about the day he got the assignment !

He was looking for a fresh take, but nothing like countering the official narrative

He states that the angle that his editor had given him wasn’t enough for him and that he had an eye on other possible motives. Not only that, that when he started talking with Hollywood people and the police, that none of them bought HS, that it was wearing thin for him and this all turns up in the book before he speaks to Bugliosi. OK, perhaps it was a bit strong to say that it was his start point, but he wasn’t going into it to uphold what you call the official narrative because he was looking at possible alternatives. It is very early on that he goes in what he calls wildly different directions and decides that the idea of starting “a massive race war and making it look like the Black Panthers were behind the murders didn’t land, either.”
When a journalist searching for a fresh take starts to question an accepted narrative and asks themselves “was there another reason for the murders that had nothing to do with race wars” after reading the book that more or less establishes what they regard as the official narrative, and before they speak to the author of that book, then realistically, you have a scenario where that journalist is not going to tread the usual line. They are in an already slanted position. The following 20 years of Tom’s investigation follow on from what was in his mind before speaking to Bugliosi, by the way he describes the chronology in his book.

He even spent 6 hours with Bug in his first week of reporting and planned to make him the centerpiece -- in a heroic way

I don’t know whether it was the first week {he doesn’t specify} but your reading of things is very different to mine. Bugliosi the centrepiece in a heroic way ? Pages 52-3 don’t present him in that light, even if one chooses to see that as Tom’s intention. Telling someone the case that made their name has holes {when you already don’t believe the given “narrative”} is not exactly casting that person in an heroic light !

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

Okay, I watched the Jay documentary and Tom’s Instagram post. If, as according to Russell, the four Cielo victims were at Jay’s on August 7, it doesn’t demonstrate anything other than the quartet was seemingly inseparable.

Well, now they’re together forever.

As for the electrician, until someone can tell me which cable TV company was providing programming and had a cable strung to obscure Easton Drive in August of 1969 I can’t take anything he says seriously.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said:

Why doesn't anybody around here have the balls to post using their real names?

We’ve e-mailed before. You have my real name, even if it’s easy to forget.

Vera Dreiser said:

Who gives a fuck what your take is

You might need to, if you’re actually going to understand the nuance within what I’m saying and have sensible conversation. You don’t appear to do ‘nuance’ well.

There is ONE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. The one that got them CONVICTED in court: That the murders were committed to incite a race war called Helter Skelter

Watson, Krenwinkle, Atkins and Van Houten were not convicted because of HS. And there were at least 3 motives presented. If one includes the women, make that 4.

No wonder your name is what it is, I'd be grim too

That would be a good jab, Dora, had I not chosen the name myself !
For someone who once said to me, ”Where'd ya learn that, Grim? ONeal's lousy, undocumented conspiracy book?”, I can see that your former resolve has wilted and you now operate with the puritanism of the reformed smoker. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, and I get it. I’m not one of those people that sees a change of mind on a subject as some kind of pitiful weakness. In point of fact, it should make for useful debate and discussion. Except that you don’t discuss and debate. You fly out 🧙🏼‍♀️ with capital letters and slurs at anyone that disagrees with you. Still, like SAG, the Col and others who choose that style in both the recent and distant past, you do have interesting things to say.
Sometimes.

ONeill did EVERYTHING he could NOT to speculate or offer opinions or easy conclusions, only presenting the facts-even when they conflicted with each other, undermining his arguments

Which they do throughout the book.
You call me naive because of what I said about the police in the instance of checking out the electrician’s story ~ but you really show naïveté in believing that he is not doing those things. In his interview with Joe Rogan, Tom makes the point that he won’t speculate as to what was behind the murders, but says that he lays out his facts circumstantially and hopes that the reader will put things together and basically arrive at a conclusion that this was some kind of CIA initiative. It’s called concluding by the back door. Almost doing a Charlie Manson and not saying things out straight, but leaving that to the loyal followers…

WATCH THE VIDEO Toby. The power SURGED MOMENTARILY, it didn't go out except on the cable in Jay's bedroom

After the big build up and the capitalized howling and screeching, the momentary power surge is something of a cup of flat beer, let alone proof of an attempt on Sebring or any of his party, let alone conclusive evidence of Watson’s nefarious Thursday night shenanigans.

Greenwald said Amos easily could've missed it

He indeed could have. But as the man Friday of the household, would he not have been made aware of it ? Would its effects have been totally unnoticed for all that time ? You yourself provide evidence that Amos was there from the 7th to the 9th.
But just because Amos doesn’t mention it in his interview, I don’t go running to conclude it couldn’t have or didn’t happen ~ even though it would support where I stand for that to be the case.

grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

Now we know you didn't read the book

Oh, but Dora, I have read the book. Started it on June 13th of last year, finished it on the 22nd. One of my favourite bath reads, just after the school I work in went back after the first Corona lockdown in the UK. Only about 7 of the 120 kids came back at that time, so I had plenty of free headspace to digest what I was reading.
The irony is that I read it because of you. In September 2019, I didn’t want to read the book. In response to something SAG said at LSB, I remarked that it sounded like Shreck but without the 900+ pages. The same conversation where you actively trashed the book, actually. Then here, you were accusing me of “making the mistake of constantly criticizing it based on what you've read others say about it.” I’ve been through every post over the period where I said I didn’t want to read it to the linked one and I never criticize the book. I don’t even mention it, either here, LSB or CieloDrive. I may respond to people who make points based on some of the findings in the book, but I don’t speak about it, much less criticize it, let alone constantly. The further irony is that in a few threads here, I criticize the Col for doing the very thing he spent a year or more saying Tom O’Neill was doing. The speed with which you pounced on me for doing something I hadn’t told me that you had done a pretty serious volte-face, and I was curious as to why. You challenged me to read the book, so I did. And since June of last year, I’ve said quite a bit about it.
You’re so sensitive about what’s in the book and what comes from O’Neill, that you’re utterly blind to anything that doesn’t bend to Tom’s will and I have to say, I do find that kind of funny. It’s funnier than your humour, which I have to say, has always been pretty funky since I first encountered it in 2015.

Speculator said:

Tobias - maybe you need to open your mind slightly and not be so dismissive

It rarely ceases to fascinate me how, just because a person is firm in what they believe 🧑🏾‍🏫 and they don’t collapse like a deck of cards in a desert sandstorm to something that appears to be {at least, at first, or on the surface} difficult, 👩🏾‍🔬 they get accused of being closed-minded.
One could say the same about your thoughts on Leslie and parole.
But I wouldn’t. I’d just seek to understand why you happen to feel that way.
Sometimes, people arrive at their conclusions through a number of years of hard mental and philosophical graft and when those hard, opposing moments come, they have the arguments to counter them, 💃🏾 🕺🏾 sometimes almost immediately.

Speculator said...

George - why do you think the guy would make the story up about the cables being cut? What would he have to gain from doing that?

Speculator said...

Grim - I’m disappointed that you’ve not pulled my comments to bits - apart from the dismissive bit! Maybe you see at least a bit of logic in them!

Lemon1 said...

Exactly! You typed exactly what I was thinking, but too lazy to actually take the time to post! This is the same ol bag of horseshit that pop up on here every other week from readers: poor little misunderstood Manson was innocent, Bugliosi made HS up (even though Sandra Good pretty much sums up HS in her prologue on the Manson documentary and a lot of other Family members talked about HS in interviews, including three of the f*cking killers), and so on & so forth......
The whole thing is stupid!

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

Grim - I’m disappointed that you’ve not pulled my comments to bits - apart from the dismissive bit! Maybe you see at least a bit of logic in them!

I do.
Everything you said is logical. Everything you said is plausible. I just don't believe it's actual.
That's the thing with all of this; most of the alternatives floated are plausible. Within them, there's also a great deal of logic. It's the actuality of each that carries the weight, and what evidence there is to show any actuality.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

why do you think the guy would make the story up about the cables being cut? What would he have to gain from doing that?

One could ask exactly the same question of Seymour Kott, next door neighbour to 10050 Cielo Drive, who on the actual weekend of the murders, was interviewed by an NBC reporter and asked if he heard any sounds after midnight on the 8th, going into the 9th, to which he replied definitively, "None, whatsoever." Then a couple of weeks later, the LA Times reports an interview with him in which he says he heard gunshots and screams, didn't report it to the police and the clincher, says it was no earlier than "2~2.30am" !
Almost literally from the first day, people played fast and loose with this case, with contradictory statements or things that makes one's brow wrinkle. And as we know, Seymour Kott was not the last to engage in this sport, which has gone on for 52 years. Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting the electrician falls into this bracket, but it's just to demonstrate that within hours of the murders, people were falling into it, for reasons known only to them ~ which is in direct answer to your question.

Speculator said...

Grim - you’re right about the various stories that have been uttered over the years. I guess you have to understand, or try to understand, the psychology behind the lie. Kott was maybe in shock at what had gone on next door and see no evil/hear no evil allowed him to keep a distance from any involvement in it. Then upon reflection with the LA TImes he saw his few minutes of fame. Who knows. I guess only he knew what was the truth about anything he saw/heard. With the electrician, he gave his statement, it presumably got buried in the police file and he wasn’t heard from again for how ever many years. No real motive or purpose for him to invent any story. It’s not like he followed it up through any other avenues. And I hasten to add, wires being cut at Sebring’s likely as not could have absolutely nothing to do with the murders. But it is intriguing isn’t it?